Taking the Racism Out of Roald Dahl, Oz, and James Bond?

The other day I was saying something about reading the Oz novels with my older son, and one of my friends asked what I thought about removing the racist content from Roald Dahl: L. Frank Baum and Ruth Plumly Thompson were no strangers to racist language in their books. Like Dahl's, it's usually more of a casual background element—as opposed to the really nasty stuff you might find in, say, the Frank Reade, Jr. dime novels.

There are of course a couple approaches to when a book gets old like this, and what was once generally acceptable becomes unacceptable. You can reprint it as it was, you can reprint it as it was but contextualize it or disclaim it, or you can edit it to remove what is offensive.

All three approaches have been taken in the case of the Oz novels: Dover has reprinted much of Baum's writing as is, with no amendments or editorializing; ditto Del Rey for Thompson's. On the other hand, when Books of Wonder reprinted Patchwork Girl of Oz, they took out some of the racist language and deleted one picture. The terribly named "Empty-Grave Retrofit" editions* of the Oz novels make similar adjustments to stories like Silver Princess, changing the black slaves of the Red Djinn into rock servants. Books of Wonder took the other approach too, appending a note to its reprint of Thompson's Royal Book indicating there was material modern readers would find offensive, but leaving the text unaltered.

In each case, the difference is one of market. Books of Wonder's reproductions of the Baum novels were targeting the library market and contemporary readers: these were editions intended to be given to current children. So it would make sense that the text would be edited. On the other hand, their Thompson editions are aimed at a market of Oz collectors, adults who want the original texts and can also understand the difference between 1923 and 2023.

And this is reflected in my own reading. When I read the Oz books to my son, I take out the racist content. Usually this just means a couple words here and there, but in the case of Royal Book, I had to skip over a two-page screed about Chinese food. I take out other stuff that doesn't fit with the moral ethos I want to project, too: in Lost King, the main characters killed Mombi, and I took that out! My wife has read our son a few Roald Dahls (both Charlie books, James and the Giant Peach, The B.F.G., and one other one, I think), and she made similar tweaks, I believe. If Son One ever reads the books on his own when he's older, we can talk about what he's reading—but I can have an informed conversation with him because I've read them all. A kid who picks up or is gifted Roald Dahl might not have that going for them.

There's something in here, of course, about what we think children's literature does and what it's for. It is okay for an adult to read a book with racism in it, but not a child. I probed at these attitudes back when I taught a class on children's literature. We praise The Outsiders because it doesn't filter things for its reader, it shows them the good and the bad and lets them decide. But then we turn around and say, no, when it comes to issues of race or gender, you ought to decide for the kids. I don't think this is a wrong distinction to make, but I think sometimes we are not honest with ourselves that, like the Victorians, we expect our literature for children to provide good moral instruction. It's just that we've changed our minds about what good moral instruction is.

The thing that's different about Oz versus Dahl is that for Oz, the original texts can continue to circulate alongside revised ones. This isn't true for Dahl, who remains under copyright. I think that his works will not enter into the public domain until 2060! Which is, frankly, an absurdly long amount of time. Over a century from publication to public domain for some of his works! Why? Back when the similar Dr. Seuss thing was going down, I read someone's take that the real problem here is that publishers and literary estates are able to extend control over the works of dead authors far too long. If we had good copyright laws, there would be amended Dahl books and original Dahl books. Parents and readers would have the same options they already do for Oz.

Now, okay, as for James Bond. If you read a James Bond, I would argue, the imperialism is the point. As I read through the original novels, it struck me how much Bond was always classifying, evaluating, and listing things. In all kinds of ways, but most often: women, race, and food. Everything gets organized and systematized. It's the sight of empire, it's what the James Bond books are for. If James Bond isn't going around making racist jokes while eating fried chicken in Harlem, he's some other character entirely. And when he's not doing that, he's battling to maintain Britain's colonial power across the globe. Oh, he's not being casually racist while trying to reinforce a violent global hegemony? Well, that's nice I guess. Like, go read some other spy novel if that's what you want! (Though... are there really any spy novels that aren't about this?)

* Seriously, what is up with that? It makes it sound like they're going to be Pride & Prejudice & Zombies–style retellings.

EDIT: I learned after I wrote this before it was published that Dahl's publishers backtracked, and they will keep the original texts in print as separate editions... I would not be surprised, however, if they quietly let them fall out of print. I also appreciated this Guardian column about how there's some stuff you just can't take out of James Bond without it all falling apart; the series is intrinsically built around ableism, for example.