Changing Old Books

Nice Old books 

When you think of old houses, you think of old books and that particular smell they have. A slight mustiness with air of maybe stale tea and crispy paper. I adore the smell as much as the smell of new books, (book-lovers will get this.)

Despite their common alluring smell and aesthetic, the contents of old books are having a bit of a moment.  Only last week (ish), we saw the Prime Minister weigh in on the Roald Dahl editing debate. I personally also got a bit angry about that one…

But where do we draw the line? Where and when do we say, ‘hey, actually this old text is offensive, outdated and should be taken out of print or off a course?.

I don’t think we should.

Sign of the Times

I think it began when the Daily Rag (Mail), ran a story about Salford University apparently adding ‘trigger warnings’ to their Victorian Literature modules. I think the rag (as usual) probably blew it out of proportion, and when I actually researched it, all the department did was warn that some texts may contain violent or distressing passages. I don’t see the problem in it.

My Experience

On my Masters, I took a course on the Literature of ‘Slavery and Empire’. As part of contextualising the texts we were reading we did read and study sources to do with the Slave Trade. A 2 hour long seminar with such harrowing material is wearing, and I felt it was right, that before we began our tutor warned us about the contents being difficult.

I don’t think this is ‘snowflakey’ either, I think it’s the opposite. It’s saying, hey I am here confronting the horrible parts of history, so I am knowledgeable about it and to ensure we do not see such events repeated.

Noted.

I think a verbal note at the beginning of studying a text with a group is ok. Often studying older texts means discriminatory language, but I never think it should be censored for any readers.

Especially as a teaching tool, the language and choice of vocabulary from the time is a topic for discussion. It allows us, the readers to learn the difference and progression society has (hopefully) taken. It is about recognising changing attitudes without erasing them. The discrimination in the past, with colonialism and the Slave Trade shouldn’t be censored out because it doesn’t ‘reflect our values’ anymore. It should remain as a reminder of what we have come from, as the legacy in British society is still here today.

I studied Huckleberry Finn on an American Lit course. Yep, it contained a lot of the ‘N’ word. I think it should be kept in and discussed. You would be wiping out of a lot of American history if you shied away from confronting that word. History is dark, horrific and uncomfortable but we should confront it in safe learning environments, like schools and uni’s.

It might be upsetting for some, but I think leaving it in, gives an opportunity to drive home, how loaded with history that word is, I think then people would think twice about using it so flippantly.

No warning thanks.

As I said, warnings at the beginning of reading groups/lesson are good and helpful to help teach about contextualising a text within the period it was written. It is a lesson after all. I don’t think either this needs to be a direct warning, maybe just a quick slide on the time period the book is set in. This is helpful, and can help readers enjoy the book more.

I wholly disagree however in printing these warnings into new prints of old books. It apparently happened to Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre recently.

People don’t just pick up a book from 100 years ago out of context and get shocked about some of the contents surely? Have you been living under a rock? Even if you don’t know a lot about history, you can’t expect a book written a while back to have the same language, beliefs and values we do today? I think it is very silly to warn people of the obvious.

Roald Dahl

The Roald Dahl debate a few weeks ago, I think is in a slightly different ball-game to the discussion above. Before we have been talking about the treatment of adult fiction, but this is kids and does not contain (I argue) offensive language… or does it???

The publishing group Puffin hired ‘Sensitivity Readers’ to comb through Dahl’s books taking out things that may cause offence. The proposed changes outraged me.

Let’s go through some that made me angry:

  Original: ‘You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good   thoughts they will shine out your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.’

• They took out ‘double-chin’ as if saying someone has a ‘crooked mouth’ is any less offensive. The whole point of the quote is the celebration of oneself’s happiness aside from looks. SO what’s the problem.

Matilda goes from reading Rudyard Kipling to Jane Austen. Yeah Rudyard Kipling has a shady colonial history, but was is still the author of the Jungle Book. And if we are taking Matilda to be a child reading prodigy won’t she be in knowledge of that and read both Kipling and Austen? EGHHH

Also why can’t Augustus Gloop be fat? Changing it to him being ‘enormous’ is no more kind to his self-image.

Also saying Mrs Twit is ‘fearfully ugly’, is funny and not damaging. I think children’s books should still have an element of wickedness and fun. It is fun to be naughty. It’s not as if Dahl ever described Mr Twit as Prince Charming!

Don’t Change

From studying editing I know that the books we read are very different from what the author put down in pen and paper (or Word). I don’t think we should be running around changes books already in print and in circulation. The only thing achieved in censoring such books or changing language is the erasure of history and the opportunity to learn.

If you’ve read 1984 you’d probably think some of this stuff is pretty ‘Orwellian’. And has he said, ‘those who control the past, control the future’.