I've been reading translations of Satyajit Ray's Feluda detective series with my eight year old. While the mysteries are interesting enough, what sticks out as a sore thumb is the fact that they have not been "modernized".
Let me explain.
Feluda thinks nothing of lighting a cigarette as he mulls over his case. At the time the story was originally written, smoking probably wasn't considered a health hazard and Satyajit Ray wrote what he did. Fast forward to the present where we now know all about the evil health effect of smoking, and guide our children away from the concept. Naturally the eight year old wants to know why Feluda is indulging in a smoke when we "all" know that's it's not good for health!
It would have made the books so much more acceptable if the translator had eliminated the bits around "puffed at his cigarette".
It isn't as if this has never been done before. In the Noddy series' created by Enid Blyton, the naughty black golliwog has been replaced by nice sweet Dinah Doll who is also black.
Why can't we do the same?
Let me explain.
Feluda thinks nothing of lighting a cigarette as he mulls over his case. At the time the story was originally written, smoking probably wasn't considered a health hazard and Satyajit Ray wrote what he did. Fast forward to the present where we now know all about the evil health effect of smoking, and guide our children away from the concept. Naturally the eight year old wants to know why Feluda is indulging in a smoke when we "all" know that's it's not good for health!
It would have made the books so much more acceptable if the translator had eliminated the bits around "puffed at his cigarette".
It isn't as if this has never been done before. In the Noddy series' created by Enid Blyton, the naughty black golliwog has been replaced by nice sweet Dinah Doll who is also black.
Why can't we do the same?
I don't see why we should re-write books. Part of the importance of books is that they give us a window into the thoughts of the author's time - the prevailing attitudes, mores, and stereotypes of that era. There's a tremendous amount to be learned from those attitudes and experiences, both good and bad. Rewriting those books to fit current moral standards misses the much larger, and much more important point of reading - to engage with an author and her times, to understand - not necessarily to agree with - her point of view, and to think critically about what she says and what it means.
ReplyDeleteTo edit the book to fit today's standards will take away the opportunity to have a much more fruitful conversation with the eight year old, centering around cultural and moral evolution - to learn that people didn't always think the way we do today, and in the future, they won't think like we do today. At the end of the day, revisionism has no place in literature - we have no right to change the author's work because the moral context surrounding it has changed. An author's work, imperfect as it might be, stands in the context of its times, and rather than changing the work to fit current context, a much more fruitful exercise would be understanding and engaging with that context, to better understand who we are today and why we think differently.
Amal -- I basically agree with your point, except that 8 is too young to be exposed to "critical thinking" style literature. At that age, children still see the world as black and white, and it's good to expose them to "correct" things.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the Amal.You can always explain the child how world has evolved , if you think he is too small to understand , you can yourself skip reading them.How do you manage then with the adv. of todays age on TV, newspapers and other media.
ReplyDelete