Last weekend I wrote about the politically correct rewrite that was being given to Roald Dahl’s books. Dahl died in 1990 but in 2020 the company that owned his works, including famous children’s novels like Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach, undertook an effort to revise the books to remove any offensive language. The changes were made with input from a group called Inclusive Minds:

Puffin and the Roald Dahl Story Company made the latest changes in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which its spokesperson describes as “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature”. Organisations such as Inclusive Minds have sprung up to help publishers navigate these newly choppy waters.

Alexandra Strick, a co-founder of Inclusive Minds, says they “aim to ensure authentic representation, by working closely with the book world and with those who have lived experience of any facet of diversity”. To do this, they call on a team of “Inclusion Ambassadors” with a variety of “lived experience”. She says they mostly work with authors writing now, but are sometimes asked to work on older texts.

There were hundreds of changes made to the books, a list of which you can find here. There was also a significant backlash from many authors who felt that changing a deceased authors works was offensive and wrong-headed. One of the people who spoke up about the changes was Salman Rushdie.

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

If there’s one person in the world who has become the embodiment of the importance of an author’s right to offend, it’s Salman Rushdie. Getting shamed publicly by him after he was maimed and nearly murdered for his work has to be weighing heavily on the people behind this.

Yesterday, Camilla Parker Bowles, known as the Queen Consort since Charles became king, spoke to a group of authors on the anniversary of her online book club. Her statement included a subtle dig at the changes made to Dahl’s books.

Speaking at a Clarence House reception to mark the second anniversary of her online book club, she told assembled writers: “Please remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination.”

She looked up with a smile as she added: “Enough said.” Her comments were greeted by laughter and a chorus of “hear, hear”.

Something clearly got through to the publishers because today they announced they were reversing course, at least partially.

Roald Dahl’s books are to be printed in their original form, following criticism of the decision to amend novels including The BFG, making them more suitable for modern audiences…

Francesca Dow, managing editor of Penguin, which owns Puffin, said: “We’ve listened to the debate over the past week which has reaffirmed the extraordinary power of Roald Dahl’s books, and the very real questions around how stories from another era can be kept relevant for each new generation.”…

Puffin said the release of The Roald Dahl Classic Collection, featuring original versions of his children’s books, was in order to “keep the texts in print”.

Francesca Dow added: “At Puffin we have proudly published Roald Dahl’s stories for more than 40 years in partnership with the Roald Dahl Story Company.

In case that’s not clear, they’re still going forward with the revised editions but they’re also going to publish a “classic collection” which preserve the author’s actual work. That seems like a small win, though it would be better still if they abandoned the politically correct versions entirely and just kept publishing what Roald Dahl actually wrote. Maybe they’ll continue to backtrack and eventually do that.

Alternatively, if they insist on publishing the revised versions, they should add a sticker to the cover of each book that reads “This book has been revised to suit modern progressive sensibilities.” Actually, no, that would probably appeal to far too many progressives. Let’s not do that after all.

Here’s the statement from the Queen Consort.