Censorship or rewriting ?

GagaJo I didn't say antisemitism was not offensive. You have twisted what I did say to fit your argument.

Eric Gill was a sculptor, print maker and seen as one of the best arts n crafts individual in the 20th century. His sexual abuse of his daughters, his dog and (at least) one of his sisters was known amongst his family and friends. His children were home educated. His daughter said they thought their lives were normal.
An autobiography in 1989 and a novel, The Children’s Book by ASByatt published in 2009 exposed his sexual appetites to a wider audience. It resulted in debate about whether it’s possible to separate the art from the artist.

That's true, Iam, and there is also Barthes' theory that a text does not exist in itself, but in the mind of the reader, which means that it doesn't matter what the author intended, but what the reader brings to the text, based on her or his own experiences, outlook and so on.

In that reading, even if Dahl had fully intended the Witches to be representations of Jewish women (which we have no way of knowing), only a child who grew up surrounded by anti-semitism would see the Witches as Jewish, and children from families where it didn't feature would not see that at all.

I think it's a difficult line to tread, as cumulative exposure to negative representations probably can have a subliminal impact on the attitudes of children (and adults for that matter), but in and of itself I don't think the Witches are harmful. I don't think that the disclaimer can do any harm either though.

Doodledog, I enjoyed reading Dhal to my children and it’s good to see them reading his grim stories with their own children.
There are lots of things to be offended or put off by in Dhal but so much to be excited and enthralled by.
I loved fairy stories, especially Hand Christian Anderson whose tales were frightening and scary, I remember the girl with he red shoes, the little mermaid, the little match stick seller as both terrifying and enthralling.
Dhal is a brilliant writer. I don’t believe it’s right to sanitise his work. Children like me who moved on to Enid Blyton didn’t emerge as awful racists because of the golliwogs - we grew up to discuss the awfulness of those dolls and what we realised they represented.

Iam64

Doodledog, I enjoyed reading Dhal to my children and it’s good to see them reading his grim stories with their own children.
There are lots of things to be offended or put off by in Dhal but so much to be excited and enthralled by.
I loved fairy stories, especially Hand Christian Anderson whose tales were frightening and scary, I remember the girl with he red shoes, the little mermaid, the little match stick seller as both terrifying and enthralling.
Dhal is a brilliant writer. I don’t believe it’s right to sanitise his work. Children like me who moved on to Enid Blyton didn’t emerge as awful racists because of the golliwogs - we grew up to discuss the awfulness of those dolls and what we realised they represented.

I agree, but at the same time I would never have allowed my children to have gollywogs, as however inoffensive they may have seemed in the past they most definitely are now. Things do change, and if a book can stay on the shelves by tweaking a few words (eg the Agatha Christie one) then that's better than it being withdrawn. If the sale of Dhal's books fell because parents didn't want their children reading them, nobody's children would get the chance.

My concern is with who is making these decisions (a point that was made upthread), and what right they have to make them on behalf of others. In this case, if it is the publisher, and they feel that sales will be impacted by leaving them as they are, then I suppose it's up to them. I really wouldn't want to see anyone with an official role of censor, though, or any sort of list of words that cannot be used.

I listened to a podcast last night which touched on this subject although it was conducted before all of the stuff about Dahl books came out. The interviewee spoke of a Jewish friend he had who loved Wagners music even though Wagner was anti semitic. And his friend said he could disassociate the music from its creator. And the interviewee said that many creative people are flawed in some way: many damaged by life events. It’s a bit like the way that we expect our sporting heroes to be ‘nice’ people even though it takes a ruthless streak to achieve what they do. Ok I get that Dahl is different to Wagner in that his books reference things that are now regarded as anti woke ( I can’t think of a better word than woke). But I never regarded the witches as being Jewish although Shylock and Fabian obviously were. I just think that our children’s lives are being so sanitised that they won’t be able to work out for themselves what is right and what is wrong. And we have politicians that get away with racism on a regular basis ( eg the most recent Home Secretaries). As I said before I’m just confused about everything these days.

Just to confirm - my children didn’t have golliwogs. I was about 11 when I first asked my parents why anyone watched the black and white minstrel show - it was not black and white dancers, it was white men looking silly.

Some things change and rightly so. I still believe it’s wrong to re-write Dhal. Reading with children stimulates a love of reading and encourages talking between adults and children

I object to all forms of censorship.

GagaJo

Yammy

So were Shylock and Fagin are we going to rewrite Shakespeare and Dickens? I don't agree with censorship I think we have to learn from such things that it is just a stereotype not a norm. I have lovely Jewish friends who certainly don't look like either of these men are often drawn..

If you've read The Merchant of Venice, you'll know that actually, robbing Shylock of his faith is a tragic and very sad story. I've had students in tears at the end, in the theatre. I know I'm biased when it comes to Shakespeare, but he definitely didn't show Christians in a good light, in that play. Shylock was definitely sinned against.

I'm not arguing with you I am agreeing.
One size does not fit all in any ethnic group. Look at all the white policemen who have committed truly horrible crimes recently are we from now on going to portray all policemen as people who cannot be trusted and illustrate them as unsavoury characters?

I had a "golly" as a child and loved him. I would never have given my children such toys because by then I understood more. I did find it hard to get rid of him though.

Like Iams I remember the black and white minstrels show and thought it pretty dull and rather stupid. Again, it was years before I "understood" the background there.

I also had Little Black Sambo. I liked this story and liked the boy with the amazing mum who made a huge number of pancakes for him out of tiger butter! I thought he was wily and clever, mischievous and exciting. I loved the way he tricked the tigers and didn't understand the connotations there either.

I know now he was probably Indian.

www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/09/17/taking-a-tiger-by-the-tale-little-black-sambo-loses-racist-elements-in-two-retellings/3793375b-797e-422e-80cb-dbbc1e9cae72/

Yammy

GagaJo

Yammy

So were Shylock and Fagin are we going to rewrite Shakespeare and Dickens? I don't agree with censorship I think we have to learn from such things that it is just a stereotype not a norm. I have lovely Jewish friends who certainly don't look like either of these men are often drawn..

If you've read The Merchant of Venice, you'll know that actually, robbing Shylock of his faith is a tragic and very sad story. I've had students in tears at the end, in the theatre. I know I'm biased when it comes to Shakespeare, but he definitely didn't show Christians in a good light, in that play. Shylock was definitely sinned against.

I'm not arguing with you I am agreeing.
One size does not fit all in any ethnic group. Look at all the white policemen who have committed truly horrible crimes recently are we from now on going to portray all policemen as people who cannot be trusted and illustrate them as unsavoury characters?

Mr Plod made Noddy’s life hell didn’t he? But it didn’t turn me against policemen.

Not Spaghetti - I have a golly mum knitted in 1972 for one of my children. She loved golly. He lives at the bottom of the drawer I keep jumpers in. Hidden away but he’s a link with mum that only I know about.

What about Billy Bunter the fat owl of the Remove?

But we don't need to reproduce racist stereotypes. I really don't understand why there is such an issue with this?

I once, totally unwittingly, played a video at the end of term with a very short man in it. It was comedy. Probably not as 'PC' as it should have been, but it was a PG and I'd prescanned it for nudity/swearing. I was totally wrong. I had a little person in the class and when I saw his face at the end of the lesson, I realised how badly he'd been affected by it.

These images we aren't affected by, because they aren't of 'us', can deeply hurt others. So why would we do it? Because it's how it's always been done?

Because handing that power to people you know nothing about is worse and always impacts minorities the most.

NanKate

What about Billy Bunter the fat owl of the Remove?

He's enormous!

When I woke this morning I thought "Am I just a bit fat or am I now enormous?" I don't want to be enormous 😥
DH reassured me "You're pleasantly plump, dear".

I have to stop swearing.

Do you think if you trawled through the tweets of those at the publishing house you would find only goodness? Who gets to decide that's what we need to be looking at.

Who decides this on behalf of us all?

Callistemon21

Who decides this on behalf of us all?

To some extent it's public opinion. Some things don't need policing in the sense of being banned. In the unlikely event that I wanted to wear a T shirt (unlikely in itself 😉) with a golliwog on it, I would fully expect to get flak from people in general and children in particular.

Princess Michael wore the Blackamoor brooch and it was considered, rightly IMO, inappropriate, and she got a lot of bad press. Who would wear a fur coat, even if they wanted to? There are lots of things that people do and don't do because they don't want to risk the disapproval of others. I know it's not always enough, and that there are always going to be those who think it's clever not to care about public opinion, but most people want to fit in.

Having said that, probably that's what's happened here, and focus groups will have shown that people are less likely to want to read stories about fat people or 'gendered' Oompa Loompas to their children. To keep the sales figures up, the books need to change to fit in with those changing norms. I wasn't made racist by reading Little Black Mambo, but I wouldn't have read it to my own children - this is just more of the same, I think.

I loved Trevor Phillips contribution to the debate.
He was talking about the fact that he’s been asked to remove the word black from the re- write of his Windrush book.
He said This has nothing to do with children, except the children who work in publishing houses who want everybody to know how lovely and compassionate they are

I dont agree with everything that Trevor Phillips says but I always find his comments make me think and I enjoy his contributions to this kind of conversation.

MerylStreep

I loved Trevor Phillips contribution to the debate.
He was talking about the fact that he’s been asked to remove the word black from the re- write of his Windrush book.
He said ^This has nothing to do with children, except the children who work in publishing houses who want everybody to know how lovely and compassionate they are^

He often nails it with a pithy comment.

To return to the M of V for a moment, the Christians come across as a pretty unpleasant bunch, and Shylock as more sinned against than sinning. As for Portia and racism, read the casket scene.

grumppa

To return to the M of V for a moment, the Christians come across as a pretty unpleasant bunch, and Shylock as more sinned against than sinning. As for Portia and racism, read the casket scene.

Agree. Nasty bunch of Christians.