Right: Anachronistic and / or otherwise objectionable words used in Enid Blyton's stories and novels were changed or deleted when publishers decided that all should be "updated". However, this process did not help declining sales.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of altering classic children's books
1. The changes made are intended to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion and to avoid giving offence to some readersThose who argue in favour of making alterations to classic children's books claim that social values have changed since these texts were written and there is now more awareness among authors and the gatekeepers of children's reading of the need to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion. Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company, which owns the books, note that they made the changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, an organisation founded ten years ago that aims to promote equality, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in children's books.
Those arguing for alterations to classic texts contend that these texts should reflect contemporary values. Megan Daley, an author, teacher librarian, creator of the popular website Children's Books Daily and the co-host of the Your Kid's Next Read podcast, has stated, 'We are fortunate to live in a time where we know better and can do better, and words that describe anyone's physical appearance in a manner that is ableist or derogatory have no place in contemporary children's literature.' Daley argues that we should not read texts with children that promote prejudice and stigmatise particular groups or individuals based on their appearance, capabilities, or ethnicity. Daley has explained, 'Publishers and authors alike have a responsibility to ensure that language is reflective of the diverse world in which we live in order that we do not create an unconscious bias associating physical appearance with moral superiority - as in cases where villains are described as fat, ugly or missing limbs and the hero is tall, thin and white.'
Those who favour revisions argue that books should not cause offence or distress to young readers because of the prejudices they deliberately or inadvertently promote. Australian Young Adult author, Will Kostakis, has used his own work to indicate how the careless or uninformed use of language can encourage prejudice and potentially injure young readers. He cites a story he wrote 15 years ago in which he used the word 'retard' in referring to a character. Kostakis notes that now when he does readings of this story at schools, he removes this word. He explains his current attitude, stating, 'It's not a way of changing the story...it's ... [because] I don't want to harm someone with my writing. And that word, sure it added a certain meaning, but that meaning doesn't negate the harm that seeing that word could cause somebody.' Kostakis argues that the same considerations should apply in relation to classic children's stories such as those of Roald Dahl. Those who favour alterations to classic texts argue that the need for these modifications has been made more imperative by the increasingly ethnically and culturally diverse reading populations that countries like Australia now have. Ethnic and cultural diversity has been increasing in Austrasia since the end of World War II and accelerating more rapidly in recent decades.
Similar trends have been observed in Great Britain, while the United Sates has long had a history of cultural and ethnic diversity. This increasing diversity of reading populations is encouraging editors and authors to be careful to avoid racial stereotypes. New versions of Dahl's children's stories no longer have passages which previously described characters as 'white' or 'black. Some references to ethnicities have also been removed or adjusted. For example, 'Eskimos' are now described as 'Inuit', the term preferred by this group of people. It has also been noted that obesity rates among children in the developed world are increasing, making it particularly inappropriate to use the word 'fat' as a generic term of abuse or as a marker for a villainous character. Re English-speaking reading populations of children, one in four Australian children in Year 6 were obese or severely obese in the 2020/21 school year, up from one in five the year before.
Australian children's author Andy Griffiths has stated, 'I've noticed over 25 years, that the publishing climate into which I'm publishing my books has changed. And that I would freely use words back then that I would think twice about now. I'm much more conscious of the many diverse groups who read my books and I carefully question everything that I do put into a book and that's just part of the normal process of writing. And I don't see that as censoring my material.' With reference to the already-published texts of other authors, though he does not see the need for every change made to the Dahl books, he supports the intent to remove language that would cause offence to contemporary readers. Referring to Dahl's frequent use of the word 'fat', Griffiths observers that the word used in a pejorative way, where it is associated with bad behaviour or used as a term of abuse, can be damaging for children with weight issues. He states, 'If you imagine what it might be like to be that kid in real life, I don't want to be the author who's done that.' 2. The changes that have been made are small and carefully considered
Those who defend the alterations made to the work of children's authors such as Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton argue that though individual words and phrases are changed, and some sentences removed, the revisions are small. The fundamental elements of the stories such as plot, characters and settings are unaltered.
Those who support the alterations made to Enid Blyton's work have noted that they are generally relatively superficial. These surface changes are typically attempts to modernise the language so that contemporary readers more easily understand them. Changes made in 2010 included expressions such as 'mercy me!' being altered to 'oh no!', 'fellow' to 'old man' and 'it's all very peculiar' to 'it's all very strange'. Other changes involved 'housemistress' becoming 'teacher', 'awful swotter' becoming 'bookworm', 'mother and father' becoming 'mum and dad', 'school tunic' becoming 'uniform' and Dick's comment that 'she must be jolly lonely all by herself' being changed to 'she must get lonely all by herself'. References to a 'tinker' were also changed to 'traveller'. Anne McNeil, publishing director of Hodder Children's Books, stated, 'The actual stories remain the same - there's no change to the plot whatsoever.'
More recent alterations have included removing the frequently used word 'queer' which now has different connotations to those it had when Blyton wrote. It has been replaced with 'peculiar', 'odd', 'strange', 'funny', 'weird' and 'amazing'. Some signs of deference or respect shown by children to adults which might now seem too formal have also been removed. For example, when Julian apologised to Uncle Quentin in the 1942 version, he said, 'I'm sorry, sir.' Now, he is sorry - but more recent editions do not include 'sir'. It has also been noted that in the name of being true to the originals, some of the 2010 modernisations have recently been removed in response to reader complaints so that the books' period appeal can be retained. In 2023, Enid Blyton Entertainment (owners of the Enid Blyton estate and copyright, and part of Hachette UK) stated, 'In new editions, we do not change language simply for the sake of modernising it. We retain old-fashioned terms such as "bathing-suit" and references to pre-decimal currency. The books' period setting is part of their charm and is enjoyed by readers of all ages.' It has similarly been argued that the changes made to Roald Dahl's books are also not substantive. It has been claimed that editors remove potential problems without significantly altering the nature of Dahl's books. This point has been made by a spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company, who stated, 'When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it's not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book's cover and page layout. Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.'
Similarly, Roald Dahl Story Co. spokesperson, Rick Behari, has issued a statement in which he explains, 'the overall changes are small both in terms of actual edits which have been made and also in terms of the overall percentage of texts which has been changed.' Children's author Brooke Hill has also argued this case. She notes that the impact of the alterations on the original works is small. In Hill's overview of modifications, she lists, 'All references to "fat" and "ugly" have been removed. The Oompa Loompas are now gender neutral, and the Cloud-Men in James and The Giant Peach are now Cloud-People. There is a new explanation for why women might choose to wear wigs in The Witches, and Miss Trunchbull in Matilda is now a "formidable woman" not a "formidable female".' Hill concludes, 'The stories remain the same, and the tweaks carry the same raucous energy and tone. So materially, the books are the same.' 3. The changes are made to ensure that classic texts remain readable and continue to be published, bought, and enjoyed
Those who support the changes made to classic children's books such as those written by Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl argue that they are necessary to ensure that these books will continue to be read now and into the future. They argue that without such changes the texts will become progressively less accessible to young readers and so the value and entertainment that they offer will be lost. There is the possibility that the gap between these books and their potential readers will become so large they will cease to be sold.
Supporters of revision argue that over time unfamiliar words and some of the period features of classic texts can make them progressively less readable for contemporary readers. The Roald Dahl Story Company. which was acquired by Netflix in September 2021, released a statement, saying they seek to 'ensure that Roald Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today.' They argue that some modernisation of language is necessary to ensure that the books remain accessible. The Company has stated, 'When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it's not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book's cover and page layout.'
Referring to the books of Enid Blyton, Anne McNeil, publishing director of Hodder Children's Books, has similarly stated, 'Children who read [the Famous Five books] need to be able to easily understand the characterisations and easily to get into the plots. If the text is revised [they're] more likely to be able to engage with them." Several contemporary writers have agreed that it is part of the responsibility of publishers to ensure that the works to which they hold copyright remain in print and enjoyed by new readers. Australian Young Adult author, Will Kostakis. has made this point, claiming that it is the job of Roald Dahl's publisher and estate to preserve the viability of his books going forward, as it is with most authors. Kostakis has stated, 'No story remains static. And if we believe that, then we're kidding ourselves.'
Children's writer, Jackie French has also referred to the need which editors have noted to revise her own books over time so that they continue to be current and appealing for young readers. French notes, for example, that technology has played a part in these revisions. Where previously a character may have been looking at their watch, in the revised edition they would be looking at their mobile phone. Other writers, like children's author Dr Debjani Chatterjee, have pointed to the tradition of rewriting and abridging classics like Shakespeare's plays to present them to young readers. Dr. Chatterjee has stated, 'I think that happens for a very good reason, because if we did not adapt them for modern audiences, then [we'd have] wonderful literary treasures which really would be inaccessible.' Referring specifically to Roald Dahl's books, she has argued that his legacy can be preserved and kept alive for modern readers by making such changes.
Children's author Andy Briggs has made the same point. Briggs is currently writing a children's series bringing Edgar Rice Burroughs's Tarzan books into the 21st century, by affecting changes which make them accessible and understandable to today's readers. Briggs has claimed, 'It's an unfortunate necessity. The classic books we were brought up on - the Famous Five, Tarzan, Sherlock Homes - need to be updated. Language just changes, it evolves, and the problem is if we don't evolve with it, then the new generation of kids is not going to have anything to relate to. When these books were published, "jeepers" and "golly gosh" was modern slang. It makes perfect sense to update the language." Some publishers have suggested that without modifications to language and adjustments to allow for contemporary values some classic books would simply cease to be sold. Stan Grant is a senior publisher in Australia and overseas, who has worked in the industry for over forty years. He is currently co-founder of Hardie Grant publishers, and was formerly managing director of Heinemann, Octopus and Reed Australia, and chief executive officer of Reed Books, United Kingdom. Grant has stated, 'You move the language on, or you stop selling the books and you don't even have to do it, the public will do it for you. I absolutely understand what [Puffin] has done in making those changes and, as I said, it mirrors a lot of things that have happened in my publishing career, like 'The Little Black Sambo' that we had published or the changes that had to be made for 'Babar the Elephant'... Young people of today just would not accept that Roald Dahl language. If you put Roald Dahl out, as it is now, young parents won't accept it, they won't buy it.'
4. Children are not always able to discuss the books they read with adults
Those who favour revisions to classic children's texts containing potentially problematic material argue that children cannot be presumed to have the guidance of an interested adult while reading. Without this guidance, the original text can have harmful impacts on children. Numerous reasons are given for why child readers may not receive adult support.
Not all children's books are aimed at an age group where it is likely that the young reader will encounter the text in the company of a parent, guardian or teacher and receive guidance about how to respond to elements within the book that are misogynistic, racially prejudiced or ableist. Roald Dahl's publishers, Puffin, acknowledge that many of his books are taken up by young readers as they move from being dependent to autonomous readers. Puffin UK has issued a public statement in which it notes, 'Children as young as five or six read Roald Dahl books and, often, they are the first stories they will read independently. With that comes a significant responsibility, as it might be the first time they are navigating written content without a parent, teacher or carer.'
A similar point has been made by Betsy Bird, a United States children's author and librarian, who has noted, 'A distinction needs to be made between picture books that are read to children, and mid-grade books that children often choose themselves. Because Dahl's books are written at a level that children read independently, conversations about problematic portrayals or content often don't take place.' It has also been noted that for some children no reading they do outside school is supported by an adult. A 2019 survey found that in the United States, only about half of children between birth and five years (47.8 percent) are read to every day by their parents or other family members. Among the remaining half, children either do not encounter books in the home or do so without an adult mentor.
A 2018 survey conducted in the United Kingdom told a similar story. Of the 1,000 parents surveyed just 15 per cent read aloud to their children every day, despite 97 percent seeing the importance of reading and 58 percent saying reading is a special time for bonding. Six in ten agreed that reading to their child helps them learn to read, but busy work schedules and juggling the needs of multiple children proved to be big barriers. The United Kingdom's Literacy Trust has examined some of the factors that impede parents reading with or to their children and discussing books with them. The Trust has stated, 'The position of reading as a staple of entertainment and relaxation [for children in the home] is challenged by hectic family lives, lack of time and some parents' perception that reading to their child is a chore. It can also often take a backseat to screen time. And there is too much emphasis placed on reading as a skill and not as a pleasure. This emphasis permeates even the very early years because reading is often seen as a skill to learn later at school. Finally, it has been noted that for many families the home is not a place where issues and ideas are discussed whether they derive from books or from daily life. Dr Allan Schwartz, a United States clinical therapist, has observed that there are families whose systematic way of functioning is to not speak about issues, emotions, and opinions. Ideas may be seen as contentious or potentially hurtful or family members may lack the confidence to present or explain an opinion. Emphasis and value are placed on silence about anything that might be deemed controversial.
In circumstances such as these, children will not readily find a supportive family member with whom to discuss views and values presented in what they are reading.Those who favour revisions of problematic texts argue that these modifications are necessary because for a wide variety of reasons children may not have a suitable adult in the home able to clarify the issues that the unmodified classic children's books would raise.
5. Producing revised editions of classic children's books need not remove access to the original texts
Some of those who support the revision of classic children's books also acknowledge that the original versions of the text should and can remain available for those who want to read them.
As a major example of the possibility of keeping original texts accessible to interested readers, the Roald Dahl Story Company has decided to make both the revised and the original versions of the stories available. In response to the widespread criticism provoked by its decision to alter many of Roald Dahl's books, the Company announced that the 'classic' versions of the stories, exactly as written by Dahl, would continue to be published. The publishers Puffin and Penguin announced they would keep both versions of Dahl's books in print. Francesca Dow, managing director of Penguin Random House Children's Books, stated that the publisher had 'listened to the debate over the [new versions of the stories] which has reaffirmed the extraordinary power of Roald Dahl's books... By making both Puffin and Penguin versions available, we are offering readers the choice to decide how they experience Roald Dahl's magical, marvellous stories.'
It has been suggested that the different versions are suited to different readerships. The view appears to be that the modified versions are best suited to young readers who will be reading Dahl's stories independently without the guidance of an accompanying adult. Penguin stressed the importance of making appropriately modified texts available for young, unmentored readers. They stated, 'As a children's publisher, our role is to share the magic of stories with children with the greatest thought and care .... Roald Dahl's fantastic books are often the first stories young children will read independently, and taking care for the imaginations and fast-developing minds of young readers is both a privilege and a responsibility.'
The unmodified versions of the stories are being suggested for either children who can discuss them with an adult co-reader or for adults. A spokesperson for The Roald Dahl Story Company stated, 'The most important thing to us is that the stories continue to be enjoyed by all. Puffin UK's plan to print two editions of the book will give readers - whether seven or 77 - the choice to explore the stories in whichever way they wish.' Adults may wish to recreate their own earlier reading experience of the books. As Cathay Smith, Professor of Law, University of Montana, has noted, 'Classic children's books occupy a special cultural place and evoke sentiments of tradition and nostalgia.' Adults may also want to study these books as historical, cultural artifacts, texts which demonstrate language, views, and values from an earlier period. Dr Paul Venzo, Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Education at Deakin University, has noted that 'to study this kind of literature ... [is an opportunity] to examine how ideologies for and about children and childhood change over time.' Those who argue that both original and revised versions of classic children's books should remain in print still stress that the originals need to be handled with care when being presented to children. The suggestion is often made that the unmodified texts should be accompanied by a warning that some of the language and the views and values expressed within the books are now open to question. Oliver Phommovanh, a former primary school teacher and now a children's writer has suggested, 'I believe a sensitivity note is a good compromise, to set the context of the piece. These texts were written at a certain time and ... we have to recognise the history surrounding the use of these words.' Megan Daley, an author, teacher librarian, creator of the popular website Children's Books Daily and the co-host of the Your Kid's Next Read podcast, has similarly suggested, 'I would prefer to see a note from publishers stating that the work is presented as it was written and is a product of its time. That the language and views are not reflective of the publisher or wider contemporary society.'