https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment ... 3df4&ei=13
In case it ceases to be accessible (The Independent limits views by non-subscribers), I'll quote a few highlights:
I've always wondered why there is nothing in place to protect the "creative integrity" of an artist's work. Hats off to Warner Bros for their sensible approach and their respect for history!Artists have a right to the creative integrity of their work, even when the work is disagreeable; Dahl and Fleming, both long dead, are unable to consent to the changes. There is an argument to be made that softening the unpleasant edges of these books is an act of erasure, or even historical denialism. Consider, in contrast, the disclaimer that Warner Bros has long shown before outdated episodes of Looney Tunes, which ends: “While these cartoons do not represent today’s society, they are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.”
It is indeed shocking that so many of the amendments to Roald Dahl's books are "limp" and "artless", when he himself wrote with such verve. And yes, it goes without saying that altering a text extensively will introduce inconsistencies because it will prove impossible to change key scenes without demolishing the entire book.Muddying the issue further is the rather inexplicable metric used to determine what is and isn’t suitable for republication. Even those in favour of censoring books for reasons of sensitivity will likely be left frowning at the limp, artless prose amendments – and, in Fleming’s case, by the baffling inconsistencies when it comes to what offensive material will actually be permitted. Some parts are taken out, other instances left in; some of the racism and misogyny is so inextricably woven into the storylines that censoring is impossible.
Excellent point. Left in its original state, literature tells us a great deal about the author, the era in which it was written, and ourselves (in our response to it). Much of that is lost when it has been rewritten with the aim of reflecting other mindsets and later eras.More than this, however, the decision to rewrite passages from Fleming and Dahl’s work attests to a complete unwillingness to engage with problematic art on its own terms. Dahl’s bigotry is not some disposable accoutrement to his writing; it is part of his holistic worldview, something that both informs and contradicts other parts of his work. His books are lauded for their dark and misanthropic stories. Why do we cherish them? What does that say about us? De-fanging his writing of offensive material promises to absolve the reader of these sorts of questions. In the modern era, a piece of art must not simply be good; it must also be morally upright and unproblematic. Art doesn’t work this way. It never has.