Changing the language in Roald Dahl

is wrong.

I know there will be a lot of people who will disagree with me but I find it arrogant. 

This is not about "editing". It is changing what the author intended to say. Yes, it might be something which is no longer acceptable but that is beside the point. 

Would we paint over aspects of a Rembrandt to suit modern day views about sexuality? If not, then why should we allow ourselves to do the equivalent to the literature for children? Do we sanitise everything with political correctness in the hope that children will never know the things that are supposed to be so abhorrent? Is ignorance really the best teacher in these matters?

I met Roald Dahl once. (He asked me some questions about kangaroos I couldn't answer. It meant they didn't go into something he was writing. I was rather sorry about that.) He was at a conference about children's literature and he actually talked about the changing nature of children's books. I remember him using "Little Black Sambo" as an example of what would no longer be published but which of course had been and was acceptable at the time. I very much doubt he would have approved any move to change the language in his own books.

The idea that if we don't use that sort of language with children and don't allow them access to it they won't use it is simply wrong. Children will find other ways to do it. It will be there on the internet and they will find it. For some it will be there in the books their parents have kept. I have kept books for children with ideas that are unacceptable, books which are banned in some states in America and questioned even here. Do we really want to stop children reading Judy Blume and Madeleine L'Engle? That is to name just two who talk about very different things but are equally controversial.  We can't indoctrinate children into "politically correct thinking" and trying to hide the ideas of "fat" and "ugly" won't work either. Isn't it better to let Matilda win?

I am much more concerned about some of those so called "influencers" and the vile language of some "rappers".  My great-nephew was voted in as school captain for this year. He turned his campaign speech into what he called a rap performance. He didn't use any bad language or anything offensive at all. He didn't need to but he knows about those things. He has heard them and he finds them offensive because he knows about them. If he had simply been told they were wrong or come across them with no knowledge of them then his reaction would likely be very different. 

If there is a "bad" or "wrong" version of a book and children hear of it then they will want to seek it out. It will be the "forbidden" fruit - and they are likely to want to eat it.