Censoring Classic Literature: Rewriting History or Necessary Change?

                                 

In recent years, many classic books have undergone revisions to remove or alter words deemed offensive by today’s standards. This phenomenon has sparked a debate: should we modify literature to reflect modern values, or does this rewrite history in an attempt to make it more palatable?

One of the most prominent examples is Roald Dahl’s books. The works of the beloved children’s author—Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The Witches, among others—were edited in 2023 to remove words considered discriminatory or offensive. For instance, descriptions of characters’ appearances were changed:

• Augustus Gloop, originally described as "enormously fat," was altered to "enormous."
• Miss Trunchbull was no longer a "most formidable female" but simply "most formidable."
• The Oompa Loompas were changed from “small men” to “small people” to be more inclusive.

Similarly, Agatha Christie’s books have been revised over time to remove racial slurs. The most well-known example is the novel Ten Little N******, renamed And Then There Were None. Another example is Hercule Poirot’s Christmas, where references to a character as “a Jew” were softened to avoid negative stereotyping.

Other examples include:

• Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels, where racial descriptors and offensive language were removed in recent editions.
• Dr. Seuss’s books, such as And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street and If I Ran the Zoo, which contained racist caricatures and were withdrawn from publication.

The decision to edit literature raises an important question: are we erasing history by modifying these books, or are we making them more accessible to new generations? Supporters argue that children’s literature, in particular, should not promote outdated stereotypes. After all, language evolves, and what was once acceptable may now be considered harmful.

However, critics argue that altering books distorts the historical and cultural context in which they were written. Words and phrases that seem offensive today provide insight into the attitudes of the time, serving as an opportunity for discussion rather than censorship.

One of the main justifications for modifying books is to protect young readers from exposure to discriminatory language. But is shielding them from history the best approach? Instead of erasing problematic language, wouldn’t it be better to use it as a teaching tool?

Children and young readers will encounter outdated or offensive ideas in history books, museums, and other forms of media. Rather than rewriting texts, parents and educators can provide context, explaining why certain words were used and why they are unacceptable today. This way, children can learn about history without being misled into thinking such attitudes never existed.

I believe that literature should be preserved in its original form. We cannot rewrite history to make it appear better or more refined. The words used in classic literature are a reflection of their time, and while they may be uncomfortable, they serve as valuable lessons on how society has evolved.

Instead of removing offensive language, publishers could include disclaimers in older books, providing historical context. This would allow readers to engage with the material critically rather than passively absorbing outdated ideas.

While it is important to promote inclusivity and sensitivity in modern storytelling, rewriting the past is not the solution. If we begin altering literature to suit current sensibilities, we risk losing valuable historical insight. Instead of building walls between past and present, we should bridge the gap through education and open discussion.