The heirs of several revered literary figures are modifying parts of the works to suit current sensibilities, leading readers and the literary world to debate whether and how the classics should be updated.
In Agatha Christie’s novels, terms like “oriental,” “gypsy” and “native” have been removed, and edited versions of Ian Fleming’s “James Bond” books will lack racist and sexist phrases. Roald Dahl’s classics have been stripped of adjectives like “fat” and “ugly.”
While changes have been made in decades past, often with little fanfare, many of the current attempts are systematic and have attracted intense scrutiny. The effort has left publishers and literary estates grappling with how to preserve an author’s original intent while ensuring the work continues to resonate — and sell.
“My great-grandmother wouldn’t have wanted to offend anyone,” said James Prichard, Christie’s great-grandson and chief executive of Agatha Christie Ltd. “I don’t think we should leave what I would call offensive language in our books, because, frankly, the only thing that What matters is that people can forever enjoy the stories of Agatha Christie.”
The financial and cultural risks of the exercise are enormous. Authors like Dahl, Christie and Fleming have together sold billions of copies of books, and their novels have spawned lucrative movie franchises.
But critics say publishing books posthumously is an affront to the creative autonomy of authors and can amount to censorship.
“You want to think about the precedent you’re setting and what would happen if someone with a different bias or ideology picked up a pen and started crossing things out,” said Suzanne Nossel, director of PEN America, a nonprofit organization that works to advocate and celebrate freedom of expression.
The changes could also erode the ability of literature to reflect the place and time in which it was created. “Sometimes historical value is closely related to why something is offensive,” Nossel said.
Dahl’s fans were outraged in February by news that their British publisher had changed hundreds of words in his children’s books. The changes came after the Dahl estate began a review of the author’s work in 2020 and hired consultancy Inclusive Minds, which promotes “inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature,” to evaluate the books.
The negative reaction was immediate. Salman Rushdie called the changes “absurd censorship” and tweeted that “Dahl’s heirs should be ashamed.” The protest was so intense that Dahl’s publisher, Puffin, announced that it would keep texts in print unchanged for readers who prefer the originals.
The question of how to handle offensive language—particularly racist terms and images—in classic texts has long been a problem in children’s literature. A decade or so ago, an edition of “Huckleberry Finn” replaced a racial epithet with the word “slave,” out of concern that such an offensive word was causing schools to stop assigning the novel. In more extreme cases, titles have been taken out of circulation. In 2007, Hergé’s “Tintin in the Congo” was withdrawn from US libraries and bookstores.
Some in the publishing industry see efforts to make older works more inclusive as a sign of progress, as long as changes are made carefully.
“I think it’s a good practice, the same way textbooks are updated,” said Hannah Gomez, who oversees a team of sensitivity editors at Kevin Anderson & Associates, a firm that provides editorial services to authors and publishers. .
Theo Downes-Le Guin, son and literary executor of science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guin, was surprised when he received an email from a publisher late last year requesting permission to make changes to the children’s series “Catwings.” . First published in 1988, the books follow a group of kittens that were born with wings.
He ultimately decided that the changes would benefit the readers. In the new editions, which will be released this fall, a handful of words have been replaced, including “crippled” and “dumb,” and a note has been added to alert readers.
“You will lose a little bit of the nuance of the language, but you will also gain something,” Downes-Le Guin said. “What we gain is the potential not to offend.”
Alex Marshall contributed reporting to this article.
By: ALEXANDRA ALTER and ELIZABETH A. HARRIS
BBC-NEWS-SRC: http://www.nytsyn.com/subscribed/stories/6679180, IMPORTING DATE: 2023-04-25 19:20:07
#Censorship #progress #debate #revisions #classic #novels