The Bowdlerism of Roald Dahl Should Prompt a Reconsideration of Copyright Law
www.edrith.co.uk
The Bowdlerism of Roald Dahl Should Prompt a Reconsideration of Copyright Law
The bowdlerism of Roald Dahl's works is an outrageous attack upon our literary heritage. How can a faceless corporation be allowed to censor a set of children's books beloved by multiple generations? But while an immediate response is required, this event
The bowdlerism of Roald Dahl's works is a direct attack upon our literary heritage. Should a faceless corporation be allowed to censor a set of children's books beloved by multiple generations? But while an immediate response is required, this event should also prompt a more serious reconsideration of copyright law.
If you like what you read here, you can help by sharing what I write (I rely on word of mouth for my audience). You can also ensure you never miss a post, by entering your email address into the subscription form below.
For those who've missed it, Puffin has rewritten Roald Dahl's books, making several hundred changes across the books on the advice of so-called 'sensitivity readers'. The story has been covered widely, including by the BBC, Telegraph, Times, Guardian, Daily Mail and wider. The decision was made by Puffin, the publisher, in conjunction with the 'Roald Dahl Story Company', which is owned by Netflix, in conjunction with an organisation called 'Inclusive Minds', and applies to the latest edition of the books.
These are not minor changes, such as the change of an occurrence of 'the n-word' to 'black', but wholesale alterations to large numbers of sentences or paragraphs throughout each book, altering meanings, descriptions and tone to a significant extent. While one can usually see the 'rationale' that is being applied, it frequently leads the editors to some quite absurd places, notably the determined attempt to expunge any suggestion that Augustus Gloop - whose cautionary tale is entirely based around his excessive overeating - is somehow not fat. I've appended at the end of this piece, as examples, the list of changes from Matilda and from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The most shocking thing about this travesty is not the extent of the changes - there have been abridged and bowdlerised versions of classic works before, and some people like them - but the fact that the publisher, who owns the copyright, will be preventing the original texts from being published. It is this that takes the decision from bowdlerism to censorship; a deliberate attempt to rewrite and erase Dahl's original text.
Should a private company be permitted to rewrite, on its own authority, the beloved works of one of Britain's most popular children's author? Should it be allowed to dictate that its revised versions should not just stand as an alternative to the originals, but to replace them in bookshops? Should it be allowed to say that no-one is to be allowed to purchase the original texts that Dahl wrote, unless they buy them second-hand?
It would simply not be possible to do this with an author that was out of copyright, such as Charles Dickens. Of course, a publisher could choose to publish an abridged or 'modernised' version. And maybe some people would buy that. But another publisher would be able to publish the original text and people could choose which they wished to buy. There could be no attempt to airbrush the initial text out of history: the new edition would be a different edition, standing alongside, rather than replacing the original.
There have been some suggestions that because this action is by a private company, not a government, we somehow don't need to worry about. That is not an argument that stands up to scrutiny. If something is bad, it doesn't matter who does it. Of course, a government could choose to do something even worse, such as criminalising anyone who retained the existing copies. But what Puffin is doing is bad enough: it is unilaterally erasing an author's words and making it impossible to obtain new copies of his original texts.
It has also been said that this doesn't matter because Dahl chose to bring out new editions of some of his works. It's true, he sometimes did; there are also plenty of occasions when he rejected suggestions from his editors. Regardless, there is a fundamental difference. An author may choose to update or change their books - we do not insist that the first edition of The Hobbit, which is inconsistent with The Lord of the Rings, is the canonical one. That is not the same as a company, or anyone else, making changes after the author's death - at least, not to the extent of making the original text unavailable.
The situation requires an immediate response. We know from the US that the political views of corporations are frequently only skin-deep and that, if challenged, many will retreat back to their core business of producing and selling goods and services. When the Walt Disney Company sought to actively campaign on laws being debated by the Florida state legislature over what could be taught in state primary schools, Governor Ron de Santis retaliated by publishing and passing legislation that stripped the district containing Walt Disney World of its bespoke administrative and taxation status, a move that is likely to cost the company money. Since then, Disney has been largely quiescent on political issues.
If Puffin will not back down on this matter, and refuses to allow the texts to be published in their original form, the Government should strip it of its ownership of the Dahl copyrights and place the full text of all Dahl's books in the public domain(1). Puffin would be free to continue to publish and sell its bowdlerised versions - but any other publisher could choose to publish the original, unabridged test. Let the public decide which they wish to buy. If the British Parliament can vest the copyright of Peter Pan in perpetuity with Great Ormond Street Hospital, it can similar place the copyright of Roald Dahl's beloved works into the custodianship of the nation, for all to enjoy.
More broadly, this calls into question the wider appropriateness of the current state of copyright law in the UK; in particular, the fact that copyright protections typically extend for 70 years after an author's death. The purpose of copyright is to allow an author to benefit financially from their works - and to prevent others from altering it without their permission. It goes without saying that copyright should, therefore, last for the length of the author's life. There is arguably a case for extending it for a short period after their death - perhaps 10, or at most 20 years - particularly for recently published works, to allow any young children to continue to be supported in case of the author's untimely death.
It is increasingly hard to see the justification for it to last for 70 years after death. There is a real cost to a popular work remaining in copyright. One can see the flourishing of creativity around the character of Sherlock Holmes, which exited copyright (in the UK) in 2000. Now we have modern versions of Sherlock Holmes, Lovecraftian versions of Sherlock Holmes, stories about Sherlock Holmes's fictional sister and much, much more - alongside the original stories, which are still readily available and much enjoyed. Some of these are good, some less so - and different people will disagree on which is which. But collectively they add much to human pleasure and also stimulate the economy the creative industries - crucially, without compromising the availability or canonicity of the original text.
In addition to the creative case, the travesty of Dahl's bowdlerism demonstrates that the 70 year period has the potential to actively work against the second aim of copyright; to protect an author's moral ownership of their own text. With many valuable copyrights owned by corporations, it can be seen that there is nothing to stop an unscrupulous company from rewriting, and actively erasing the author's text from being readily available. This is an unconsciable situation.
The immediate priority is to save Dahl's works. But after that, we need more fundamental rethink of for how long after an author's death, if at all, copyright law should apply.
If you've enjoyed this, you can help by sharing what I write (I rely on word of mouth for my audience). You can also ensure you never miss a post by subscribing free using the box below.
(1) Most plausibly by using standard compulsory purchase/eminent domain procedures.
Annex
List of Changes in Matilda (list taken from the Daily Telegraph's site)