In this Issue:
On re-writing an author’s work
The controversy around Roald Dahl
A request
Are you writing?
Street Photography
News and Events
SJW recommends
Hi everyone!
There’s a passage in my first book, Before I Go to Sleep, in which my main character, an amnesiac called Christine, describes her own body. I’m too lazy to find it now, and even if I could, I wouldn’t paste it here. The truth is, it embarrasses me. Not terribly, but a little. The paragraph is awkward and clunky and someone on Twitter once included it in a list of example of ‘men writing women badly.’ It was one of the less heinous examples, granted, and I felt moderately irked at my inclusion, but still. By the time of its publication the book had been worked on by many, many women — my agent, editors, copy-editors, and proofreaders, for example — and none of them had found that section troublesome. But reading it now, in the cold light of day, that one paragraph does seem somewhat inelegant.
In my defence, the point I was trying to convey was that this was a woman whose body had changed, utterly and bafflingly, and seemingly overnight. In the book, Christine suffers from both retrograde and anterograde amnesia, and from her perspective (which is the perspective from which the book is written), she’d gone to bed in her late teens or early twenties and woken up in her late forties. I wanted to convey something very specific: her ageing body was alien to her. Her appearance had altered, and her physicality too; she both moved and took up space in a different way. But the words I chose (especially when removed from this context) do make me sound a little bit like a man writing about women’s breasts and not doing a very good job of it.
I wouldn’t write that now. I’m a better writer, and times have changed, even in the decade since the book was published. I’d still want to convey her bafflement at the physical changes that have occurred, but I’d do it with more elegance. However, I wrote that passage in 2009, and back then they were the words I chose. That is the passage that is in the book, for better or worse. And though I could probably change them in future reprints, it feels somehow wrong to do so. The book is a product both of its time and the person I was then.
The reason I’ve been thinking about this a fair bit at the moment is because of the recent controversy over the publisher Puffin’s decision to alter Roald Dahl’s books following the reports of sensitivity readers. So, amongst other changes, Augustus Gloop will no longer be described as ‘fat’, and Mrs Twit is no longer ‘ugly’. Some support the changes (though not many, if a cursory glance at the headlines can be thought to give an accurate impression), while others have described it as ‘censorship’ and an ‘Orwellian nightmare’. Interestingly (to me, anyway), one UK broadsheet has decided this is a new battle in ‘the culture wars’.
Leaving aside the changes themselves (Gloop, apparently, is now going to be described as ‘enormous’, which I’m not sure I’d find any less offensive to be honest, were someone to describe me thus), the fact they’re being made is worth thinking about. Dahl wrote the books in the mid-twentieth century. Language evolves, as does culture. I’d imagine describing someone as ‘fat’ was offensive back then too, but people did it anyway. Now, we’re much more careful about not causing unnecessary offence, which I would argue can only be a good thing. So perhaps the word ‘fat’ is more loaded now, and the argument, possibly, is that its continued inclusion in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory might go some way towards normalising it for young readers.
I have two thoughts here. First, I think even young readers are capable of understanding that this is an old book and the language in it might not be appropriate now. If their parents and/or teachers have instilled good values and taught them that it’s rude to call someone ‘fat’, they’re not going to start doing so because they read it in a book that was written in the 1960s. And second, it seems to me that scrubbing the word from the books deprives these young readers of the opportunity to have that conversation, and to therefore learn that what was acceptable 60 years ago might not be so now (and therefore what is acceptable now might not be in half a century).
But the bigger point relates to my (slightly) embarrassing passage about Christine’s body. I wrote it years ago, I wouldn’t write it now. Similarly, it’s quite possible that Dahl wouldn’t use the word ‘fat’ if he were writing that story now. But, for better or worse, that IS the word he chose. ‘Enormous’ was available, even back then, but it was rejected. As was ‘massive’, ‘huge’, ‘gigantic’ and ‘porky’. He chose ‘fat’. And while I could insist on rewriting my own work for future reprints, Roald Dahl died in 1990, and therefore can neither make the decision about whether things should be changed at all, nor choose which changes to make and how to make them.
In my opinion, if you choose to see books as works of art, and as having cultural significance, then the words chosen by the author are the words that should be used. While Kate Bush can choose to re-record a bunch of songs she’d put out years previously, because she feels she can do a better job now, that’s her prerogative and it should never be done by someone else unless it’s put out under their name and called a ‘cover version’. (A more useful example, perhaps, is that Bush also chose to remove Rolf Harris’s vocal contributions to one of her songs after he was found guilty of indecent assault. But again that was her choice, and she had artistic control over the replacement, and I’d argue that had she chosen not to make that change, or been unable to, then it shouldn’t have been forced on her).
It’s a potential mine-field. The word ‘f**got’ was included when two characters performed a karaoke version of ‘Fairytale of New York’ in the Gavin and Stacey Christmas Special, and (quite rightly in my opinion) the producers were roundly criticised for it. But the difference here is that there was no particular reason that song had to be the one performed, they could have chosen a clip of the two characters performing a different part of the song, and they could have used a sound effect to drown out that offensive word (something I noticed they had done, when I rewatched it this Christmas, and which was done to good effect when a recent adaptation of the 1968 play The Boys in the Band covered up the N word, which features in the script, with a sound effect and a cut-away so that it wasn’t even lip-readable). But just as it’s my belief that the play is the play, even with that word in it, I also think only The Pogues have a right to go back and re-record their own song to remove the offensive word (and to my knowledge they haven’t done so, though they do change it when performing that song live now).
So, therefore, I think only Dahl has the right to change his work. As readers we can choose not to read it, we can choose not to let our children read it, just as we can choose not to listen to Fairytale of New York or watch a version of The Boys in the Band that include the offensive language. And while future TV/film versions of Dahl’s work can (and arguably should) avoid the problematic language, it’s my opinion that for as long as the books are being printed with Roald Dahl named as the author on the jacket, they should contain the words Roald Dahl chose, warts and all.
If we don’t like them, then let them go out of print. There are plenty of other books being written now that are suitable and arguably much better. We’re not going to run out of stories.
Though with all this lovely publicity Puffin is getting for free, that’s not going to happen any time soon, is it?
A request
Now seems like a good time as any to make a special request. I’m relatively lucky, but none of us are finding it easy at the moment. So, if you’d like to help out, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. You’ll receive my Writers’ Lodge newsletters, plus full access to Miscellany, in which I share short stories, memoir, and other snippets of my writing. And, most importantly, you’ll be supporting my work and allowing me to continue doing what I do. All for less that £1 per week and it’s easy to cancel any time.
Also, I’m getting more active on TikTok. Follow me and join in the fun!
Are you writing?
“Chock full of brilliant insight and advice. It’s things like this that help to keep the flame alight.”
Are you a writer? Do you want to write? Take a look at The Writers’ Lodge, a nurturing and supportive newsletter for anyone who is writing, or who is considering embarking on a writing project and wondering whether they have what it takes, or may even just be considering their first tentative steps into writing fiction.
In the last few issues we’ve been looking at:
Getting to grips with plot and structure
How many acts does your story need?
How to get going when you’re not in the mood to write
Working with an agent
Just upgrade to a paid subscription to get all this and more!
Street Photography
You may know I’ve been taking photographs for many years now. I’ve recently decided to sell some prints, all in strictly limited quantities. If you fancy bagging yourself one of these soon-to-be collectors items, take a look at my store!
News and Events
I’m going to be leading a writing retreat at Chez Castillon in the south of France, from 9-15th May, 2023. Take a look and do join us. There are still some places left, and I should soon be able to announce some exciting news about the identity of some of the other guests! Suffice to say, attendees will be getting some brilliant advice and support, and not just from me…
SJW recommends
A superior thriller, sure to get the adrenaline pumping and guaranteed to keep you intrigued into the early hours. Kershaw is definitely one to watch.
Happy reading/writing!
Agree with all you say here about the censorship of Dahl's work. Only the creator can make these decisions. Once dead, an artists's work has to stand. I don't see how it can be any other way.
I love the word fat. It’s problematic to the chattering classes because they’re snobs?