Religion is a Mental Illness

Franklin Roosevelt once famously said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” –which begs the question, what about Siberian Tigers? Or nuclear weapons? Or drunk drivers?But after one gets such sarcastic rejoinders out of one’s system, one has to acknowledge the point he was making. Fear is itself a dangerous thing. And when fear takes over a person, a community, a country, or a publishing world, bad things can happen.

And fear has indeed taken over the American publishing world – fear of social media firestorms, fear of career loss, fear of corporate financial loss, fear of being branded “racist” or some other negative label, fear of being hated, fear of being shunned. This fear has fostered major changes, none of them positive, in how books get made and received.

While the people who’ve foisted these changes defend them as “progress,” changes rooted in fear cannot possibly be progressive. Fear, especially of social media blowback, has prompted publishers to enforce the draconian “Own Voices” rule, a racist and pseudo-Marxist mandate which says that the author’s “identity” must match the subject matter – and that, specifically, authors from the “empowered” group must not be allowed to “appropriate” material from the “marginalized” group. Neither tribalism nor segregation are good for society, nor are they good for literature. A publishing rule codifying tribalism and segregation spells death to literary freedom, imagination, empathy, and any literary form other than memoir. It does not, in any way, represent “progress.” Artistic subject matter is not property, and attempts to establish it as such are beyond reactionary – they’re counter to the human spirit and to the very motivation for making art, a motivation which is by its boundless nature personal and fearless

Fear has also prompted publishers to avoid authors who express dissenting opinions, authors who dare to speak out against the oppressive straightjacket of Own Voices, for instance, or against what John McWhorter rightly calls the “woke racism” inherent in how the privileged leftwing white people running the publishing companies now signal their virtue – a kind of racism on full display in the movie “American Fiction,” which satirizes this culture mercilessly.

Fear has prompted publishers to avoid taking chances on any potentially controversial books. This is a major departure. Since books were first published, publishers took chances on books that might offend certain people, and often these books have helped move literature forward and at the very least expanded the notion of what is possible in a book.

Perhaps most alarmingly and insidiously, though, fear has prompted publishers into adhering to the oppressive notion that books must first and foremost promote societal progress – or what counts as societal progress to a powerful minority. Fear of the social media mob has sent most publishers on a juggernaut to publish books which abide by the ideological principles set forth by that small but vocal faction of the Left now called “woke” by pretty much everyone except for members of that faction. The idea that books primarily exist to promote a moral agenda, as determined by those in power, is the same suffocating anti-literary dogma adhered to by totalitarian states, most famously the Soviet Union under Stalin

None of this bodes well for the future of literature in America. But wait – there’s more: At this very moment, somewhere someone is going through some work of adult or children’s literature and removing all the naughty bits – or, as the censors call their noble line of work, “updating” these books, removing words that might possibly offend the delicate sensibilities of today’s fragile readers, removing passages that could cause what the censors call “harm.” It’s already happened to Roald Dahl and others. Who’s next?

Meanwhile, the National Council of Teachers of English and School Library Journal joined forces in 2022 to “refresh the canon” – making a new recommended summer reading list and “deselecting” certain classics from this list by dead white authors, such as Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, and The Complete Works of Williams Shakespeare.

This all sounds as if it could be taken straight from a mid-20th>-century dystopian novel such as Fahrenheit 451 or 1984. But it’s simply the reality of our current world. Where are the voices of outrage? Which is to say, where are the sincere voices of those who love and respect all good literature? Yes, there are those who complain loudly and bitterly about the dystopian reality of the publishing world – mostly the cynical rightwing Fox News pundits trying to score political points and rile up their base so as to win elections, while wholeheartedly supporting rightwing book bans. But where is the outrage from authors, editors, liberals, and others who, unlike the cynical rightwing critics of wokeness, truly value freedom of speech? Fear is what holds liberals and book-lovers back from speaking out against any of this tyrannical garbage. Next question: Is this fear truly warranted?

Would it actually take courage to overcome this paralyzing fear? Or is the situation more like the one in Bunuel’s “The Exterminating Angel,” in which the dinner party guests are trapped, unable to leave the party, solely due to a lack of will power? I tend to believe it’s mostly the latter. Yes, people are scared. But what they are scared of is miniscule compared with truly scary things that people deal with all the time – serious health problems, the fact guns outnumber people in America, bad drivers, you know, things that are life-threatening.

Editors believe they will be risking financial and reputational ruin if they publish a particular book or author that is “problematic.” In giving in to this unreasonable fear, they have handed over the reins of power to the social media bullies. There is nothing physically or otherwise stopping the editors from ignoring the bullies altogether, letting the social media firestorms play out, letting the lunatic fringe set their own heads on fire through sheer outrage, and then just quietly publishing whatever they themselves, thinking for themselves, believe is worthy of publication. This is how publishing used to work. There’s no reason why it can’t again – except for fear.

Courage is what Alexei Navalny displayed through his heroic tenure as the leading voice of resistance to the world’s most effective and resilient tyrant, Vladimir Putin. This courage cost him his life. For Christ’s sake, ignoring woke nonsense on social media does not take courage. It just takes a little integrity – and the willingness to think for oneself.

'Empty shelves with absolutely no books': Students, parents question school board's library weeding process | CBC News

Several Peel District School Board students, parents and community members are concerned about a seemingly inconsistent approach to a new bo

CBC

Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.

Those are all examples of books Reina Takata says she can no longer find in her public high school library in Mississauga, Ont., which she visits on her lunch hour most days.

In May, Takata says the shelves at Erindale Secondary School were full of books, but she noticed that they had gradually started to disappear. When she returned to school this fall, things were more stark.

"This year, I came into my school library and there are rows and rows of empty shelves with absolutely no books," said Takata, who started Grade 10 last week. 

She estimates more than 50 per cent of her school's library books are gone. 

In the spring, Takata says students were told by staff that "if the shelves look emptier right now it's because we have to remove all books [published] prior to 2008." 

Takata is one of several Peel District School Board (PDSB) students, parents and community members CBC Toronto spoke to who are concerned about a seemingly inconsistent approach to a new equity-based book weeding process implemented by the board last spring in response to a provincial directive from the Minister of Education. 

They say the new process, intended to ensure library books are inclusive, appears to have led some schools to remove thousands of books solely because they were published in 2008 or earlier.

Parents and students are looking for answers as to why this happened, and what the board plans to do moving forward.

Prior to publication, neither Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce's office, nor the Education Ministry, would comment on PDSB's implementation of Lecce's directive when contacted by CBC Toronto.

But in a statement Wednesday, the education minister said he has written to the board to immediately end this practice. 

"Ontario is committed to ensuring that the addition of new books better reflects the rich diversity of our communities," said Lecce. 

"It is offensive, illogical and counterintuitive to remove books from years past that educate students on Canada's history, antisemitism or celebrated literary classics."

Weeding books by publication date raises concerns

The process of weeding books from a library isn't new.

Libraries across the country follow weeding plans to dispose of damaged, mouldy and outdated books and to ensure their collections remain a trusted source of current information.

But Takata, who is of Japanese descent, is concerned weeding by publication date doesn't follow that norm and will erase important history.

"I think that authors who wrote about Japanese internment camps are going to be erased and the entire events that went on historically for Japanese Canadians are going to be removed," she said.  

"That worries me a lot."

Libraries not Landfills, a group of parents, retired teachers and community members says it supports standard weeding, but shares Takata's concerns about both fiction and nonfiction books being removed based solely on their publication date.

The group is also concerned about how subjective criteria like inclusivity will be interpreted from school to school in the later stages of the equity-based weeding process.

Tom Ellard, a PDSB parent and the founder of Libraries not Landfills, said teachers reached out to them to help raise awareness about the weeding process.

"Who's the arbiter of what's the right material to go in the library, and who's the arbiter of what's wrong in our libraries? That's unclear," he said. "It's not clear to the teachers who've provided us this material, and it's not clear to me as a parent or as a taxpayer."

Ellard says he's talked to the parent council, his son's principal and his school board trustee. He's also contacted members of the provincial government, but says he hasn't received a substantial response about what happened in the spring and how the process is intended to work.

School board defends process

CBC Toronto requested an interview with the PDSB to discuss how the weeding process works and how the board plans to proceed in the wake of concerns from parents and students. A spokesperson said staff were not available to speak as they were "focusing on students and school families this week." 

The board did not address questions about empty shelves, the volume of books removed and reports about weeding books based on the date of publication.

Instead, the board issued statements explaining that the process of weeding books from school libraries was completed in June and has always been a part of teacher librarian responsibilities within PDSB and at school boards across the country.

"Books published prior to 2008 that are damaged, inaccurate, or do not have strong circulation data (are not being checked out by students) are removed," said the board in its statement. 

If damaged books have strong circulation the board says they can be replaced regardless of publication date, and older titles can stay in the collection if they are "accurate, serve the curriculum, align with board initiatives and are responsive to student interest and engagement."

"The Peel District School Board works to ensure that the books available in our school libraries are culturally responsive, relevant, inclusive, and reflective of the diversity of our school communities and the broader society," said the board.

Weeding a response to minister's directive

CBC Toronto reviewed a copy of the internal PDSB documents Ellard's group obtained, which includes frequently asked questions and answers provided to school staff by the board, and a more detailed manual for the process titled "Weeding and Audit of Resource in the Library Learning Commons collection."

The documents lay out an "equitable curation cycle" for weeding, which it says was created to support Directive 18 from the Minister of Education based on a 2020 Ministry review and report on widespread issues of systematic discrimination within the PDSB. 

Directive 18 instructs the board to complete a diversity audit of schools, which includes libraries.

"The Board shall evaluate books, media and all other resources currently in use for teaching and learning English, History and Social Sciences for the purpose of utilizing resources that are inclusive and culturally responsive, relevant and reflective of students, and the Board's broader school communities," reads the directive.

How weeding works

PDSB's "equitable curation cycle" is described generally in the board document as "a three-step process that holds Peel staff accountable for being critically conscious of how systems operate, so that we can dismantle inequities and foster practices that are culturally responsive and relevant."

First, teacher librarians were instructed to focus on reviewing books that were published 15 or more years ago — so in 2008 or earlier.

Then, librarians were to go through each of those books and consider the widely-used "MUSTIE'' acronym adapted from Canadian School Libraries. The letters stand for the criteria librarians are supposed to consider, and they include:

• Misleading – information may be factually inaccurate or obsolete. • Unpleasant – refers to the physical condition of the book, may require replacement. • Superseded – book been overtaken by a new edition or a more current resource. • Trivial – of no discernible literary or scientific merit; poorly written or presented. • Irrelevant – doesn't meet the needs and interests of the library's community. • Elsewhere – the book or the material in it may be better obtained from other sources.

The deadline to complete this step was the end of June, according to the document. 

Step two of curation is an anti-racist and inclusive audit, where quality is defined by "resources that promote anti-racism, cultural responsiveness and inclusivity." And step three is a representation audit of how books and other resources reflect student diversity.

When it comes to disposing of the books that are weeded, the board documents say the resources are "causing harm," either as a health hazard because of the condition of the book or because "they are not inclusive, culturally responsive, relevant or accurate."

For those reasons, the documents say the books cannot be donated, as "they are not suitable for any learners." 

A PDSB spokesperson said the board supports its schools "in the disposal of books in a responsible manner by following Peel Region's recycling guidelines." Peel Region allows for the recycling of book paper, as long as hard covers and any other plastics are removed first and put in the garbage. 

Books removed based on date, board heard

It was during the first stage of the new equitable curation cycle, that Takata, Libraries not Landfills, and at least one trustee, say some schools were removing books strictly based on publication date.

CBC Toronto recently reviewed a recording of a May 8 board committee meeting focused on the new equitable weeding process. In it, trustee Karla Bailey noted "there are so many empty shelves," when she walks into schools. 

"When you talk to the librarian in the library, the books are being weeded by the date, no other criteria," Bailey told the committee. 

"That is where many of us have a real issue. None of us have an issue with removing books that are musty, torn, or racist, outdated. But by weeding a book, removing a book from a shelf, based simply on this date is unacceptable. And yes, I witnessed it."

Bernadette Smith, superintendent of innovation and research for PDSB, is heard responding on the recording, saying it was "very disappointing" to hear that, because she said that's not the direction the board is giving in its training for the process.

Dianne Lawson, another member of Libraries not Landfills, told CBC Toronto weeding by publication date in some schools must have occurred in order to explain why a middle school teacher told her The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank was removed from shelves. She also says a kindergarten teacher told her The Very Hungry Caterpillar had been removed as well.

"She has read it to her classes for years, they love it," Lawson said, referring to the Eric Carle picture book. 

"I can't find any sedition in it, or any reason why you would pull this book."

Process 'rolled out wrong,' trustee chair says

Trustee and chair of the board, David Green, told CBC Toronto the weeding process itself "rolled out wrong." 

That's why he says trustees briefly paused the process until the board could get a better understanding of what was actually going on. 

A motion was passed at a May 24 board meeting to ensure that, going forward, those weeding books during the anti-racist and inclusive audit in the second phase of the curation cycle would need to document the title and reason for removal before any books were disposed of.

"We have to make sure that we are meeting the needs of the students and not just rolling something out because we were told to do it," said Green. 

When it comes to removing all books published in 2008 or earlier, Green said the board of trustees has heard that, too. 

"We have asked the Director [of Education] again to make sure that if that is taking place, then that is stopped, and then the proper process is followed," he said.

Green also said they have plans to communicate with parents about the weeding process.

In the meantime, students like Takata are left with half-empty shelves and questions about why they weren't consulted about their own libraries. 

"No one asked for our opinions," she said. "I feel that taking away books without anyone's knowledge is considered censorship."

Heresy Press | Unbounded Creativity - Fearless Expression

Heresy Press promotes the 'radical middle' that lies between the narrow ideological, non-aesthetic interests presently flourishing on both t

Heresy Press

Founded in January 2023, Heresy Press addresses a growing void in today’s literary marketplace where conformity and timidity increasingly hold sway. When authors self-censor, agents select works along narrow ideological preferences, and publishers hedge their bets in order to avoid offending anyone, then literature loses. Heresy Press is here to give oxygen to unfettered creativity and to provide a home for authors and works that are not currently favored through the conventional publishing channels. Fiction in all of its forms is the mainstay of Heresy Press, with adult literary fiction, satire, comedy, speculative fiction, and young adult books leading the charge.

“Publishers have adopted a defensive crouch, taking pre-emptive measures to avoid controversy and criticism. Now, many books the left might object to never make it to bookshelves because a softer form of banishment happens earlier in the publishing process: scuttling a project for ideological reasons before a deal is signed, or defusing or eliminating ‘sensitive’ material in the course of editing…. All of this is happening against the backdrop of a recent spate of shameful book bans that comes largely from the right.” (Pamela Paul, New York Times, July 24, 2022)

The new press serves as a real alternative to conventional publishers—both large and small—who increasingly deploy “soft” censorship tactics to avoid landing in hot water over boundary-pushing or “heretical” materials. Instead of adopting a “defensive crouch,” Heresy Press stands proudly for unbounded creativity and fearless expression. We discourage authors from descending into self-censorship; we don’t blink at alleged acts of cultural appropriation; we don’t pander to the presumed sensitivities of hypothetical readers; and we can hardly imagine conditions under which we would consider a retraction. Instead of playing it safe, Heresy Press is unafraid of controversy and criticism. Its ultimate commitment is to enduring quality standards, i.e. literary merit, originality, relevance, courage, humor, and aesthetic appeal. Every serious submission will receive a sympathetic hearing, regardless of the author’s age, gender identity, racial affiliation, political orientation, culture, religion, non-religion, cancellation status, etc. Fiction in all of its forms is the mainstay of Heresy Press, with adult literary fiction, satire, comedy, speculative fiction, and young adult books leading the charge.

Heresy Press is committed to freedom, honesty, openness, dissent, and real diversity in all of its manifestations. We resist conformity and instead operate within the Millsian model of the free market place of ideas. But while we stand firmly behind the First Amendment, any speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, notably incitement to violence, libel, targeted harassment, perjury, obscenity, etc. will not be considered for publication. We think of fiction as a realm that needs as much, if not more, freedoms to thrive in than common forms of real-world discourse: “No human endeavor requires freedom as much as creativity does” (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie). Heresy Press will consider contributions that some on this planet might deem blasphemous, politically problematic, inconvenient, or impolite, and it will never engage “sensitivity readers” to screen out such aspects. “All great truths begin as blasphemies” (George Bernard Shaw). Heresy Press and its products and representatives shall not be drawn into the vortex of cancel culture, with its apologies, mea-culpas, retractions, atonements, propitiations, etc. and instead focus on what matters—unfettered creativity and fearless imagination.

Heresy Press Newsletter #1 - Heresy Press

In this Issue: Welcome to the world of Heresy Press, Guest mini-essay on creative freedom by Tom Casey, Preview of forthcoming Heresy Press

Heresy Press

• Heresy Press treats authors with respect, which means answering queries and submissions personally, and in a timely manner.
• Heresy Press does not prescreen submissions according to identity criteria, and it does not hire Sensitivity Readers.
• Heresy Press doesn’t charge for submissions and it will never ask authors to contribute financially to their publication.
• Heresy Press pays a generous across-the-board royalty on the net profit of all income streams generated by publications of the press, thereby greatly simplifying and disentangling the often complex and opaque process of calculating payments to authors.
• Heresy Press runs a very lean operation with lots of professional volunteerism and little overhead cost, thus generating better returns for authors and progressing at a fast pace.
• Heresy Press nimbly negotiates between print-on-demand and print-run approaches while also issuing e-books and audio-books.

1. Authors must write in own-voice. If they portray characters other than members of their own identity group, they are guilty of cultural appropriation. Sensitivity readers stand by to flag any transgressions that agents, editors, and publishers may have missed (or merely suspected).
2. Authors must take an approved stance on minorities, diversity, transgenderism, racism, guns, immigration, etc., and Sensitivity Readers will make sure that authors stay within the prescribed safe lanes.
3. Authors must not make anybody uncomfortable by depictions of discrimination, racism, oppression, harassment, or violence, except in explicit condemnation of them, and treatments of Islam are inherently suspect. The Sensitivity Reader’s job is not done until no “problematic” scenes are left standing.
4. There must be no ideological ambivalence in the text. The reader should not have to wonder whether the author sanctions the views and actions of her characters. Instead, there must be congruence between the opinions of the writer and the conduct and mindset of her literary creations.

Salman Rushdie attacks Roald Dahl rewrites as ‘absurd censorship’

Satanic Verses author, who lived under a fatwa for 30 years and narrowly survived an attack last summer, said publishers ‘should be ashamed’

The Telegraph

Sir Salman Rushdie has attacked the rewriting of Roald Dahl books as "absurd censorship" at the hands of “bowdlerising sensitivity police”.

In new editions of Roald Dahl’s beloved stories, Augustus Gloop is no longer fat, Mrs Twit is no longer fearfully ugly, and the Oompa-Loompas have gone gender-neutral.

The publisher, Puffin, has made hundreds of changes to the original text, removing many of Dahl’s classic, timeless and colourful descriptions and making his characters less grotesque.

Sensitivity readers were brought in to review Dahl’s language so the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”, Puffin said.

Sir Salman, who as author of The Satanic Verses has been a pioneer of free enquiry and lived under constant threats to his life, became the most high-profile person in the literary world to condemn the decision on Sunday.

He wrote on Twitter: "Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed."

He wrote on Twitter:

Sir Salman later tweeted in response to a critic: "He was a self confessed antisemite, with pronounced racist leanings, and he joined in the attack on me back in 1989… but thanks for telling me off for defending his work from the bowdlerizing Sensitivity Police."

Sir Salman, was stabbed more than a dozen times on stage last August at a literary festival at the Chautauqua Institution in New York state, leaving him blind in one eye. After writing The Satanic Verses, Iran issued a fatwa death sentence for "blasphemy" and his book was banned in 45 Islamic countries.

Other literary figures also rounded on the changes.

Comedian David Baddiel posted a screenshot of one of the changes to a passage in The Twits that removes the words "double chin", adding: "The problem with the Dahl bowdlerisation is it has no logical consistency.

"Here, double chin has been cut, presumably to avoid fat shaming. But what about wonky nose or crooked teeth shaming? Once you start on this path you can end up with blank pages."

Meanwhile, Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of literature and human rights organisation PEN America, said she was "alarmed" at the changes, which "could represent a dangerous new weapon".

“The problem with taking license to re-edit classic works is that there is no limiting principle," she tweeted.

“You start out wanting to replace a word here and a word there, and end up inserting entirely new ideas (as has been done to Dahl’s work).

"Literature is meant to be surprising and provocative. That's part of its potency. By setting out to remove any reference that might cause offense you dilute the power of storytelling."

Katharine Birbalsingh, a headteacher and Britain's former social mobility commissioner, added of the changes: "How is this even legal?"

The Telegraph revealed last week how hundreds of changes have been made to updated prints of Dahl's stories, bringing them into line with contemporary sensitivities, with words and phrases on weight, mental health, violence, gender and race expunged.

The word “fat” has been removed from every book - Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may still look like a ball of dough, but can now only be described as “enormous”.

In the same story, the Oompa-Loompas are no longer “tiny”, “titchy” or “no higher than my knee” but merely small. And where once they were “small men”, they are now “small people”.

The words “black” and “white” have been removed: characters no longer turn “white with fear” and the Big Friendly Giant in The BFG cannot wear a black cloak.

In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat/And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire/And dry as a bone, only drier.”

Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the underwhelming rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute/And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same/And deserves half of the blame.”

In a section of The Witches, another reference to a "double chin" has been removed.

Prof Frank Furedi, an expert in the sociology of fear at the University of Kent, told The Telegraph: "What we have here is a knee-jerk cleansing of the literature of the past and they are turning works of literature into recipe books for their own wokeish values.

"This is only the beginning because the role of sensitivity readers is expanding all the time.

"Whereas they were initially hired to read new books submitted to them, now they're going back through the literature of the past almost as grievance archaeologists, trying to unearth words that might offend them."

Dahl died in 1990 and his family subsequently apologised for anti-Semitic remarks during his lifetime, but he is still regarded as one of the world's best storytellers.

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

-- George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty- Four"

LONDON (AP) — Publisher Penguin Random House announced Friday it will publish “classic” unexpurgated versions of Roald Dahl’s children’s novels after it received criticism for cuts and rewrites that were intended to make the books suitable for modern readers.

Along with the new editions, the company said 17 of Dahl’s books would be published in their original form later this year as “The Roald Dahl Classic Collection” so “readers will be free to choose which version of Dahl’s stories they prefer.”

The move comes after criticism of scores of changes made to “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and other much-loved classics for recent editions published under the company’s Puffin children’s label, in which passages relating to weight, mental health, gender and race were altered.

Augustus Gloop, Charlie’s gluttonous antagonist in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” — originally published in 1964 — became “enormous” rather than “enormously fat.” In “Witches,” an “old hag” became an “old crow,” and a supernatural female posing as an ordinary woman may be a “top scientist or running a business” instead of a “cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman.”

In “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” the word “black” was removed from a description of the “murderous, brutal-looking” tractors.

The Roald Dahl Story Company, which controls the rights to the books, said it had worked with Puffin to review and revise the texts because it wanted to ensure that “Dahl’s wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today.”

While tweaking old books for modern sensibilities is not a new phenomenon in publishing, the scale of the edits drew strong criticism from free-speech groups such as writers’ organization PEN America, and from authors including Salman Rushdie.

Rushdie, who lived under threat of death from Iran’s Islamic regime for years because of the alleged blasphemy of his novel “The Satanic Verses,” called the revisions “absurd censorship.”

Rushdie, who was attacked and seriously injured last year at an event in New York state, tweeted news of Penguin’s change of heart on Friday with the words “Penguin Books back down after Roald Dahl backlash!”

PEN America chief executive Suzanne Nossel wrote on Twitter: “I applaud Penguin for hearing out critics, taking the time to rethink this, and coming to the right place.”

Camilla, Britain’s queen consort, appeared to offer her view at a literary reception on Thursday. She urged writers to “remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination.”

Dahl’s books, with their mischievous children, strange beasts and often beastly adults, have sold more than 300 million copies and continue to be read by children around the world. Their multiple stage and screen adaptations include “Matilda the Musical” and two “Willy Wonka” films based on “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” with a third in the works.

But Dahl, who died in 1990, is also a controversial figure because of antisemitic comments made throughout his life. His family apologized in 2020.

In 2021, Dahl’s estate sold the rights to the books to Netflix, which plans to produce a new generation of films based on the stories.

Francesca Dow, managing director of Penguin Random House Children’s, said the publisher had “listened to the debate over the past week which has reaffirmed the extraordinary power of Roald Dahl’s books and the very real questions around how stories from another era can be kept relevant for each new generation.”

“Roald Dahl’s fantastic books are often the first stories young children will read independently, and taking care for the imaginations and fast-developing minds of young readers is both a privilege and a responsibility,” she said.

“We also recognize the importance of keeping Dahl’s classic texts in print,” Dow said. “By making both Puffin and Penguin versions available, we are offering readers the choice to decide how they experience Roald Dahl’s magical, marvelous stories.”

The Futility of Trigger Warnings

British universities are repeating the mistakes of their American counterparts.

persuasion.community

Just days into the new year, Scottish papers reported that the University of Aberdeen had slapped a trigger warning on J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan, a classic children’s novel about a place where nobody ever grows up. The reason: the book’s “odd perspectives on gender” may prove “emotionally challenging” to some adult undergraduates, even though it contains “no objectionable material.”

Yes, you read that right—a children’s book now comes with a trigger warning for adults. What’s more, Peter Pan is not the only children’s book to come with an advisory at Aberdeen. Among others are Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, Edith Nesbit’s The Railway Children and C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Last year the university put a trigger warning on Beowulf, the epic poem considered one of the most significant works in the English literary canon, for its depictions of “animal cruelty” and “ableism.” The year before that, the university pushed lecturers to issue content warnings for a long list of topics including abortion, miscarriage, childbirth, depictions of poverty, classism, blasphemy, adultery, blood, alcohol and drug abuse.

Aberdeen is not the only British university following in the steps of American counterparts. The University of Derby issued trigger warnings for Greek tragedies. The University of Warwick put a content advisory on Thomas Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd for “rather upsetting scenes concerning the cruelty of nature and the rural life.” At the University of Greenwich, the death of an albatross in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s 18th century poem, was deemed “potentially upsetting” and stuck with a content notice.

This trend is alarming for several reasons. First, it runs counter to research on the effects of such advisories. As early as 2020 the consensus, based on 17 studies using a range of media, was that trigger warnings do not alleviate emotional distress, and they do not significantly reduce negative affect or minimize intrusive thoughts. Notably, these advisories, which were at least initially introduced out of consideration for people suffering from PTSD, “were not helpful even when they warned about content that closely matched survivors’ traumas.”

On the contrary, researchers found that trigger warnings actually increased the anxiety of individuals with the most severe PTSD, prompting them to “view trauma as more central to their life narrative.” A recent meta-analysis of such warnings found the same thing: the only reliable effect was that people felt more anxious after receiving the warning. The researchers concluded that these warnings “are fruitless,” and “trigger warnings should not be used as a mental health tool.”

But beyond the fact that trigger warnings don’t work in general, there is something particularly perverse about appending them to works of literature and art.

Engaging with art is not simply a matter of extracting information or following the storyline. Rather, as Salman Rushdie once put it, literature allows us “to explore the highest and lowest places in human society… to find not absolute truth but the truth of the tale, of the imagination and of the heart.” Literature cultivates an aesthetic sensibility, a deeper sense of empathy, and allows you to be taken out of yourself in a way that only art can do. Joyce Carol Oates characterizes it as “the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin, another’s voice, another’s soul.”

In other words, literature is transformative precisely because it has the ability to shock and surprise. It can jolt us out of complacency, force us to contend with the uncertain, the strange and even the ugly. For Franz Kafka, the only books worth reading are the ones that “wound or stab us.” He observed:

Contending with “the frozen sea” opens the door for the kind of contemplation that is necessary for growth. When a classic such as Beowulf comes with “animal cruelty” and “ableism” on the cover, a piece of literature that offers us a unique window into the traditions and values of medieval Anglo-Saxons is devalued, and simply becomes a text riddled with “problematic” themes.

I can’t help but think that something is broken when universities, the very institutions entrusted with helping young minds mature, infantilize students by treating them as fragile creatures. What accounts for this shift?

Students across Britain seem to be in favor of trigger warnings. According to a survey published by the Higher Education Policy Institute last year, 86% of students support trigger warnings (up from 68% in 2016). More than a third think instructors should be fired if they “teach material that heavily offends some students” (up from just 15% in 2016).

Sadly, it appears that universities in Britain have fallen prey to the kind of corporate logic that is already firmly entrenched in the United States. This growing managerial approach with its customer-is-always-right imperative is increasingly evident in university policies.

Indeed, it explicitly underpins Aberdeen’s decision to use trigger warnings. As the University spokesperson explained: “Similar to the way that content warnings are routinely applied by broadcasters, students are informed about the content of the texts and, as critically mature adults, they are empowered to make their own decision about which text to read. Our guidelines on content warnings were developed in collaboration with student representatives and we have never had any complaints about them—on the contrary students have expressed their admiration for our approach.”

But university is not a television or radio show. Far from it. It’s a place where students come for an education. A model where faculty and administrators pander to student sensitivities—to the extent that it starts undermining the mission of the university—would be comical were it not so serious. If we fail to equip our students with the skills and sensibilities necessary to cope with life, we are doing them a great disservice.

When adult university students ask for trigger warnings for children’s literature, we as a society should realize that somewhere along the line, we lost the plot. Instead of coddling our students we should be asking why they feel so emotionally brittle. Might it be that their fragility is the result of limited exposure to what constitutes the human condition and the range of human experience? Is shielding them and managing their experience of art and literature not just exacerbating their sense of vulnerability?

Perhaps, in the end, what they need is unmediated, warning-free immersion in more literature, not less.

Other universities have competed to see who can invent the most asinine warnings: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (1599) has a plot that “centres on a murder”; Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped (1886) “contains depictions of murder, death, family betrayal and kidnapping”; Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea (1952) includes scenes of “graphic fishing.” Even George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has been slapped with a warning that students might find the contents “offensive and upsetting.” Of course, those who would assume that a famous dystopian novel would be inoffensive and uplifting probably shouldn’t be studying literature in the first place.