Today's topic will be regarding censorship in children's literature.
TW: Mentions of outdated views including racism, transphobia, mentions of fat shaming, and brief mention of several indecent explicit relationships.
Let me explain, authors like Dr. Suess and Roald Dahl, to name a few, have ideas that are considered offensive. Books including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Green Eggs and Ham, classics of literature, are under close examination, due to the authors supporting outdated viewpoints, and the publishers requiring books to uphold âmodernâ standards. Many publishers have banned, which in this context means the removal of all versions of a text, multiple books by these authors from shops and libraries as they believe these books fail to reach the above criteria.
I believe that publishers should not be allowed to remove all versions of a book from stores due to the outdated views of the author, if the book contains no offensive comments or imagery or if it can be easily altered. Whilst Agatha Christyâs novel, And Then There Were None, had a necessary change of title, not once but twice, this edit made sense, as the original and first edit title was blatantly racist. However, not all censorships are for understandable reasons.
I will be asking whether the edits are just an attempt from corporate companies to appear inclusive, and the double standards of publishers and corporate companies.
Would you ban the work of an artist? If we are alright banning the creative work, work that holds no offensive commentary or viewpoints, written by classic authors, why is art any different?
Many artists have outdated and offensive viewpoints. For example, Leonardo De Vinci had an explicit relationship with several of his students. This blatant clash with societies modern expectations is neither noted nor discussed as a topic of concern. We fail to ask whether Da Vinciâs actions may have been expressed in his creative work. We neglect to notice the double standards that many classic writers face. If we let Da Vinciâs work pass without question, simply because he is considered a classic artist, then shouldnât authors work also go unquestioned because itâs a classic? If it is societies belief that classic author could be influencing their children with their outdated prejudice, then shouldnât it be vital to make sure that children do not view the works of classic artists? After all, mightnât this work have a negative effect?
If we are going to examine, to an almost microscopic scale, every way in which a childrenâs book might contain degrading and offensive social commentary, then shouldnât artists be put under the microscope as well?
The ban of 6 Dr. Seuss books, and unnecessary censorship of words in Roald Dahlâs books, such as cutting out the word fat in context of Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and removing the description of the witches as ugly, from his book The Witches, once again strikes as unnecessary. The removal of descriptive words for characters is ridiculous. If we are getting rid of the word fat, shouldnât the word skinny and beautiful also be removed? After all, skinny shaming is a sadly common thing. By getting rid of words like fat, we are further enforcing the negative ideals that skinny is better. Publishers must be careful to refrain from pushing equally unhealthy standards. It is better to leave in words like fat and ugly to avoid unconsciously pushing skinny and pretty ideals.
Now, it is acknowledged that Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss held outdated viewpoints. Both authors made racist comments, and Dr. Suess created stereotypical, racist cartoons and had a hatred for foreigners, something that his publishers and family, rightfully, disagree with, but censorship of his work to such a level, is unnecessary. Large companies, including the publishers of Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss, want to make it appear they are doing something to tackle division. However, this comes at the cost of classic childrenâs books. I mean, did Roald Dahlâs publishers really need to change the description of Oopma Loopmas from small men to small people?
However, his children books contained little of this offensive imagery or language. The most extreme case of this racism in his childrenâs work is when he included a stereotypical cartoon of an Asian man and an offensive description of Asian people. These types of outdated drawings can be easily edited, or the publisher can put a disclaimer at the beginning of the book, stating that the donât support any racist views.
Also, if we are so worried about outdated viewpoints appearing in the media, should the Harry Potter books go under close examination? After all, doesnât J.K. Rowling tick all the boxes for an author with outdated views? Sheâs made transphobic comments online. By the standards of the publishers who publish books by Dr. Suess or Roald Dahl, her books should undergo editing. Yet they havenât. Why is this? Because they still sell, because âit was a misunderstandingâ, because the publishers have decided to distract us with the new games and merchandise thatâs put out under the Harry Potter name?
When considering edits to childrenâs books, we must look at the motives of the company. Companies like Disney, who, in some cases, want to appear that they are being progressive, despite focusing attention on the wrong things. Childrenâs books should not fall victim to corporate schemes and quick money making. They shouldnât be unnecessarily edited so that the CEOâs of the company can complement their inclusivity.
Timeless pieces like The Cat in the Hat and James and the Giant Peach, cannot and should not be altered for using descriptive words like fat.
I believe that classic childrenâs books should not be banned or censored by the publishers for the simple fact that the authors hold outdated views, or the book was written a while ago.
Are we going to let publishers get away with slap-dash censorship when it is completely unnecessary? Are we going to ignore the double standards of artists compared to authors? And forget the fact that publishers are unconsciously pushing standards like skinny and pretty.
It is crucial to fully comprehend the steps publishers are taking to modernise books so that we can avoid unnecessary censorship.
Next post will be talking about the safety of certain work industries for women and what steps need to be taken for a safer future for these industries.
