Audience’s Rights Reform #3: Preservation through thoughtful editing
When sensitivities change, objectionable works of fiction should be edited rather than erased. Banning or discontinuing creative works punishes potential audiences. Targeted edits are the fairer, wiser approach: addressing legitimate concerns while salvaging the work in question.
Surveys consistently show public support for this principle. Most Americans and Britons support minor edits or content warnings rather than outright bans. This demonstrates a strong consensus in favour of balancing artistic integrity with content concerns. (I couldn’t find a corresponding statistic for Canadians, but I have personally asked over 300 people all over the Vancouver area. All but two agreed with my argument for edits.)
Ideally, volunteers and cultural institutions would make the edits. Literary revisions are easy, requiring little more than basic writing skills. (In fact, there already is a “sanitized” version of Huckleberry Finn that omits the N-word.) Illustrated books could be edited via tools such as MS Paint. Today, even skilled video editors are plentiful.
The original, unedited works should remain available in a more limited scope, for posterity. Even irredeemable works, such as Disney’s Song of the South, should remain available online and in film vaults. This compromise would likely please the most people. Banned works often break the chain of thought an author had, as they leave a piece missing.
It is very unfair to pretend something never existed because sensitivities have changed. History is already laden with misconceptions. As one wise person says on the matter, “Learn from history, don’t forget it. We need reference points to say don’t go there again.” Future generations deserve to learn from the evolution of human sensitivities. Erasure only fractures cultural continuity.
Creators, estates, and companies should not have the power to withdraw any work that can be salvaged with a reasonable amount of good-faith editing. Through this simple reform, our global society could achieve the proper balance between artistic integrity, public sensitivity, and historical preservation.
Example A: Dr. Seuss
In March 2021, the estate of Dr. Seuss made the decision to cease publication of six of his books due to racist imagery: And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, If I Ran The Zoo, Scrambled Eggs Super, and The Cat’s Quizzer.
The most famous of these six books exhibits an example of the “broken chain” problem. If I Ran The Zoo has a non-banned sequel: If I Ran The Circus. None of these books’ discontinuations went through any form of democratic process, nor have they come up for review. Furthermore, Dr. Seuss himself, who drew wartime propaganda cartoons but regretted them decades later, would likely have preferred revision to removal.
Conversely, a 2006 reprint of Hooper Humperdink? Not Him! successfully replaced stereotypical imagery with neutral art and drew little criticism. The same respectful approach should be applied to the six banned books; they could easily be salvaged without losing their essence.
Example B: The Adventures of Ook and Gluk
Days after the six Dr. Seuss books were pulled, Dav Pilkey discontinues his book The Adventures of Ook and Gluk: Kung-Fu Cavemen from the Future, even though the petition for its discontinuation had only 289 signatures. He had planned to publish a sequel, whose cancellation disappointed thousands of fans.
This discontinuation was hypocritical, making it especially noteworthy. In 2014, after complaints about the bathroom humour in Captain Underpants, Pilkey had posted a YouTube video against banning books. Thousands of fans continue to petition for Ook and Gluk‘s return, proving the appetite for redemption through editing.
Example C: The banned Pokémon episodes
Three original-series Pokémon episodes were withheld internationally, and all could be salvaged via minor edits. EP035 The Legend of Dratini could be edited to omit the gun scenes. EP038 Electric Soldier Porygon could easily be salvaged by slowing down the seizure-inducing flashing lights. And finally, EP252 The Ice Cave should be edited to recolour Jynx’s skin from black to purple. This last edit would bring the episode into line with later appearances of Jynx, including the games.
(Counter?) Example D: Roald Dahl
Some edits have gone too far. In 2022, the publishing company Puffin edited most of Roald Dahl’s books due to complaints. A few of these edits were understandable (e.g. omission of the word “queer”), but most were unnecessary. Some even disrupted the flow of the narration, diluting Dahl’s distinctive language and tone.
Most of the necessary edits (e.g. omission of racism) took place in the first round of posthumous edits to Dahl’s books (2001). Thankfully, in February 2023, Puffin decided to publish the edited versions alongside the previous ones. Given the controversy garnered by said edits, this was a smart move on their part. Even so, the ideal edit would be a compromise between the two versions, much closer to the 2001 version.
It bears repeating. Censorship, the right way, means editing works of fiction just enough to make them acceptable. Cases of excessive editing, such as this one, demonstrate the need for moderation and public feedback. The goal is not to cater to hypersensitivity, let alone at the expense of personality. Rather, the best edits preserve creative works while respecting changing social norms.
(Successful) Example E: Hundreds of Things a Girl Can Make and Hundreds of Things a Boy Can Make
These craft books were first published by W. Foulsham in 1941. The 1998 Algrove reprints removed the few racist caricatures, and added a glossary and a thoughtful disclaimer by publisher Leonard G. Lee. Said disclaimer not only explains the edits, but also acknowledges the books’ outdated safety standards and gender norms. This transparent, educational approach is a model case of editing done correctly: respecting the original work while addressing modern sensitivities.
(Successful) Example F: Richard Scarry’s Best Word Book Ever
Originally published in 1963, this book was reprinted in 1991 with 14 pages edited. While the few racial stereotypes were omitted, most edits served to omit sexism. The reprint uses gender-neutral terms (e.g. “letter carrier” instead of “mailman”), shows more female animals working outside the home, and even omits gender segregation on the playground games page. The edits made the book more inclusive while retaining its spirit — proof that careful modernization can strengthen a work’s legacy.
Not an example, but a side note
The BBC has been criticized for editing racist language in various TV and radio shows, as well as for mistakenly airing the uncensored version of one radio episode: the Dad’s Army Christmas special. The coexistence of both sets of complaints proves that it is impossible to please everyone. Banning fiction erases culture; editing refines it.
Still, given what is known about popular demand, the optimal solution is to edit objectionable works rather than leaving them banned. This would bring them into line with many previous rebrands, such as Pearl Milling Company. Censorship, when done correctly, entails discernment rather than destruction. Editing with care and context satisfies the greatest possible number of people.