Should we change words in classical, or older texts?
“Writers face this question whenever they work on the new edition of a book. An example I love is the one of feminist science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guin, when she reprinted an essay about gender she had written decades earlier. She decided not to change the text, but to add bracketed commentary showing how her thinking had evolved, for example, about the use of pronouns. She believed it was wrong to adjust the old text. Not because of authenticity, but because this would obscure the choices she had to make to get to her new standpoint. Instead, she argued, we should let our changes of mind be visible, so readers can see how ideas evolve over time. ‘Minds that don’t change’, she wrote, ‘are like clams that don’t open’.
“This is something I emphasise in my own teaching. Reading my own work in class can be confronting, especially in front of young critical students. I sometimes think: I wouldn’t say it that way today. But instead of hiding that, I acknowledge it.
“So in principle, I think we should keep old texts as they are. The question is how to use them. It’s extremely important to keep a record of our changing use of language, of how we talk about one another.”
Isabel Awad is an associate professor in the Department of Media and Communication at the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication. Her research focuses on the relationship between media and social justice. She examines how the media practices of diverse social actors reflect and challenge existing power inequalities.
So what does that mean for the books of Roald Dahl?
“I think it may be different for children’s books. It would be ideal to read and discuss the books with them. Another solution would be to add some kind of comments or reading guide. Adding context allows the text to stand as a historical document while making space for learning and discussion. It acknowledges that writers, and society, grow and change.
“Still, I’m not sure a reading guide would work when children read. Maybe Dahl is just outdated. I wouldn’t mind letting him go out of sale.”
Even with a reading guide, children will still be exposed to outdated language. Is that a problem?
“As a parent, I don’t need publishers to edit old books for children. There are so many children’s stories, like Hansel and Gretel, that are simplistic, patriarchal, and scary in ways that I don’t think we learn anything from them. But there are also plenty of beautiful children’s books that I can choose from.
“So if I find something outdated or problematic in a book, I can decide not to read it to my children, or I can use it as a learning moment. Rather than erasing offensive language, we can use the opportunity to teach critical thinking. Why was this language acceptable in the past? Why is it problematic now?”
What is so problematic about this outdated use of language?“Language is never neutral. It frames reality, shapes power relations, and reflects societal values. I teach courses on media and social change, and one of the things I emphasise is how language can include or exclude, empower or oppress. People who work with language make decisions at every step. Sometimes it’s about clarity or rhythm. Sometimes it’s about power. For instance, the so-called generic ‘he’ pronoun makes more than half the world invisible.
“It’s impossible not to make mistakes in these decisions sometimes. But we need to give it a try. We cannot stay mute in the face of injustice. We need to keep reflecting, in dialogue.
“Every word we choose is a decision, and language shifts constantly. New words are added to dictionaries, old words fade. That’s how language works. And deciding to stick to the status quo is still a choice, a political one.”
Where do sensitivity readers fit into this?
“Sensitivity readers offer authors a perspective different from their own. If I were a writer and someone read my work that carefully, questioning whether I used the best words, I’d be grateful. When the process works well, sensitivity readers don’t make decisions for the author, they start a dialogue.
“That dialogue emphasises positionality; it acknowledges that I never speak from nowhere. I’m shaped by my experiences, and hopefully, I’ll continue evolving. Not necessarily in a straight line of progress, but by enriching my perspective through engagement with others.
“So I see an important role for sensitivity readers. They will just be another kind of editor, who should get paid like one. We can’t keep asking people from minority groups to volunteer to point out blind spots and errors in other people’s work.”
Will this lead to censorship?
“No. I’m not aware of cases of authors being forced to change their work against their will. What we see more often is an effort to make books more accessible. That’s not censorship, that’s dialogue and editing.”
Why do cases like the Roald Dahl revisions stir so much controversy?
“Was there really that much controversy? The revisions to Dahl’s books weren’t about erasing his past or pretending he was a different person. Nobody denies Dahl’s anti-Semitism; that has been widely acknowledged. Nor was it about creating dull, politically correct characters. The changes were made to keep the books readable and maintain their commercial appeal. It was a decision made by a publisher to continue selling the books, not a political statement.”
Still, debates about language in books, or other public texts, seem to arise frequently. Why do you think that is?
“Because language matters. It both reflects and facilitates social change. And change is threatening for some people. For example, the books of Ta-Nehisi Coates that offer a critical race perspective have been removed from school curricula and even bookshops in some states in the US. His work challenges readers to confront the realities of systemic racism, and yet they are being labeled as ‘divisive’ or ‘anti-patriotic’. Conservatives in the US argue that young white people shouldn’t be made to feel guilty or even uncomfortable about slavery and racial discrimination. Ironically these same people are probably the ones insisting that the offensive language in Dahl’s books must remain untouched.
“So sure, the editing about Dahl’s books made the ‘anti-woke’ alarm bells go off. That is telling. But it may be a small group that plays the anti-woke card to mobilise a larger group; pretending that a lot of people care about Dahl to problematise the use of sensitivity readers in general. And I haven’t seen a survey, a proper discussion of the public opinion, or that of writers about that. I have seen interviews with different writers and them taking different perspectives, but none of them objected to work with sensitivity readers. Moreover, it wasn’t the Dahl family or foundation that was upset.”
You mention writers don’t object to working with sensitivity writers. However, prominent writers like Margaret Attwoord, and the PEN America association that consists of 7000 authors have raised concerns about censorship, literary authenticity and cultural heritage, in the case of editing Dahl’s books. That also includes people who do not seem explicitly anti-woke. How do you view their concerns?
“There’s a difference between revising older, existing texts with the help of sensitivity readers, or employing them to help editing texts before initial publication. I share some of these concerns raised about the editing of old texts. Obviously, the author cannot provide creative endorsement anymore. Moreover, as Suzanne Nossel, the president of PEN America, mentions: a better approach than removing potentially offensive language from older works, is to provide context, allowing readers to engage with the original text, discuss its implications, and learn from it.
“However, these concerns shouldn’t be used to cast suspicion on the use of sensitivity readers for new texts, and to question the use of respectful language more broadly. I’m afraid that that’s what happens in cases like the Dahl one.”
So how should publishers and media construct their editorial guidelines, and decide which words to use and which to avoid?
“That decision shouldn’t be based only on market trends and making profit. Rather it needs to go through dialogue and reflection. One of the great possibilities of sensitivity reading is that it offers valuable insights into how communities define themselves. I think these insights are crucial in decisions of how to write.
“For instance, in disability studies, most agree that ‘handicapped’ is outdated. Now some prefer ‘people with disabilities,’ others prefer ‘disabled people.’ Many would prefer ‘deaf person’, over ‘person with a hearing impairment’. There’s no single answer, and you need to keep asking people.
“Language is a space of contestation and negotiation. It’s never fixed. Making decisions in these matters remains difficult and is never definite.”
