Lennie Pennie: The perils and pitfalls of adapting Roald Dahl for today's audiences

I recently came across a video promoting the new adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book, The Twits. It featured Greg James and Chris Smith discussing how they might go about creating the most “revolting” character. The illustrator asks them if they'd like a glass eye to be included, to which James and Smith respond, “A glass eye! She needs a glass eye. That's it. What a disgusting pair of twits!”. Immediately I was taken aback - first that the video was able to be published, and secondly that at no point during the planning and execution did anyone stop to think about how harmful that messaging could be to people using a prosthetic eye, and how it might contribute to stigma around disability. The literature we give young people is incredibly influential, it can shape their worldview, for better or for worse. When writers use a glass eye as a signifier of something disgusting, what kind of message does this promote to young readers about prosthetic eyes? Children deserve so much more than writing which is at best poorly researched, out of touch, and lazy, and at worst, callous and deliberately stigmatising. The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) released a statement about the video, saying, “When there's positive representation of disabilities in children's books, children with disabilities feel seen and heard, and their friends and classmates treat everyone the same. There is nothing at all revolting about prosthetic eyes, we think they're brilliant.” Not having disabled children in mind when discussing disabled characters - or indeed any characters at all - is part of the problem. If you write entirely for the majority, without even considering minoritised communities, you run the risk of stereotyping, and perpetuating harmful stigma, or erasing people altogether. In a society which constantly fans the flames of pointless and harmful culture wars, it is the most marginalised people who get caught in the crossfire. This is evident in the way many people have responded to criticism of the video, with the usual commentary decrying any kind of backlash as “woke”, or too sensitive, as if sensitivity and consideration for other people is something of which we should be ashamed. If it's “woke” to not make disabled kids feel like they're grotesque and that their disability is something to be mocked or shamed, then so be it. If the alternative is encouraging a climate where, as studies continually show, disabled children are twice as likely to feel hopeless or sad every day, and three times more likely to attempt suicide, then we could all stand to be a bit more sensitive. Scope, a charity striving for equality disabled people, released a video discussing the impact of the video and offering constructive advice saying, “Greg and Chris, we know you can do better. The disabled community wants to help you get there.”