Anne here and today I’m musing on the growing tendency to “clean up history” in fiction.
You might not know this, but the US publishers of Georgette Heyer have rewritten some of her books to be more acceptable to modern audiences. For instance, the scene in The Grand Sophy where Sophy confronts Goldhanger, the sinister Jewish moneylender, and retrieves her young cousin’s IOU receipts, has been “cleaned up.” In the original, he’s decribed as a “thin, swarthy individual, with long, greasy curls, a semitic nose, and an ingratiating leer.”
Yes, he’s not exactly an admirable character, and vividly (and nastily) portrayed, but there were Jewish moneylenders at the time and some of them were bound to be dodgy and downright dishonest, just as there are crooks in all walks of life and from all backgrounds.
He’s now being rewritten so as not to appear Jewish. In the new version, the moneylender’s name has been changed to Grimpstone. References to his Jewish identity and appearance have been deleted, along with other negative generalizations about Jews. He’s now a “thin individual with an ingratiating leer,” a description which can offend nobody—and also carries little of the vibrant effect of the original.
It’s true that Heyer occasionally portrayed Jews in a stereotypical and antisemitic way — not uncommon to her generation, and certainly true to the historical period in which her books were set. And yes, it can be offensive — but times, and attitudes change. And should we sweep it under the carpet? Can’t we learn from the attitudes of the past?
I’ve seen numerous debates about the changing of this scene, with some loudly applauding, while others argue that it’s like removing Shylock from Shakespeare.
In another one of Heyer’s books a lady sends for her black page. He’s now been turned into a general page of no special distinction — thus removing any hint of slavery, as if it never existed. Why? Isn’t it important to see that?
And there are numerous examples of outdated thinking and assumptions — especially to do with class consciousness — throughout her books.
I’ve heard people complain bitterly about the classism of so many of her characters, but I like the snobbery and class distinctions in her books, even though in a real life modern context they would be abhorrent to me. They’re often very funny.
A lot of the complainers completely miss the humour and the ironic tone in her writing that makes it such a joy to read. And it’s not as if people weren’t crashing snobs in the past — and snobbism is still alive and flourishing today, it’s just slightly better disguised.
It was a major aspect of the period and world she was writing about, where the social world was changing, and aristocratic privilege was being challenged and the aristocracy was desperately closing ranks against “outsiders” and it’s one of the things that makes this period so fascinating — at least to me. And is a rich source for fiction. If we remove all those scenes and references that can jar on modern readers, it whittles away the richness and the sense of history that I so enjoy in her books.
In These Old Shades, which was my first ever Heyer, read when I was eleven, two babies are swapped at birth — the farmer’s son to be raised as a noble and the nobleman’s daughter to be raised as a farm girl. Throughout the novel the nobly-raised farmer’s son has an embarrassing interest in the raising of pigs, and inexplicable yearnings to be on the land, while the roughly raised nobleman’s daughter had a natural instinctive delicacy and inborn nobility. This kind of thinking was no doubt quite common in the past, but modern readers know better. Despite not believing that kind of “natural destiny” notion for a second, I still thoroughly enjoy the book, and am able to accept and enjoy the premise.
History is not just about fashions and carriages and houses and balls. It should also show attitudes and prejudices and assumptions — right or wrong by modern standards. And I think we are short-changing readers who come to our books wanting entertainment and history if we sanitize everything to fit modern sensibilities
And where will all this “sanitizing” end? There are so many aspects of Heyer’s stories that don’t quite fit with modern sensibilities, so do we keep ironing them out until we have a bland book that offends nobody — and pleases nobody as well?
Stephen Fry said it best: “such is the game that Heyer plays with the reader: the recreation of an age faultless enough in setting and in prose to immerse us in the era so completely that we abandon our 20th-century attitudes and ethics (Heyer wrote from the mid-1930s to the 1970s) and slip into the sensibilities of another age. We, the reader, do not bring our thinking to her stories; she brings Regency thinking to us. We can mock, disparage and howl with outrage as much as we like at what we see as unchecked racism, sexism, snobbery and suppression, but this is how the world was, truly was, and if we enter it we had better leave our 21st-century sensibilities behind.”
Heyers are not the only books being rewritten. Novels by Roald Dahl and Agatha Christie have been edited to remove phrases regarded as offensive by some. For example in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, editors altered the description of Augustus Gloop to “enormous” instead of “enormously fat.” Doctor Dolittle was also altered, as was Huck Finn. The James Bond books have also had some of the racism erased from modern editions — but strangely none of the sexism of homophobic elements.
And the list goes on.
The thing is, I really hate it when people rewrite books so as not to offend modern sensibilities. It’s called “Bowdlerization” after a man called Thomas Bowdler, who in the 19th century published altered editions of Shakespeare that he considered more suitable for family consumption. He said: “Nothing is added to the original text; but those words and expressions omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family.”
I say leave them as they were written and allow readers to make up their minds. I am perfectly capable of deciding whether to read on or not, perfectly capable of deciding whether something’s racist or not and perfectly capable of reflecting about what it says about the times, the character and sometimes the author. Seeing examples of everyday racism or sexism in a beloved novel can jar a modern reader — and that’s not a bad thing. Apart from being true to the times, it can make you think.
So I’m agin this rewriting of classic books to fit better with modern notions of what’s acceptable. What about you?
I am agin it too, Anne. If we remove/rewrite books to suit current “sensibilities ” we risk the actual history being forgotten. Better education is the key
Thanks, Sarah, I so agree on the better education. I prefer my history warts and all.
But Heyer’s attitudes are often the opinions and attitudes of her time, not the time she writes about. To take an example, her assumption about the strict rules of mourning dates from her childhood, not from the Regency.
I will never understand why she wrote such an antisemitic scene in The Grand Sophy, considering she wrote it just after the Nuremburg Trials, when the history of the treatment of the Jewish people in the concentration camps was making headlines (again). Since her husband was a lawyer, and precedents were being made, she must have been aware of it. I think she was probably echoing Fagin, without Fagin’s humanity and depth of character, which is why it comes across as offensive. But I don’t know because she didn’t comment on it.
The timing of the publication makes that scene doubly shocking. Georgette, maybe read the room?
I’ve always thought her books are period pieces twice over: they’re stories about bygone eras, but also artefacts of the time in which she wrote them.
That’s quite true, Ginger Cat, as are all novels. You can’t separate the author from her words, and it’s inevitable that her own cultural assumptions and the attitudes of her time — and maybe her social circle — will affect the writing.
Thanks Lynne, and yes, of course books are not “pure” history but filtered through the author’s own cultural attitudes and assumptions, so effectively have two period filters. I’m not apologizing for Heyer, nor do I understand why she wrote it that way but I want it to stay the way she wrote it, regardless.
This is an interesting and challenging post, Anne. In general, I’m against Bowlderization, but the vicious anti-Semitism of the scene in The Grand Sophy (a book I like) really makes me cringe. Anti-Semitism has been a horrifying scourge throughout history, and I don’t see it as essential in that scene. A moneylender can be a nasty piece of work without the racism so predominant in Heyer’s world. I have far too many Jewish friends whose families suffered devastating losses in the Holocaust too ever accept that as a bit of casual color in a book. But where does one draw the line about what is acceptable to cut and what isn’t? The Grand Sophy was one of my earlier Heyer reads and I cringed when I read that scene–but I did accept it as reflecting ugly history and I didn’t stop reading the book.
Mary Jo, I agree that that scene could have left out the antisemitism and been just as effective — a young woman venturing alone in a dodgy part of town visiting an unscrupulous moneylender is dramatic enough. I too wish she’d left out the “semitic” references, but I don’t want unknown editors “cleaning her up” either.
And I think that “cringe” you mentioned, could be a valuable lesson — making readers think.
I’m with you, Anne.
Thanks for bringing this subject up. It will make me think twice if I want to buy a recently reprinted book. Trouble is, how is one to know if the new edition has been “white-washed”?
“how is one to know if the new edition has been “white-washed”?”
I don’t know, Alison. Maybe the edition number? I’m pretty sure the UK publisher didn’t change her books, it was just her US one.
Yes, sadly here in the US some people are trying to completely eliminate history.
I definitely agree Anne! I would never buy one of the ‘sanitised’ versions. Like you, I’m quite able to decide for myself what I do and do not read! Being Irish, who have often been attacked in books and portrayed as ignorant, uneducated people, it still wouldn’t stop me reading a book that contained this image. We learn from our past mistakes, (or at least we should), and people will never learn if they’re shielded from what life was like in the past!
Georgette Heyer is my favourite author and I’ll never stop reading her books.
Great post!!!
Oh, Teresa, I so agree about the way so many Irish have been portrayed. I cringe in advance every time someone goes to repeat an “Irish” joke. Making fun of a long and deliberate policy to deny the Irish people of education — education that the “hedge teachers” worked in secret to keep alive. The ruling English policy is a shameful history and one that more people need to know about.
“people will never learn if they’re shielded from what life was like in the past!”
Totally agree.
Thanks.
I agree with you and Stephen Fry, and for the same reasons.
It’s a great essay he wrote, isn’t it? Thanks.
I don’t think anyone (except perhaps the author themselves) should change what was originally written. The anti-semitism is cringeworthy but if you start white washing things where do you stop?
I know there are some who want to do that to history also and it just is not right. People are not perfect. I think it is wrong to judge people from another era by today’s standards also. If I had lived in a different time and place, perhaps I would have been the same. Great thoughtful post Anne.
“The anti-semitism is cringeworthy but if you start white washing things where do you stop?”
That’s so true, Mary. Attitudes are changing all the time, so should classics be regularly updated. I say no.
And I agree about judging people from another era ‚— I think it’s enlightening to see how they thought, and the assumptions they took for granted shine a small light on society of that time.
I definitely agree with you Anne. The subject makes me think of Connie Willis’ book Remake. One of the scenes that always sticks in my mind is where the technicians are going through old movies & taking all the smoking out. Great book- I think I need to read again!
Thanks, Jeanne — I have not read that Connie Willis book, but I’ll grab it shortly. Removing the smoking — yes, I admit when I reread Mary Stewart all the smoking jarred on me somewhat — but it also made me reflect on how much society had changed for the better. And how back then women smoking was regarded as sophisticated and a bit glamorous.
And one time when I watched an old movie with my nephew, and there was smoking all the time, I told my nephew that the screenwriters were encouraged to add it in, because people were allowed to smoke in cinemas, and every time a character on the screen lit up, so did half the audience in the cinema. I don’t think he believed me.
I’m against rewriting because the works are then no longer cultural artefacts, no longer express cultural norms of the time and close up the peek into the past these novels bring.
Thanks, Donna — yes, I totally agree. And if people are ignorant of the past, they’re destined to make the same mistakes.
Anne, I totally agree with not sanitizing older books. There are certain passages I read in them that make me wince, but they also then make me reflect on how attitudes have changed over the years. . . and pondering on that is a good thing. I think readers can learn valuable lessons by having to stop and think. (They may even learn a few history lessons in terms of understanding how a past society thought about an issue in a different way than we do.)
“There are certain passages I read in them that make me wince, but they also then make me reflect on how attitudes have changed over the years. . . and pondering on that is a good thing.”
I absolutely agree, Andrea. And I think the small shock it gives you, realizing that good/nice/civilized people could think like that is a sobering realization.
I stand with you, Anne. When I was in college, oh so many years ago, a group of students protested a performance of The Taming of the Shrew because the play was misogynistic, to which my professor said (I’m paraphrasing), if you change the language then you must change the title and the name of the author because, for better or worse, it is not the same piece of work.
Thanks, Constance — and I totally agree with both the students who hated the misogyny of The Taming of the Shrew, and with the professor who was agin changing it.
I remember when I was teaching Shakespeare to students, we often had the most interesting and valuable discussions about some of the issues raised.
Thank-you! I agree 100% with Mary Jo. If you don’t like Georgette’s writing, move on! Don’t change a word. It is what she wrote! GH’s only novel I disliked was “A Civil Contract.” It is also the only book of hers I have never re-read.
Collette, I agree with you about a Civil Contract, but it’s many people’s favourite. I always want Jenny to be loved, not just appreciated. The one book of Heyer’s I’ve never even finished is My Lord John. I’ve tried a few times, but . . . life is too short. And why plough through a dull Heyer when there are so many more sparkling ones?
I agree with all of the above about changing an author’s work, including “modernizing” shakespear’s or Dicken’s language so students can understand it. That’s what learning and discussion in class are for. There is too much judging or changing of the past to suit the present and we will never learn from past mistakes if we keep deleting them(not that we learn from them anyway…we certainly are repeating them now!). I also agree that if you don,t like a book or a movie or a play, then as Collette said, move on and don,t bother with it. “The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” We may not agree with the way things were in the past, but that’s the way they were. In a 100 years from nkw people may very well look back at us and ciriticize the way we did things.
So let it stand as a representative of past times and don’t get your knickers in a twist! 😊
Spot on, Jane! I’m certain things we accept now will be looked back on in disapproval, if not horror.
I meant to add that Stephen Fry’s comment was spot on! It is like traveling to a different place and insisting that it be the same as where you came from. Then why travel or read a book about a different time a d place?
He’s very good, isn’t he. I probably should have just posted his whole article, but at least I included the link to it for those who are interested.
I agree with you, Anne. If nothing else, we need to be able to understand how attitudes have changed.
If authors choose to change their books, OK. If publishers feel attitudes and content that are no longer generally approved of need to be addressed, what about a foreword to the book, stating that they don’t agree with whatever in the original text, but they’re not changing it because it’s the author’s original work? And maybe point out that certain attitudes, language, and beliefs were very current in some times and places. These “stealth” changes bother me. I think it’s a mistake to whitewash the past.
I’ll add although I’m not Jewish, I have Jewish relatives, and I find antisemitism abhorrent. I also find racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia abhorrent. But in the US, freedom of speech, even abhorrent speech, is protected under the Constitution.
Thanks, Susan, yes, I think I’m preaching to the choir here. Though I’m not so sure that freedom of speech is as free as we’d like to think it is, in the US at the moment.
I like that the moneylender scene in The Grand Sophie makes me cringe. Because that scene explains so much of why history happened the way it did.
Thanks Fiona — and it’s really only a small cringe, but it does the job, doesn’t it?
I thought that scene was hilarious when I first read it decades ago and I still do. The Jewishness was beside the point, as most if not all moneylenders and bankers were in those days. There are plenty of them in the books but there is no need to call attention to them. Sophy treated Goldhanger quite politely and fairly. Straight talking, yes, but he merited it. His floor wasn’t dirty because he was Jewish. And she needn’t have given him his money back, but she did.
I agree, Julia — it’s a very clever scene, and Sophy did treat Goldhanger politely — apart from pulling a gun on him. And I too laughed when she took him to task for not sweeping his floor.
Julia, I did some reading about
this a few years back, and it turns out that “most if not all moneylenders and bankers” were NOT Jewish in those days. My source at the time was “Todd M. Endelman, The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000” (University of California Press, 2002), but Niall Ferguson agrees, as do others. And of course anyone who knows anything about Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, will remember that the banker who mercilessly hounded her for her gambling debts was Coutts, definitely not Jewish. So the question remains as to why the stereotype of the rapacious Jewish moneylender has had such purchase on the Regency imagination, the mid-twentieth-century imagination (Heyer’s), up until this day, it seems.
I am Jewish but not observant. I am also British/Israeli – I have lived in Israel for 47 years. I am about to celebrate my 70th birthday. I read The Grand Sophy as a teen (I still have that same paperback!) and although I noticed the overt antisemitism when I read it I realised Georgette Heyer was writing from a certain strata of British society where such opinions were rife, yes, even in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The description did not stop me from enjoying the book nor from re-reading it. The reason I emigrated to Israel was because I came up against antisemitism in Britain during the 60s and 70s.
I am against sanitising books for modern sensibilities. If I’m not mistaken certain books by Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe have received the same treatment even though their books were anti-slavery.
“Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
That’s so true, Jan — it’s all very well to point the finger at Heyer, but sadly, there is still so much antisemitism around today.
And you’re right about the number of other books that have been “sanitized”.
I’m against the altering of the original writing of any book or play. I also take offence at editing films that change the director’s intent.
This kind of judgment and control is more prevalent now with the so-called, “family values” that you mentioned, Anne, with Bowdler. The ministers who say they are protecting the children, are the ones who secretly espouse the ideas they believe should be removed. There is such a big movement to ban books here in the US that talk about the LGBTQ community. Some are hiding their sexuality. The hypocrisy is rampant.
I hope to see a deeper spiritual shift in clarity emerge as the decades go on.
Patricia, the number of books banned (not sanitized, just banned) in the US is frightening — and it seems to be growing. I really feel for the librarians trying to do their job. Thanks for joining in the discussion.
What books have been banned in the US?
Mary, you can look it up on line.
As a Jew, I’d like a compromise:
– I’d like the modified scene to be in the novel;
– a forward that includes a discussion of the modification of the scene;
– after the end of the book, the original scene printed in full.
I think that would preserve the original adequately, while recognizing that the antisemitic depiction is harmful trash. Because saying loudly that antisemitic stereotypes are harmful trash is important, too.
In a classic work of literature with antisemitism baked in—Chaucer, Dickens, Shakespeare—I’d say, preserve the original, and if fanfic writers want to modify it, let them upload to AO3 (where I’ll happily read their versions). But a light novel? I think we can smudge it a bit.
Thanks for joining in the discussion, Laurel. I don’t think a foreword would do anything except focus undue attention on the scene, and spoiling the surprise of Sophy’s visit.
As it is, I think the controversy surrounding it has given the impression that Heyer was a raging antisemite, whereas I think the real problem is that she was using an unflattering and racist cliché to portray a character. As I said, if you took out the one word (semitic) describing his nose, it would be fine, I think.
Absolutely do not rewrite books for reasons of PC. Changing the expressions and attitudes of the past will not ensure those of the present are acceptable. You can’t learn from the past if someone smooths it out.
Thanks, Pat — yes, and I think young people today are all too ignorant of history as it is. Most of my historical knowledge came from reading historical novels — time well spent.
I am thoroughly against changing literature and history. If no one is ever offended by historical facts, nothing evolves. The old adages is true – “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Edmund Burke. “A generation that ignores history has no past and no future” Robert Heinlein. “In addition to studying history, it is important to learn from our own personal past. Forgiving is important, forgetting is not! Remembering and reflecting upon our own past is crucial for those who wish to make more of themselves. The past provides a wealth of knowledge about ourselves if only we can face it fearlessly. We can see what works, what doesn’t, and perhaps most importantly, how far we have come to get to where we are today.” Robert Heinlein.
Sharon, Robert Heinlein said so MANY good things! Good science fiction looks at society as well as technology.
Another problem with trying to erase all the bigotry/racism/and all the other -isms from past works is that makes it harder to understand the sensitivity and anger the victims of that bigotry felt and feel to this day.
If we are changing things….the United States did not have slavery….So why in the world were those people shooting one another during the Civil War? Just plain cussedness? If we did not have women being abused because they sought the vote….then their bravery and courage would have been erased. Rewriting fiction so it fits what we think today means that there are going to be tons of books rewritten in the future. I mean, if we don’t rewrite, how can we keep up with the current thought of choice?
I have Jewish children and grandchildren, and it hurts my heart to know that there are times when they have faced and will continue to face prejudice. But, if we pretend it did not happen in the past, we are doing a disservice to all those who have fought and are still fighting to erase antisemitism.
Writers from the past were generally writing what they knew. Some of them were forward thinking and wrote books like To Kill A Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn. Some of them didn’t.
I find it amazing that people want to erase the language and attitudes Twain used when he was trying to point out the language and attitudes that were real life at the time. How are we to improve the world, if we pretend it has always been perfect?
Thanks for the post and all the thought provoking comments.
It is sad to admit, that most of the writers are human beings. And we all know how mistaken human beings can be.
On the whole I prefer that classics are not tampered with and wondered about the legal position.
Using copilot I found:
In the case of “The Grand Sophy,” the US publisher Sourcebooks worked with sensitivity readers to modify parts of the book that included Jewish stereotypes before releasing new versions. The changes included altering the description of a character and removing references to Jews being tight with “purse-strings”. The UK publisher, Penguin Random House, decided to leave the book as originally written but encouraged readers to consider the works critically and in their historical and social context.
Well done Penguin!
Well done, Anne! This topic has engendered great participation and thoughtful responses from people of diverse countries and backgrounds. It is one of the reasons why I enjoy this blog so much. I learn many interesting things from the Wenches, as well as from those who add their commentary.
I don’t believe the text should be changed here, I would like to see a good discussion in an introduction or after word about it, but more importantly not every book by a beloved author has to remain popular or widely read, or needs to be read by all a writers fans. As readers we have that choice. With Sophy its interesting to note that prejudices towards Jewish people obviously didn’t change much despite WW2 until many decades later.
The only time i don’t ‘t mind a change is in an adaptation for children’s books, if the essence of the story is adhered to because of children’s reading comprehension and attention span. Hopefully as the child moves through school they will learn enough about the past to understand the full text of the story or be able to ask questions and get answers that are not evasive.
I think this applies to a lot of historical romance being written today, as well. Writers are leaning more and more towards contemporary sensibilities surrounded by historical wallpaper. I don’t know if it’s laziness or deliberate attempts to sanitize history. I’ve heard that publishers are scaling back on historical romance, and I wonder if the trend of erasing history is at least partly responsible. If historical romance is little more than modern characters in historical dress, what’s the point?
I’m a bit late chiming in, but I think it would be better to leave books as written. Perhaps to appease the more sensitive, there could be a preface warning them that it contains language or stereotypes that some might find offensive.
I think you are infantilizing readers, if you change books, and deprive people of knowing about the racism, sexism, etc. that existed, and still exists, including in authors they love. In the Heyer example, it doesn’t affect the book overall, but when you change Huck Finn, you are losing the underlying message of the book.
hi Anne! I adore Heyer and reread her constantly … but I decided after 2-3 reads that The Grand Sophy simply didn’t age well, which is a pity because Sophy is a fantastic heroine. The horribly antisemitic moneylender scene makes me cringe, but also Sophy marries her first cousin, who also happens not to be a particularly likeable hero. I’d rather read any of Heyer’s other books and no longer read The Grand Sophy. I do have mixed feelings about publishers cleaning up problematic books. I’d say I’m quite wary but not absolutely opposed.
Under no circumstances should the original text be changed, imo. But a good introduction is a necessity. It’s not an easy thing to read a fun, entertaining book by an author who holds prejudices as repugnant as Heyer’s, or to deal with all the contradictory feelings that emerge. And if you don’t know about Heyer’s everyday views, I offer this excerpt from a letter she wrote in 1967, about the Six Day War between Israel and Egypt: “I’m not fond of Jews, but I’m delighted that they’ve licked the hell out of the Wogs” (quoted in the Kloester biography – classy, that). I believe I read somewhere that Eloisa James had originally included some discussion of the Goldhanger chapter in her introduction to the Sourcebooks edition, and that the editors had cut it. I don’t have a citation, and wonder if anyone else does, but if it’s true, I think the editors did James and the reader a great disservice.
I am a reader not a writer, but I have to say changing the words of an author is like taking a paintbrush to a painting. It changes the context and leaves you floundering in a situation that no longer exists. The mores of the past, even those of fifty years ago are not the same as today. If words are white washed what’s the point. The plot is no longer relevant.
I think changing an author’s words is stealing.