I agree with you, NI, and well put. It might not be the biggest issue in the world right now, but it’s worthy of some note. I mostly don’t read the rags, but on BBC the food shortages and Ukraine have eclipsed it by some way, so I don’t see the argument by 64 that it’s distraction. If it is, it’s failing.
I like living in a liberal society, with freedoms. That includes the freedom to enjoy what books we like, within reason. I understand there needs to be limits for explicit racism, misogyny and hate speech, but I don’t think Dahl’s books cross the line. Sanitising his work just seems wrong and against what he’d want, which seems important given he’s the author of already published books. I imagine these newly sanitised edited books wouldn’t sell as well if released in place of the originals.
None of this means I am blind to the faults of Dahl or his views. I think he held some horrible views; he was undoubtedly a racist, sexist and anti-Semite. I disagree with some aspects of his books, but I am uncomfortable with sitting as the almighty judge on what children should consume. There’s another aspect in that if we sanitise all the uncomfortable aspects of the past, we lose focus on why it’s so wrong. If Dahl’s work loses that it is hard to argue that there are problematic aspects, because people will look at it and think there’s nothing bad there, making the past seem rosier than it was.
