Classic Children's Literature - how much should be censored?

[pbsausie]

Here's an issue that I've been thinking about a lot lately. Should classic children's literature be censored? That is, should attitudes, situations and words that do not fit our modern sensibilities be altered or removed? Right now I'm reading a fairly recent reissue of Hugh Lofting's The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle, quite a beautiful edition with illustrations by Michael Hague.

Books of Wonder has altered the text slightly, not only to remove racial slurs regarding black characters, but to fall in line with their edition of the previous book, The Story of Doctor Dolittle. I haven't read their edition, but it seems they completely rewrote the episode where Prince Bumpo wants to be turned into a white man - and is tricked by the Doctor and Polynesia - into a scenario where Bumpo becomes a lion(?).

Not meaning to pick on them, but Books of Wonder have also used a somewhat lighter hand with L. Frank Baum's Oz books, removing a few illustrations and one song ("My Coal Black Lucy," from The Patchwork Girl of Oz). I feel sure there are other kids' books out there that have been similarly altered for modern audiences, no doubt by other publishers. Mary Poppins comes to mind, for instance - the original author rewrote a chapter of that herself, changing ethnic stereotypes into talking animal characters.

What do other book readers think of this? I take a pretty hard line on censorship for adults - I can't stand it - but I recognize the situation is different for children. I had the original Doctor Dolittle and Oz books as a child and read them multiple times; while I think some of it's a little bit overkill (the "Coal Black Lucy" song is stereotypical, but I'm not sure it's really harmful in any way), something like replacing racial epithets is a no-brainer. So where does the line fall, exactly? And would we alter children's books where the outdated attitudes are seen as historically important and/or satirical, i.e. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

However, I've got to say that there doesn't seem like any choice to me when it comes to certain words, i.e. the stronger form of "negro" (you know, the 'n-word'). I just can't see how anyone in this day and age could possibly leave that in a children's book. Not because children are going to use it as a hate term, but because kids are naturally curious and will try any new word out on unsuspecting friends/family/passerby. Yes, I understand the need to teach our children the history of terms such as that, but I can think of no good defense for leaving such a strongly offensive, hurtful word in a modern publication. For instance - again using The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle as my example - here is a line from the original 1923 publication (obvious censorship mine):

"You know what those n-----s are: that ignorant!"

Now, that's an obviously offensive line, and it has been cut from the modern editions completely. I'm not sure how you could possibly save a line like that, and as a publisher, I wouldn't be able to condone leaving it in just for pure, 100% accuracy.

WRT Blyton i was reading one of the new editions where Jo, Fanny and Bessie have become Joe, Frannie and Beth, and gollywogs have been replaced by teddy bears and the like. This, to me, is inexcusable. This is censorship without any purpose whatsoever. The ridiculousness of replacing the children's names should be self-evident, and while I recognize "gollywog" is a racial slur, I challenge you to find me any modern child who knows it. Or is offended by it.

Furthermore, nowhere in my edition is there any statement that the book has been edited for modern sensibilities. If I didn't know better, I'd think that I was reading the original version. That's close to blasphemy.

On the flip side, there are classic children's books that - I'm just going to spell it out here - use the word "n----r." Should children be informed of the history of this word? Absolutely. Should they be made aware of its more common use in the past? Absolutely. But does the word still carry a lot of power, negative power, that upsets people? Um, yeah.

The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle, the book I used as my original example, is a marvelous book. I feel that the new hardcover edition does its level best to get away with the bare minimum of censorship - there are still many uses of the word "negro" in the book, and references to African princes with multiple wives, which most editions of the '80s and '90s simply eliminated. They have cut the word "n----r," changed a reference to Bongo wishing to be a white man, and removed a couple of lines regarding the 'stupidity' of blacks. There is, furthermore, an introduction which explains that this book, indeed, has been edited for children. Now I could put that book in a child's hands, safe in the knowledge he/she will enjoy a charming story, while aware that he/she (or at least his/her parents) will appreciate a lack of overtly offensive content.

This, to me, is an acceptable substitution for a certain age range. When a child hits 12, 13 years old, or in some situations younger, they're probably ready to deal with the "uncut" works. (I was.) But I don't see why it's all that bad to have a carefully edited version of a work on the mass market for the age range it was originally intended. Many people buy abridged, "little kid" versions of classics like The Wizard of Oz or Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I saw a board book version of Alice the other day, for crying out loud, which could have had no more than several hundred words of text. Why are we so ashamed of one version of editing and not the other?

In no way do I support whitewashing history, and it saddens me when an edited version of a children's book is the only version available on the market. But so long as we don't forget the original, or try to sweep it under the carpet, I don't see why there can't be alternatives for younger children.

[Moose]

Hello and welcome! This is a hotly debated subject here. Personally, I think that 'censorship' of children's books should be as light as possible but in some cases, when the books are being read as just storybooks and not academic textbooks, I do think that it's necessary. Take, for instance, the fact that there were two dogs in the Circus books called 'darkie' and 'nigger'. I just don't think that it's acceptable for a child in this day and age to get the message that that's an okay thing to call their pets. I also don't think that changing the name of the dogs would make any significant difference to the text.

[Moonraker]

Hello and welcome to our little community, pbsausie.

What a great first-time post. It is good to welcome a new friend who is obviously very intelligent and able to post such an interesting message that contains more than a couple of sentences!

I find it hard to disagree with your sentiments; as Moose says, this topic has been aired considerably both here and in the Yahoo Group. However, it is very interesting to read another opinion of this hot topic.

It is of interest to compare the alleged racial tones of Blyton's work with that of Agatha Christie. She was often accused of writing anti-semetic views. A rich, powerful character was often described in terms such as, the fat Jewess......

Of course, her most changed title was Ten Little Niggers, featuring the rhyme, Ten Little Nigger-Boys. I never read anything untoward in this, but certainly take your point that it may be unacceptable these days, although I understand it is now in fashion for a black person to refer to his peers as niggers.

The PC brigade changed this title to Ten Little Indians, which in turn was thought insensitive (yawn) and this was later changed to the grammatically incorrect And Then There Were none, also incorrect as there was never one person left alone in the story, let alone none!

I am sure the debate will continue......

[Tony Summerfield]

I spent four hours yesterday loading over 300 stories and poems onto the Book Listing from Two Years in the Infanr School and I raised my eye a bit at one or two of the titles. 'Little Black Sambo' (I think someone has used that one before!!), 'The Little Piccaninny' and 'The Gay Golliwogs'.

Something for the pc brigade to get their teeth into. The stories were written in the 1930s and not surprisingly haven't been used since.

[Moose]

The gay golliwogs? *giggles in childish manner*

I had a long and frankly rather aggressive conversation on another forum about Little Black Sambo. Personally, I do not think it is an appropriate book for anything other than academic study . The illustrations are really very racist and depict black people in the worst kind of stereotyped manner (not to mention that LBS was set in INDIA .. the illustrator obviously neither knew of cared of the difference between people of Indian extraction and black people).

[Kitty]

I've seen LBS around, but never even dipped into it - the title puts me off! I just checked, and you can buy it on Amazon.

I remember reading once in passing that the author spent a lot of her life in India, but I don't know how true that was. As I said, I've never investigated those books, the title put me off at once!

[Moose]

She did live in India yeah and she, at least, should have seen the discrepancy between setting a book in India and having illustrations of black people. The pictures really are bad though .. horribly caricatured and stereotyped.

[pbsausie]

As far as cartoons go, I think it's deeply unfortunate that companies like Disney choose to modify, cut, or downright hide their older, more "objectionable" material. It's sad they feel they have to change something like Pecos Bill smoking a cigarette - it's not "role model" behavior, but it's certainly what people did, both at the time represented in the cartoon (1800s) and the time the cartoon was made (1940s). That's a little different from cutting racially sensitive material - it's just uber-PC, and taking it too far.

On the other hand there are stereotypes and behavior, most obviously ethnic ones, that seems more acceptable to cut or modify for a general audience (say, if Disney ran the cartoon on TV). However, the sad thing is, once Disney changes something they usually try to pretend the old version doesn't exist. I'm guessing "Pecos Bill" will never be released uncut on DVD, and nor will many other more high-profile cartoons, like "Song of the South" or "Fantasia." And for an adult audience, especially a collector or someone with historical interest, that's a damn shame.

The books we've been talking about, mostly - older books in the public domain - are, I think, more open to abridgment, alteration, etc, etc, because the original version won't go away. I can probably still find the original version of "The Magic Faraway Tree" or "The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle," either online, or through older editions of the book. Once you change a film, or a TV show - it generally stays changed. And when you take ever-increasingly rich formats of bringing films and TV to the public (like DVD) into account, the idea of not having the original versions available is heartwrenching.

[Moose]

Getting hold of Blyton books from the forties and fifties is easy and generally cheap so I agree that the original will 'never go away.' It seems a good compromise to me - the modern editions not containing the more objectionable racist material but the older ones being easily available to collectors.

[Katy]

Hello everyone! I'm quite interested in this subject at the moment as I am undertaking a lot of historical research into children's literature. While using racially derogative terms is clearly no longer acceptable today, particularly when aimed at a child, I also have a massive problem at the moment with politcal correctness going way too far, (which I won't start ranting on about as I'll go on forever!) so its hard to find a middle ground at the moment - someone will always find offence.
But I've discovered Florence Upton and her Golliwogg books which I love. I think it's such a shame that such a wonderful, warm character as Golliwogg, who was loved by children and portrayed as such a figure of goodness has been destroyed by negative associations that were later made, unfortunately not helped by the 3 Bad Golliwogs in Noddy.
I also agree with the previous points made about history. 'Normal', intelligent people in today's society know that racism is simply not acceptable any more, but they can also appreciate that this was not the case in years past. Times were different and I don't necessarily think that this should be edited out for adults. Many people were possibly not even being deliberately offensive, it's just what they were taught to think at the time. I think as adults we can hopefully see these books not from a 21st century perspective, but appreciate them as a product of their time, and be happy that we have moved on so much in becoming a more multi-cultural society.
But it is a hard and controversial point, as I say, someone will probably always be offended.
I hope that makes sense! It does in my brain anyway!
Katy

[Ming]

Digging through the old topics I found this, and I was very interested at once.


I have to think a bit on this topic to reply "properly" but I think I'll bring this topic up the list as this is obviously very interesting!

[Moonraker]

Quite simple really, nothing!

[Maggie Knows]

I too as a newby am encountering valuable old threads such as this...

I think I was about 8 when I read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and they are two of the most thrilling and important books I encountered before I became an adult. At the right time I will make these available to my 2 children as well.

Huckleberry Finn is usually regarded as one of the first great Amercian novels yet it also one that libraries are under pressure to ban. According to Wikipedia (I just checked) it was the fifth most challenged book in the US in the 1990s in terms of individuals and pressure groups attempting to ban it from public libraries. The issue is that it contains approximately 180 instances of the n-word.

There can be no question of editing the standard version of this book, it is part of the Western canon, but I would be comfortable in giving my children a version with the offending word removed. However, I would then make sure they had access to the unexpurgated version when I thought they were mature enough to understand the context.

[dolly]

I remember when I read "Pippi Longstocking" as a child in the German version (as well as in the original version) it was stated that Pippi´s father was king of the negroes at island Taka-Tuka (Negerkönig). In the US version the negroes´king was changed to "the king of the cannibals".

[auscatherine]

Peter Pan is another interesting one. I bought a copy of that a few years ago and re-read it and thought that the portrayal of "Indians" (as in Native Americans) would probably be considered quite offensive in the US today. There was also a reference to an "orgy" at one point although I am gathering that that is a word that has changed its meaning over the years (or at least I hope so! ). The other thing that strung me is what a bizarre little book it is generally, ie, reading it as an adult, it doesn't really strike me as being necessarily a children's book.