Mashable: These changes hope to make the novels more inclusive.

The literary world has been engulfed in controversy after news of Roald Dahl’s novellas and Ian Fleming’s 1951 Live and Let Die book were announced to undergo edits. The first instance came to light when an expose by The Telegraph unveiled the length Dahl’s popular classics were going through.

According to the report, The Roald Dahl Story Company, which owns the rights to his books, wanted the author’s work to be “enjoyed by all children today.” And so, Dahl’s publishing company, Puffin, issued changes to his original text — by today’s standards — will be deemed impolite and politically incorrect. For instance, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory sees words like “enormously fat” that will become “enormous.”

Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed. https://t.co/sdjMfBr7WW

— Salman Rushdie (@SalmanRushdie) February 18, 2023
Similarly, Fleming’s book, which uses the n-word, will be replaced by “black person” or “black man,” reports The Telegraph. Interestingly, other racist terms used for ethnicities like Asians will remain. The new changes will be a part of his 70th edition anniversary.

When the news was announced, Puffin received backlash from people who had read Dahl’s work. Writer Salman Rushdie called it “absurd censorship”, while Whoopi Golderb said in her show, The View, reminded us “that’s how people learn.”

I'm happy to be corrected, but it looks to me like the words "black" and "fat" in particular have been removed IN THEIR ENTIRETY from the 2022 Puffin editions of Roald Dahl's works - ie they have been deleted or replaced wherever they occur, absolutely regardless of context.

— Incunabula (@incunabula) February 20, 2023
After the backlash, Dahl’s publishers, Puffins, owned by Penguin Random House, unveiled they will have two versions of the text — The Roald Dahl Classic Collection, which will have the author’s original text, and the edited version for ‘sensitive readers.’

Amidst fierce battles against book bans and strictures on what can be taught and read, selective editing to make works of literature conform to particular sensibilities could represent a dangerous new weapon. 2/13

— Suzanne Nossel (@SuzanneNossel) February 18, 2023
As for Fleming’s book, his estate mentioned how the author had once given them the editor’s rights to change certain scenes to suit the audience back then. So, his estate will take a page from it and have made the changes Fleming “himself authorised.” However, to make matters clear for those who want to read the original text, the new books will have a disclaimer about “a number of updates” the edition has.

Roald Dahl agreed to change the words in Charlie and the chocolate factory. The Oompa Loompas were originally black Pygmy slaves who’d been smuggled into the country in crates with air holes. Illustrations in the book were published while MLK gave his “I have a dream” speech. Wow pic.twitter.com/GetXL674Tb

— ScotsVix (@Scotsvix) February 25, 2023
While it is a great idea to adapt a classic work to fit today’s audience, there are various ethical barriers that one must speak about. Firstly, the idea of ‘adapting’, as The Guardian’s David Mitchell writes, is always about making ‘profit.’ Due to how politically sound we have become in recent years, the publishing houses and the author’s estates are thinking of ways to keep the money rolling in. It also means to edit, which is an abomination, a dead author’s book to please varying audiences. It’s the axe of commercialism, more than anything, that is driving this change.

I know we’ve seen this clip so often but it’s a perfect reminder about the importance of how the past influences the present.

Editing Ian Fleming #JamesBond novels is a crime. Timothy Dalton reminds us how the original works bore his interpretation.pic.twitter.com/mLf89yZXzW

— Chris (@GelNerd) February 26, 2023
Secondly, it is unfair as it is similar to editing out history. Roald Dahl was a complicated writer, and his family even issued an apology for his anti-sematic comments in 2020. So, when one edits his work, they are whitewashing his image and the times he lived in. Dahl and Fleming were writing at a time when people were not politically correct. Just look at the movies from the era their works were published in, and you will get an idea of how the masses were thinking then.

Moreover, Dahl hated the idea of anyone touching his words. The Guardian recently wrote about an instance where Dahl was ready to send an ‘enormous crocodile’ to gobble his publishers. He once threatened them that he would never write again if they even “touch a comma” from his books. Similarly, Fleming’s biographer, Andrew Lycett, reminded people his works reflected the mindset of some people in Britain during his time. As a result, his books can never be “politically correct.”

I know we’ve seen this clip so often but it’s a perfect reminder about the importance of how the past influences the present.

Editing Ian Fleming #JamesBond novels is a crime. Timothy Dalton reminds us how the original works bore his interpretation.pic.twitter.com/mLf89yZXzW

— Chris (@GelNerd) February 26, 2023
Philip Pullman, the author of His Dark Material, reminded people if they have issues with the authors such as Dahl, the publishers must “let him go out of print”. He even notes how words and language change over time, which brings me to the last point: adaptation. Dahl and Fleming’s works were adapted into movies repeatedly, and with each iteration, we see a different version of the same concept. For instance, Pierce Brosnan’s Bond and Daniel Craig’s Bond are worlds apart in every way. Why did this happen? Because the writers took creative liberty to perceive how an iconic character would work in today’s era. Had Bond and Dahl’s works been changed at the turn of every decade, maybe, these larger narratives would never exist.

First Dahl, now Ian Fleming.. Next they'll starting scrubbing movies like we're living in communist China. https://t.co/b5UC4wO8cI

— Corvus (@aoinir) February 26, 2023
It’s wrong to rewrite literature. Either we learn from it, or if your that perplexed by its narrative, just don’t read it.

— Chris Colligan (@ChrisColl101) February 27, 2023
The debate, unfortunately, does not have a black-and-white distinction. As a result, we must go forward with the solution Penguin has come up with: having two versions. The original text can be by those who can gauge the nuances and sensibilities of the time and the people writing it. While the other can be for those wanting to enjoy the author’s work without confronting their flaws as human beings. In the end, words matter, and they have consequences. It is up to the reader which version of the story they want to delve into.