Open letter to Puffin Publishing House


Dear Sir/Madam

It has come to my attention that in your new print run of Roald Dahl books you have deemed it appropriate to make excessive edits in line with what you presumably see as a positive societal direction towards inclusivity.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of this movement, it seems to me that you have forgotten that you are the distributors of literature, not the creators; a company, not a political, philosophical, educational or religious establishment. Yet here you are, acting as the final arbiters in one of the most important cultural debates of our time.

By all means, refresh your covers and layouts, but your assertion that it is not unusual to ‘review the language’ is insidiously vague, reading a little like a literary get-out-of-jail-free card for whatever slavery to the system you engage in. And yes, I use the word slave in full awareness that for many it is an emotional catalyst. Well, good! What respect I must have for these others, to imagine that they can take responsibility for their own feelings. I believe that this micro-management of language is unbearably naïve; to remove the word ‘slave’ from the lexicon does not abolish slavery. To omit reference to fatness does not make fat people feel any better. Where do you think this path leads? I note that you still have a section for children’s books – how insensitive to the infertile!

Your reasoning (and I use the term loosely) is that the books can now be ‘enjoyed by all’. Well, I can disprove that theory immediately by stating that you have categorically crapped upon my enjoyment. The particularly juicy, now amended phrase “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat, and tremendously flabby at that”, has always been a favourite of mine, regardless of whatever body issues I’m grappling with – and do you know why? Because my issues are mine alone. I am responsible, not Dahl, and certainly not a supposedly well-meaning yet insufferably meddlesome publisher.

You may argue that with all that is happening in the world, getting so irate about this affair may be extravagant, but I see your actions as part of a much larger problem inherent in ‘woke’ culture (truly an oxymoron, as the main activity of wokeness seems to be deletion and revision of others’ work rather than creation of new); it is the idealization of comfort, the need to wrap humanity’s feelings in cotton wool – perhaps to further our resemblance to the sheep we are swiftly becoming.

If the pen really is mighty, then what folly to hand such unwarranted power to these 21st century soldiers in the guise of ‘sensitivity writers’ (a job description that gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies). For they are not the people who will elevate our spirits and deepen our experience, nor articulate the most subtle, intricate parts of human existence, including the monstrous and mischievous – something in which our beloved old Roald excelled. Do not imagine we are fooled by your bland assertion of working for the good of all – you are simply censoring, and as Bradbury stated, there is more than one way to burn a book.

Yours dispiritedly,

Dr Josephine Davies

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Delighted Mind

Polarities 1: Intuition & Intellect

Polarities 3: Death & Taxes