FTA:

"Wilson has admitted that she would not write one of her books, published in 2005, today.

Love Lessons is about a 14-year-old girl, Prue, who falls in love with an art teacher who partly reciprocates. They kiss and he admits that he loves her, too.

Wilson told the Guardian in a recent interview: “It’s so different now …"

😐 That was no more appropriate in 2005 than it is now you moron! We aren't talking 150 years ago... that was 18 years ago!

In other words, it was eight years AFTER Mary Kay LeTourneau pled guilty to that shit...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau

This is a really difficult one for me. I do 100% agree that adult classics should remain as they are, and we should view these through the lens of historical context. Keeping those classics as they are allows us to analyse them and see how views have changed - sometimes we need to know how bad things were so we can learn from our mistakes. But I think it's also important that for young adults, these works should be studied in a classroom so there's someone there to explain the uncomfortable parts.

The difficulty comes with books aimed at very young audiences, like Roald Dahl novels. Kids may not always have the necessary support or understanding of the context. So I'm inclined to agree with Wilson here with regards to kids books, but it's a bit of a grey area for me.

*Her 2005 novel is pretty worrying though. As the other commenter mentioned, the subject matter was inappropriate even at the time. It doesn't sound like the book tackles the consequences of what happens either.

No.

The books are valuable as a picture of the time. How many times are they going to be edited to be “acceptable”? There’s value in teaching about what things were like at that time and why the author was okay writing what they did.

And why attempt to draw a line with children’s books? If there is something worth preserving in classic literature that was intended for adults, the same can be said for classics intended for children as well.

Re-writing books is an erasure and a white-washing of the past. People want to keep what they’d had but recognize that it’s not culturally sensitive any longer, and instead of accepting that, they’d rather pretend that things were fine 50, 80, 100 years ago by slapping a new coat of paint on the text and moving forward.

In the Secret Garden, when Martha tells Mary that she thought Mary was going to be a little native girl, Mary loses her ish and starts calling her “daughter of a pig” and other names. There’s significance in Mary’s reaction and the words she uses that paints a picture of the time. Removing that to make the story more culturally sensitive, removes the historical elements and also changes Mary’s character.

It would be better to make an entirely new “adaptation” of books in the public domain without the sensitive elements than to change what these books originally said.

I dunno.

If the author does it, I'm totally fine with that.

When it's someone else? Not so much. You don't edit pasties onto a painting of Aphrodite. You shouldn't be hammering dicks off of statues. And you shouldn't edit an author's words.

We can, as readers and/or parents, decide what is and isn't something we want to read without the arbitrary intervention of a third party.

If a book was published and edited during the author's lifetime, that's where it should stay.

Meh, I don't fetishize 'classics', and I don't hold with the whitewashing argument - imho that's akin to insisting that statues of confederate generals stay up to 'preserve the historic record'.

If a publisher has the rights to IP they want to continue monetizing, but it's gone a bit frowsy in this day and age, they have every right to adapt it to modern audiences. It was damn well edited from the original manuscript before it was published the first time, and this is just more of the same.

Yes, I do think people need to stop clinging to past works as though they still had their original cultural relevance. Culture moves on wholesale, and you can't just freeze little patches of it in time and expect it to mean the same thing. A huge percentage of what made a work great when it was originally written depends on the specific perspective it was written from, and the specific audience it was written for. Hell, raising a kid teaches you that - you're so excited to introduce them to books and media that meant so much to you growing up, but when the time comes it just falls flat, and that's okay.

But if we're going to let boppity little autotuned idiots cover Queen, for fuck's sake, without burning down the record label, then I don't think we have a right to complain about books getting adapted for the market. They're a commercial product, not some sacred tradition, and why the hell should anyone be obliged to continue to maintain a product in unsaleable form? If your world-famous cookies contain ingredients that turned out to be carcinogenic or environmentally destructive to produce, you change the damn recipe. If you want to memorialise their original form, that's what museums are for.

This goes doubly when the product in question is for children. Why in hell would they be expected to enjoy some mouldy outdated boomerific chunk of systemic racism or whatever? They don't care about the book as a historic record of cultural attitudes, they want it as entertainment, and the parents want something they can read to their kid without having to put disclaimers in all over the place. Like I say I think it's a mistake on the part of the customer to conflate past acclaim with ongoing merit - but if you're relying on brand recognition and the nostalgia market, then you maintain the brand's reputation with ongoing updates as needed.

Go out, read modern authors and join in groundbreaking conversations with today's culture - and as they fade from relevance over time, let them. It's part of the process, circle of life and all that. But I get it, sometimes you want the old-and-familiar to fall back on, and you want survivor bias to do the work of sifting out most of the crud. That's fine, but nobody's obliged to try and sell that to other people.

This is right up there with conservatives banning books they don't like, i.e. fucking stupid.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Jacqueline Wilson has said editing children’s books to remove inappropriate and dated language is sometimes justified because young people do not have “a sense of history”.

However, the bestselling children’s author told ITV’s Good Morning Britain that she was opposed to “meddling with adult classics”.

Children’s books by authors such as Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl have been rewritten by publishers to take out words and references that are deemed inappropriate or offensive today.

Blyton’s books, including The Famous Five, Noddy and Malory Towers, dating back to the 1940s, have also undergone “sensitive text revisions”.

Her version is without Blyton’s sexist stereotypes and “unfortunate references that were very ordinary in their times but nowadays don’t fit with the way we think”, she told the Irish News last year.

Wilson told the Guardian in a recent interview: “It’s so different now … Nowadays, you’d see Prue as a victim even if she had initiated it and the teacher as a paedophile because he responded to her.”

I'm a bot and I'm open source!