Alterations

[tix]

Just glanced at a book entitled 'The Sea Of Adventure' (1950) and on page #60 Kiki is screeching,

"Huffin and puffin. God save the King!" (puffin has no capital)

Presumably a little editing has occurred that manifests only in later editions of the books because when I read older copies to children in the Seventies I can't recall the parrot ever squawking -

"God Save The Queen."

If hardback editions are still being printed maybe they too were changed and if so, then another modification is due seeing it's once again - 'God Save The King.'

Unfortunately I no longer have the Smugs series in paperback so the script can't be checked.

[pete9012S]

Most interesting Tix.
My 1953 hardback still says "King".

[Boatbuilder]

I really can't see why such text should be altered if that was the situation when it was written. I'm sure any books by the likes of Charles Dickens aren't altered to reflect the gender of the changing monarchs, if they are referred to in the book.

[Fiona1986]

Kiki definitely says Queen in some later editions but I couldn't tell you which exact ones. I'm now wondering if she will revert back to King - will current/future publishers even realise that they are reverting and not just updating??

[pete9012S]

Yes, I thought that Fiona!
If the original books had been left alone they would be fine.

I can't believe how much editing has been done to my early 1970's paperback Maxey's.
Much more than I originally thought - but hey ho, they do have Maxey internals!!!

[Anita Bensoussane]

My 1977 Piccolo paperback copy of The Sea of Adventure still has "King".

[Wolfgang]

As far as I know Kiki says "God save the Queen" one time in "The River of adventure", and that bit has been left out in the first German translation.

[IceMaiden]

I really can't see why such text should be altered if that was the situation when it was written. I'm sure any books by the likes of Charles Dickens aren't altered to reflect the gender of the changing monarchs, if they are referred to in the book.

Agreed BB. What is in the book is written as was the event of the time and changing it makes it look like it was written at a different time which is pointless and deceptive. I don't think any text in a book should be altered from what the author originally wrote, otherwise it's not really theirs is it? If it's not their words it's not their work. Think I've said before but people don't take 16th century paintings and paint over bits no longer relevant so why do the equivalent to books. (It also seems to only be Enid Blyton books too but as they're all I read I could be wrong on that).

[Fiona1986]

I don't think that it is just EB books, but most of the other examples I've read of are authors changing their own work some years later. Such as Mary Poppins which had two 'updates' done by P.L. Travers, one for the text and another for the accompanying illustrations.

A book I was reading this evening had, when it was first published, a character with the surname Kardashian. This was changed to something less famous for a recent republication.

I would like to have a look at a recent copy of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator as there's a good few pages in that which I can't imagine being published now!

[Courtenay]

I would like to have a look at a recent copy of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator as there's a good few pages in that which I can't imagine being published now!

Which parts are you thinking of, Fiona? I haven't read that book since I was little and so I can't immediately think of anything that stands out as unpublishable by today's standards.

I do remember discovering, some years after I first read it (in a later edition), that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory originally had the Oompa-Loompas as black pygmies from Africa — rescued, of course, from their dreadful situation by Willy Wonka — and one character commenting that they look like Mr Wonka has made them out of chocolate. I'm not surprised all that was edited out some time before the late 1980s!!

[Anita Bensoussane]

Other children's books which have undergone some editing include L. Frank Baum's 'Oz' stories, Ruby Ferguson's 'Jill' series and Hugh Lofting's 'Doctor Dolittle' books.

[Fiona1986]

Courtenay - the section where the American President is making phone calls to other nations. He tries to call the Chinese president and gets a load of wrong numbers and there's a joke about there being so many Wings and Wongs. All the Chinese people he speaks to say L instead of R and use broken English - including the Assistant Premier of the country. His name is Chu-On-Dat, the Premier is How-Yu-Bin. I'm sure he also calls Native Americans Indians as well.

[Courtenay]

Oh yes, of course — because "every time you Wing you get the Wong number". That all went rather over my head as a 6- or 7-year-old with no knowledge of world politics (I'm not sure I even quite understood what the term "politician" actually meant)!! It's not even an particularly important part of the story, so I can't see any problem with cutting it out or changing it into something that doesn't involve stupid racial stereotypes.

I DO recall very clearly that I found all the bits with the American President dreadfully boring and was so relieved when the Elevator finally crashed back through the roof of the chocolate factory and we were back to earth, literally! But even then, most of the rest of the plot is taken up with Wonka's magic formulas to make people younger or older, and the perils of overdosing on either, none of which is anywhere near as exciting a saga for young readers as the first book was. Looking back on what I remember of it, it's a really quite bizarre and uneven book and it definitely hasn't aged well. (Unlike Grandma Georgina turning 350-something, or whatever it was?! )

[Fiona1986]

This is only my second time of reading it - I remember being really disappointed as a child because I was expecting great things following on from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I barely remembered anything about it other than they went into space and met aliens (and it was very disappointing). I'm only reading it now as I have a 2-in-1 edition and Brodie refused to let me stop reading halfway through a book... I then foolishly gave the US President a deep raspy voice as described in the text and very soon after regretted it greatly as I'm now stuck doing it for pages at a time. I forgot how much he was in it!

[IceMaiden]

I don't think that it is just EB books, but most of the other examples I've read of are authors changing their own work some years later. Such as Mary Poppins which had two 'updates' done by P.L. Travers, one for the text and another for the accompanying illustrations.

A book I was reading this evening had, when it was first published, a character with the surname Kardashian. This was changed to something less famous for a recent republication.

I would like to have a look at a recent copy of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator as there's a good few pages in that which I can't imagine being published now!

Authors changing their own work is fine, it's theirs and they can change it if they want to. What I don't agree with is other people altering the original author's work because years later some of society don't agree with what they wrote. It was acceptable in the time it was written and should be left alone. Perhaps include a page in the front of modern editions stating "this book was written at a time when such and such...", same as the announcements you get on Talking Pictures before an old programme. The reader can then choose to continue or not. Much better than altering the author's work. You cannot and should not change history like that. A lot of things that were acceptable in the past aren't now - Henry the eighth used to guillotine people, so did the French. You wouldn't dream of doing that now but that doesn't mean a book can't mention it was done at that time. Why does everything nowadays need to 'reflect modern views'? There was life before that! Trying to pretend nothing ever happened or updating text to paint it a different picture is silly. It did happen and not having any writing about it won't make it not have.