How do you feel about the Roald Dahl Company editing the deceased author’s works to remove some words that could be deemed offensive?

👍 Strongly agree (6%) – "Not all art is static, and while art reflects the time it was created, updating it for a new generation makes sense for works like these, which are fantastical childhood adventures. Hopefully they include a blurb in the beginning with an explanation, and of course there are still 200M unedited books out there."

📈 Agree/Somewhat agree (9%) – "I appreciate the changes. Dahl’s stories are incredible, but they often do not keep pace with social norms and appropriate content. (Just like so many things don’t.) I would love for his pros to remain relevant and engaging, rather than have them fade out of be banned altogether because they become too inappropriate or irrelevant. However, I hope there is a foreword to every altered book that explains the motivation and process behind the alterations. That historical documentation is important."

🤷 Neutral (4%) – "I see both sides on this issue. On the one hand, it's messing with the creative expression of the author. On the other hand, the changes aren't fundamental to the stories and keep the books (which are generally delightful) from falling to the wayside due to dated references."

📉 Disagree/Somewhat disagree (21%) – "While removing these words may be beneficial to the behavior and growth of children, censorship isn't the best route. Reading books as is is a way for that new generation to learn about the history of society. Knowing where we've been compared to where we are now can feel empowering to those youth as they grow up. By censoring these books, you're not only creating a false sense of history, but a false sense of reality. Although it's a small factor, small things still affect people in the long run."

• "I think the issues raised by these out of date phrases and ideas can be addressed as a teaching example of how views have changed for the better over the years. White-washing does nothing but cover up the problems, kids deserve better than that. I also believe this is a dangerous precedent – what else can be quietly altered in this way?"

👎 Strongly disagree (60%) – "It is important to keep and appreciate art in its original form. Art, and literature in particular, reflects the time period in which it was created. It opens a window to the past that is important to understand. In altering the content we are losing precious learning opportunities for both children and adults."

• "To edit Roald Dahl's original work to be more politically correct is very alarming to me. Instead of molding his work to match the times, it's important to maintain its originality--a representation of the time frame it was written in. As an English teacher and a parent of kids who consume this material, it's a great conversation starter to compare and contrast how our way of thinking and our way of describing certain things has evolved over time--perhaps for the better. But to go in and edit his original goes against his intent and what he saw to be true at that time. I'm not a fan of this at all."

"It’s simple. We’re modifying historical content rather than teaching about it. What’s next? This is a slippery slope and sets a precedent for future publishers to remove or modify anything they deem offensive. What would “A Tale of Two Cities” look like if they used the same editing? What about “Johnny Tremain” or other books written about colonial America? Editing “offensive” content merely because we now deem it offensive is not much different from editing historical narrative because we don’t like how it portrays our ancestors."

• "Roald Dahl’s books are a product of his time and should not simply be changed to reflect ours. By changing his books, they are also in a way rewriting history, for it glosses over people’s viewpoints back then. It also prevents the opportunity for kids to be taught critically about different topics. If a parent is truly bothered by the content in Dahl’s books, they should take the time to explain why what he wrote is wrong, rather than never expose their children to it."