“I personally don’t have much of a problem with changing some of the vocabulary,” says Clodagh (16). “The stories in these books have been loved for multiple generations now, and it’s understandable that some terms or phrases are outdated.

“I personally wouldn’t see the point in changing a book that was aimed at adult readers, as adults will be able to recognise outdated or offensive terms themselves. However, seeing as these books are aimed at younger children, I do believe that it is important to teach children acceptance and understanding, and therefore some changes must be made.”

Layla (11) believes the alterations make the books “more modern and less offensive”. Amelia (12) feels differently. “If we start changing one book, soon literary classics like Little Women and Peter Pan will start to be changed and then we will have nothing left that actually shows the progress and evolution of sexism and body image,” she says. Tom (10) feels even stronger: “Stripping down classics isn’t the way to go.”

Here’s Aya (12) on Dahl’s language: “I think a lot of descriptive language that didn’t really seem at all harmful was removed. I also think that it is completely unnecessary to remove words because of the style of language and that the older words should be kept the same.’ Amelia agreed: “The descriptions are what make Roald Dahl’s books so entrancing.”

The old edition of The Witches referred to the title characters hiding their identity by working as a “cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman”. The new version refers to them as being a “top scientist or running a business”.

This, says Shrishti (12) “is an understandable change because women are awesome”. But, she adds, “it also takes away the charm of the times those books were written in and Roald Dahl’s thought process, which is half the appeal”.

I agree it is good to see women and girls given more agency in the new editions. Changing a mention of little foxes in Fantastic Mr Fox to make them girl foxes makes no difference to the story but means girls feel more represented in the action. Representation matters. As a child, I was sick and tired of reading about Anne (or her Aunt Fanny) making the packed lunches in Enid Blyton’s Famous Five books. Why couldn’t one of the boys help?

Grotesque descriptions

Puffin has also changed “Plenty of families with a husband, a wife and several children” to “Plenty of families” in the new editions. As a single mother for many years, I applaud this. I don’t believe that changing this phrase detracts from Dahl’s magical storytelling, but it does mean that more children feel included in the story.

All the main characters, even some animals, are white by default in Dahl’s books. The editors have taken out references to skin colour in the new editions so that all young readers can imagine themselves as characters in the stories.

As Elaina Ryan, chief executive of Children’s Books Ireland, says: “Every child should be able to see themselves in a book.”

Dublin-based children’s writer and illustrator Ashwin Chacko agrees: “Every child should feel like they can find a book that encapsulates elements of their world.” He adds, however:

“Context is also an important factor. Some stories are set in a certain cultural context and we must accept in those stories it’s OK not to represent everyone. The onus is on us now to write new stories that are authentic and relevant. Shape the future by learning from the past.”

Ivan O’Brien, managing director of The O’Brien Press, says new editions of books are often updated. Asked if this is a problem, he responds: “Absolutely not. But don’t be silly about it.” Herein lies the problem.

From a writer’s point of view, some of Puffin’s changes are pointless. Making The Witches a little less scary by taking out some of the more grotesque descriptions makes no sense. In the new version, the sentence “It nearly killed Ashton as well. Half the skin came away from his scalp” becomes “It didn’t do Ashton much good.” If a child doesn’t like to be scared, it’s not the book for them, but some children love gruesome stories.

Some of the changes deaden Dahl’s lyrical prose and are a step too far. Again, in The Witches a “great flock of ladies” becomes a “great group of ladies”. A great flock is much more poetic and descriptive.

Still, Dahl’s editors are right to take out hurtful or offensive outdated words and physical descriptions from the new editions. “Mucky little midget!” and “pot-bellied dwarf” do not belong in any children’s book.

There are a lot of characters who are bad and who are also fat in Dahl’s books. I applaud the editors changing this where possible. I don’t believe the removal of the following sentences makes any difference to the story and was a good decision: “The man behind the counter looked fat and well-fed. He had big lips and fat cheeks and a very fat neck”; “The fat around his neck bulged out all around the top of his collar like a rubber ring” (both from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).

The Oompa-Loompas in the same book were originally described as ‘black pygmies’. This was changed in the 1970s but references to slavery still exist in the 2001 editions. Any reference to slavery (and there are many in Dahl’s books) is one too many. I am glad that this debate has drawn my attention to it. An example of an update: “So I shipped them all over here — every man, woman, and child in the Oompa-Loompa tribe” becomes “So, they all agreed to come over — each and every Oompa-Loompa.”

In the world of children’s books, adults are gatekeepers and we have a responsibility to make sure what children are reading is the best it can be, original, inventive and well written. We also have a duty to make sure books are not harmful to the young people reading them.

Children do not know that Dahl books are ‘old’. Many when asked believe that he is still alive (he died in 1990). This is problematic. The books do not reflect modern views, but children read them as contemporary books. They are published with bright, shiny, carefully designed covers like contemporary books.

Puffin could follow Hodder’s example with Enid Blyton: keep the classic editions in print for those who want them, and make modern editions also available. Make it clear that the classic editions contain ideas and language that are no longer acceptable today, like Disney does before some of its old films.

Let children read both editions and explain to them why the books have been edited and changed. You might just find they prefer the modern, more inclusive versions. Eva, another young person, has a clever idea. She would like footnotes added to the original text, explaining the historical context of some of the language. And at the end of the day, it’s readers like her who matter.

Now, can we talk about the global success of Irish children’s books next please? If only contemporary Irish children’s books got so much attention. If your child likes Roald Dahl, try the brilliantly funny books by David O’Doherty, Aoife Dooley or Eoin Colfer.

Sarah Webb is an award-winning children’s writer and children’s book reviewer. She is events manager at Halfway up the Stairs children’s bookshop in Greystones