Strike That! Revise It.
During recess, Avery flips to a new chapter of her mom’s 1964 copy of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. Previously, her language arts teacher, Mr. A., announced that he would soon read the novel aloud to the class. Too excited to wait, Avery has already started the book. After a few minutes, Avery’s friend Bradley joins her. Bradley just came from Ms. B.’s language arts class, he says, pulling out his older brother’s copy of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Avery notices the illustration on his cover differs from that of her yellowing hand-me-down edition. Curious, she asks Bradley if she can take a closer look. They swap books, and, after examining the front, Avery begins to skim the text, realizing that Bradley’s copy introduces the Oompa-Loompa characters with a backstory different from the one she remembers from her reading.
Avery mentions this to Bradley, so they place their opened books side-by-side . The passages are clearly different. Avery is concerned that her edition is not the “final” version of the story. Meanwhile, Bradley is frustrated that his copy doesn’t share the “true” origin of the Oompa-Loompas. The two assume the story has been edited sometime within the decades between their editions’ publications. Bradley says Ms. B didn’t share any context about the author or the book—much less any mention of revisions. Then, the bell rings, cutting their discussion short.
During Avery’s language arts class, Mr. A. shares Roald Dahl’s biographical information, including details of prejudice in the author’s past. For instance, he describes how the NAACP protested the racist stereotyping of Oompa-Loompas, prompting Dahl to edit Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 1973. Relatedly, Mr. A. says, it is not unusual for popular stories— Dahl’s included—to be revised in response to changing cultural attitudes. Picking up his book, Mr. A mentions the Roald Dahl Museum’s statement : “Roald Dahl’s racism is undeniable and indelible, but what we hope can also endure is the potential of Dahl’s creative legacy to do some good.”
Later that week, a few chapters into the story, Avery’s classmate Chelsea raises her hand while Mr. A. reads the description of Augustus Gloop. Chelsea’s edition of the book uses “fat" to describe the character, and she expresses confusion over why Mr. A.’s, instead, includes “enormous." Mr. A. shares that the change is the result of culturally responsive edits posthumously made to Dahl’s story in 2023. In response, some students nod understandingly, while others whisper in confusion. Feeling uneasy , Avery is unsure what the “true” version of Dahl’s book is, how it should be read responsibly, and how publishers should balance inclusivity and storytelling in children’s classics.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What, if any, are the morally relevant differences between the nature of the edits made to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 1973 and 2023? Which, if any, of the edits are justifiable? Why?
2. Between 1964, 1973, and 2023, which edition(s) of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, if any, ought to be read in a classroom?
3. Ought Ms. B have prefaced her class with context of Roald Dahl’s prejudiced past, like Mr. A. did? Why (not)?
References
[1] TIME, “What to Know About Children's Author Roald Dahl's Controversial Legacy”
[3] The Conversation, “Roald Dahl: A brief history of sensitivity edits to children’s literature”
[4] The Guardian, “Roald Dahl books rewritten to remove language deemed offensive”
[6] NPR, “Changes to new editions of Roald Dahl books have readers up in arms”
EXPLORE MORE CONTEXT
Article
Article