Publishers
of Roald Dahl, the author famed for mentioning unmentionable things, are
employing sensitivity readers to alter some of the unmentionable language in
his children’s books. This is language deemed offensive. The unmentionable is
one of the reasons readers read Roald Dahl. The publishers stand by “the irreverence
and sharp-edged spirit of the original text,” so how much that changes after
the sensitivity readers get to work is a fair question. ‘Fat’ and ‘ugly’ have
been cut, with the result that Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but
just “beastly”. Physical appearance is a main concern behind hundreds of
changes. Then there is “Aunt Sponge who is terrifically fat / And tremendously
flabby at that,” which has been changed to “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute /
And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” leaving one to wonder if the
sensitivity reader is not guilty of ageism, also revengism, but more to the
point a co-author of the work, given the new couplet alters the meaning of the
story and may not be what Dahl had in mind at all. The full job description for
Sensitivity Reader is not readily available, but obviously extends to skill
with gender neutrality, as the Cloud-Men in ‘James and the Giant Peach’ have
become Cloud-People. How this alters the meaning of the story itself (cf. Aunt
Sponge) is not up for discussion. Yesterday, Finnegans Wake Reading Group
reached page 120: “…those throne open doubleyous (of an early muddy terranean
origin whether man chooses to damn them agglutinatively loo-too-blue-face-ache
or illvoodawpeehole or, kants, koorts, topplefouls) seated with such
floprightdown determination and reminding uus ineluctably of nature at her naturalest…”
Would a sensitivity reader alter ‘man’ to ‘people’, thereby ruining the rhythm
of the passage? Can anything be done to hide the fact this is a description of
defecating, when the author of ‘Finnegans Wake’ has already gone to such indulgent,
overwordy trouble doing the same? Is this any way to talk about a letter in the
Book of Kells and how many sensitivities must be overcome before the young
reader appreciates the author’s ornate way of explaining the natural activity
of going to the dunny? Like Roald Dahl, the offending passage becomes more meaningful
and more funny the more times it is read, the reader becoming complicit through
the humour. ‘Finnegans Wake’ is rife with interest in the problems faced by
Roald Dahl. For example, the words we use now, even quite common words like ‘fat’
or ‘man’, will mean something new to another generation. Well-meaning editors
alter the ur-text to suit an agenda or a readership or an in-house prescription,
thus inventing a new book. Changes can turn meanings into their opposites, just
so a tragic ending can be a happy ending, a comic phrase becomes a neutral
mundanity, a taboo becomes a permission, and vice versa, tangoing with wobbily
doubleyous across the page.
The image by Quentin Blake is of Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker in ‘James and the Giant Peach’ by Roald Dahl. Here is the inoffensive article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive
Comments
Post a Comment