Introduction

It was recently announced in several news sources, The Wall Street Journal being one of them, that acclaimed author Roald Dahl’s books are being modified and changed to accommodate for offensive and triggering language.[1] These offensive words, however, are words such as “fat” and “men,” seemingly ordinary words that are now deemed offensive. Are these changes truly a relevant issue, however? Ultimately, yes, they are. They are problematic for several reasons, some being historical and some ethical. These issues represent a larger dilemma of cultural shifts and changes occurring as a result of people’s ideals and personal feelings being elevated above the pursuit of truth and honesty.

To give a brief introduction, Dahl was a famous author who lived during the 1900s and is most popularly known for his numerous children’s books, some of which are Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and Matilda. Dahl’s books are now being changed by his publishers to suit the changing preferences of the culture. These cultural demands represent the changes in society at large, such as the sexual revolution, constant race prejudices, and many other hot topics in society. Changes are being made to his books in order to decrease and erase what is now deemed offensive and triggering language that he used in his works. Although Dahl is now deceased, his words are being erased and altered – which modifies the message and meaning of his beloved stories. This should lead the critical-thinking Christian to ask, does society have the right to change literary works merely because it dislikes the words chosen? Further, has society come to a point where a person who dislikes a word gets to erase it from everyone’s vocabulary? These questions and issues must be discussed in order to preserve and uphold not only history but truth itself.

The Problems with Changing Dahl’s Words

Changing Dahl’s words within his books is not only problematic for historical and legal reasons, but also for ethical and moral reasons. Retelling someone’s story incorrectly and deliberately is, by lexical definition, a lie.[2] Altering Roald Dahl’s words without his consent and publishing the books as his work is a falsehood and clearly deceptive. He is not alive to consent to or affirm the changes to his works, and one cannot assume that he would acquiesce to such a request in order to rationalize this deliberate alteration.

Words are used with purposes in mind, and Dahl wrote his books as stories with words to produce specific characters, plots, and meanings.[3] To change his words is to change the meaning of his story, which is unethical and ultimately deceptive.[4] If someone dislikes a book for its word usage and message, they should not read the book. It is that simple. Wishing he had used a different language than what he did does not change anything. The words he used are simply the words he chose. If one finds his words offensive and his stories truly so erroneous, that person should simply either stop reading Dahl’s works or write a new story with culturally appropriate and unoffensive language. David Mitchel, an author for The Guardian, discusses the issue of a new television series that he profoundly dislikes: “There’s only one way to stop this sort of thing; you have to not watch it.”[5] The assertion he makes here is clear; if people truly disagree so strongly with Dahl’s books, they should simply not read them.

Altering Dahl’s words not only creates an ethical dilemma, but it also points to the issue of historical denialism.[6] If someone disagrees and is hurt by historical prejudices and conflicts that is one thing, but to choose to go back into the history books and change the story because one dislikes it is something else entirely. Many people dislike the prejudices and conflicts that arose during the Civil Rights movement, but individuals cannot change history because they dislike it – to do so would be ludicrous, absolutely untruthful, and thus, immoral (Psalm 5:6).[7] Dahl’s words may be offensive to some, but when they were written, they were chosen for a purpose that Dahl had intended and were used to create his piece of literature. To change these words is to deny the meaning that the author sought to achieve. Changing words for the sake of language translation is one thing, but it is entirely another to choose to alter someone else’s words merely because one dislikes the words. If children in this generation are raised to live in denial of the past and what people have written, created, and taught, what is to become of history and the future society?

When discussing the issue of Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl’s books being altered because of “offensive language” in The Independent, author Louis Chilton notes that:

Artists have a right to the creative integrity of their work, even when the work is disagreeable; Dahl and Fleming, both long dead, are unable to consent to the changes. There is an argument to be made that softening the unpleasant edges of these books is an act of erasure or even historical denialism.[8]

To change and deny the author’s words is to change and deny his story, purpose, and meaning. This is indeed a serious falsity. Chilton then goes on to note in contrast that the Looney Tunes show puts a disclaimer on older episodes to signal to the watchers that the content was created at a different time and with perhaps a different sense of sensibility and propriety. This is a much safer, moral, and simpler way to signal to readers that the words in Dahl’s books may be found offensive to the current culture. Albert Mohler, host of The Briefing, says that this type of signal is, “an honest way to deal with such things, and it deals honestly with the importance of words.”[9] But is this truly the only issue going on with these alterations?

Unfortunately, this is merely a glimpse of the bigger picture. The current culture is so easily “offended” and “triggered” that they cannot stand to read or even allow words to exist that are now deemed offensive. These words, however, were not always seen as they are today in our constantly offended society. Everyone seems to have something that is “triggering” to them these days. This issue shows that society has become so fragile that words themselves are ceasing to be used. Where will this idealism and constant changing of words end? It looks as though there are no limits to the changes and alterations that must be made for the sake of those who are offended and triggered. If any word can now be deemed offensive, why not any concept? If any thought, idea, or concept can be deemed offensive, are words themselves to be stricken from human existence? This indeed seems like an outrageous idea, but is it truly so far-fetched given the current state of the culture and the drastic changes people are making to culture, society, and life in general?

While discussing the issue of Dahl’s books being altered, Albert Mohler says:

Now, as you look at that, you recognize there’s no end to it, which is actually the point. We all understand the need for sensitivity genuinely and respectfully applied, but at the same time, we are talking about the demolition of an entire project here, otherwise known as civilization. We’re talking about making language just about unusable.[10]

It is true that words have their meanings somewhat nuanced and altered over time, but to erase their use entirely is ridiculous. Where does the change cease? And who gets to decide what should and should not be used as culturally appropriate language? What standard is being used? Ultimately, the standard being used is merely personal feelings – which are constantly changing and always subjective from person to person.

Understanding that foul language or clearly hurtful words are unwanted is understandable, but even these words do not give someone the ability to simply wipe them away from another’s work. If someone is to make changes in Dahl’s books (such as the cloud men being changed to cloud people for the sake of gender inclusiveness) and then publish them as his work, it is indeed a kind of lie and falsity. This falsity could lead to much larger and more important changes to history, culture, and general language communication. Truth is now being exchanged for personal preferences and desires.

How Christians Should View and Respond to the Issue

Christians with an orthodox biblical worldview should constantly seek to uphold and encourage truth and honesty (Ephesians 4:25). The well-known saying that honesty is the best policy has not become so well-known for no reason. People throughout history, regardless of their faith, acknowledge that honesty and truth have intrinsic value and should be upheld. Once truth and honesty have been lost, chaos ensues, and clarity turns into a dim and shadowed light that cannot be found. Unfortunately, this loss of truth time seems to be the current setting of the culture at large. People have lost the concept of what truth really is and are now proclaiming their own “truth” in any given instance, whether it be that they are a man when they are a woman, that God is a unicorn, or that the word “guy” is too sexually specific and thus insulting. This post-truth era is a frightening era to live in since actual truth is being thrown out in exchange for personal feelings and desires. Self-deception and cultural confusion are running ramped, and it often seems as though there is no sure or solid ground upon which to stand in this ever-shifting and chaotic culture.

This deluded time, however, is exactly where God’s word and the gospel must be held on to more firmly and courageously. God has given humans His inspired word, which is unchanging and sure (Isaiah 40:8) since God Himself is unchanging and always steadfast (James 1:17). Yes, God has spoken to His people in words; words that are created to hold meaning, be understood, and carried on through the ages to continue telling the story of Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2, John 16:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Mark 16:15, Mark 13:10, 2 Corinthians 5:20, Psalm 96:3). This story is that God has sent His Son to save sinners.

The biblical narrative is completely centered around Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of the Christian’s foundation (Ephesians 2:19-22). Jesus Himself said, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock” (Matthew 7:24-25). All those who ground themselves in the truth of the Gospel and have faith in Christ’s Person and work will be firmly planted and have a sure foundation upon which to stand. This truth should encourage Christians tremendously; Christ has already overcome this corrupted world, and Christians can stand firm upon His finished and sure work amid the challenges of life, even persecution (John 16:33).

Conclusion

Dahl’s books should not be changed or altered, for ethical and historical reasons. To change his and others’ words because some people dislike them is immoral, deceptive, and false. One’s work should be allowed to remain their work even if others dislike it. The altering of his words is ultimately the result of a much larger culture war that is currently being waged. Should words and ideas be allowed to remain that some find offensive and triggering? If not, then where will the line be drawn? These questions are the important questions that now face society.

Truth and honesty should be fought for even in the midst of personal dislikes and preferences. Dahl’s books should not be rewritten for the sake of those who find his words offensive; if people dislike his books, they should not read them. End of story. Literature is part of history, and words make up literature. History must be preserved for the sake of truth and the current and next generations. Words must be allowed to remain, even when disliked at times.

Christians should see and understand that Dahl’s books should be allowed to remain as they are; to change them would be immoral and untruthful. Christians should furthermore be comforted knowing that the true word from God will always last no matter the shifting and unstable culture or society; “The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever” (1 Peter 1:24b-25a). His words will abide forever, and His truth is steadfast and sure throughout all ages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Albert Mohler. “How Did Roald Dahl End Up on the Wrong Side of Public History? The Velocity and Comprehensiveness of the Moral Revolution.” The Briefing (March 1, 2023): https://albertmohler.com/2023/03/01/briefing-3-1-23

[2] Canon Press Logic Series, Introductory Logic: The Fundamentals of Thinking Well (Moscow, Id: Canon Press, 2014), 10.

[3] Dennis McInerny, Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (New York: Random House, 2004), 11-12.

[4] Jason Crowder, Philosophy, Who Needs It: A Layman’s Introduction to Philosophy (Eugene, Or: WIPF & Stock Publishers, 2016), 100-101.

[5] David Mitchell, “Updating’ Roald Dahl? It’s the Same Old Story….” The Observer (February 26, 2023): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/26/updating-roald-dahl-same-old-story-david-mitchell.

[6] Louis Chilton, “Censoring Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming Has Nothing to Do with ‘Sensitivity.’” The Independent, (February 28, 2023): https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/james-bond-censored-offensive-roald-dahl-b2290856.html

[7] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are from the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2011), Psalm 5:6.

[8] Louis Chilton, “Censoring Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming Has Nothing to Do with ‘Sensitivity.’”

[9] Albert Mohler. “How Did Roald Dahl End Up on the Wrong Side of Public History? The Velocity and Comprehensiveness of the Moral Revolution.”

[10] Albert Mohler. “How Did Roald Dahl End Up on the Wrong Side of Public History? The Velocity and Comprehensiveness of the Moral Revolution.”