The Absurd Infantilisation of Children’s Literature

I’m a little late to the party, but I feel the need to talk about the Dahl debacle. In case you somehow missed it, Puffin in its infinite wisdom decided to rewrite Dahl books to “suit modern sensibilities”. Now I’m sure you’ve already seen articles explaining why “enormous” is not exactly kinder than “enormously fat”. And I’m sure we can have a discussion about how the term “female” is not exactly offensive enough to be written out of literature thank-you-very-much. Yet what is really striking about this whole Orwellian incident is how common this is becoming.

You see, this is far from the first time so-called sensitivity readers have put old books on the butcher’s block. Stine, Blyton, Fleming are just a few victims of this latest scheme. Heck- even What’s the Time Mr Wolf isn’t safe with a recent saccharine version ending the story with “it’s party time!” instead of the classic “it’s dinner time!” (spoiler alert 😉).

What I find most bizarre is the context of this decision. While children’s literature has invited its fair share of darkness in recent years, a band of do-gooders are ready with the finger-wagging over the wrong sort of books. Many of those who (rightly) argued against censorship of books like Maus are not nearly so eager to defend Dahl. Never mind that the impulse to censor comes from much the same instinct- books are a battleground for political games and the casualties keep mounting up on both sides.

All of this goes beyond spoiling the fun of a few “transgressive and naughty” children’s books. Sanitising what we read does nothing to provide actual safety in a world full of disaster, danger and chaos. Unfortunately, society has not become “kindly and nice” today as a writer musing over this mess will have you believe. Education may be obsessed with kindness- yet that has not been borne out in our treatment of each other. Reality is much as it has always been; life is still suffering. We will always need the stories that help us navigate hardships, depression and despair- maybe now more than ever.

And not to go over old ground, but reading is still the safest way to do that. Children (and indeed adults) are perfectly capable of choosing what they feel happiest reading. Our job is to listen to that- not dictate. Devising a one-size-fits-all attitude will not help anyone- especially not those looking to be challenged. Indeed, in the words of Naomi Wood, some children will find it helpful when stories “defy the words of comfort with which parents, teachers and children’s books try to block out the terrors of childhood”. What works for one child, will not work for another, so we cannot simply blanket ban books for all children.

Clearly, it goes without saying that I stand unequivocally behind Dahl and the preservation of his work. As I have said about Dahl before in my post on separating the art from the artist, a residual anger at people who are long dead will get us nowhere. Children’s tales have traditionally doled out plenty of warnings- so perhaps here is a warning for us all. Censorship is a dangerous path that never leads to a land of rainbows and unicorns and bunnies. It is the route that every society headed towards totalitarianism takes. So, if your goal in life is to censor those scary-scary children’s books, maybe what we should fear is *you*.

Bibliography

Wood, Naomi. “The Ugly Duckling’s Legacy: Adulteration, Contemporary Fantasy, and the Dark.” Marvels & Tales, 20. 2 (2006): 193-207. Web.

Phew- glad I got that off my chest! But what do you think? Do you agree or disagree with my stance? Let me know in the comments!

Advertisement