Editing Old Children's Books
The discussion
Niamh: I'm against publishers quietly editing old children's books to remove words now considered offensive. A book is a record of its time, and readers deserve to see what the author actually wrote.
Sanjay: As a primary teacher, I see it differently. If I read a class a passage with a slur in it, the damage to one child in the room is immediate, whereas the historical value is something adults care about.
Rosa: I'm somewhere between you. I'd keep the original text in print, but there's nothing wrong with a clearly labelled school edition, the way we already have abridged versions and modern-spelling editions of older plays.
Niamh: Labelled editions I don't mind; it's the silent replacement of the original that bothers me, where nobody knows the text has changed.
Sanjay: I'd accept the labelling requirement. My real priority is that the version in a classroom doesn't hurt anyone, and I don't need the original to disappear from bookshops.
Rosa: Then we're close to agreeing: original stays available, edited versions must say on the cover what was altered, and schools pick what suits their pupils. A short introduction explaining the context would do even more good than cutting words.
Niamh: An introduction instead of edits would be my first choice, but if changes are made, labelling is the least I'd expect.