Only if the two things are mutually incompatible.

Is that the case here? If I’ve mistaken anyone’s personal dislike of words in children’s books for an “authors/publishers shouldn’t do this, and I’m glad someone’s doing something to stop them,” then I’ll gladly agree with you. Of course, all too often agreement with an opinion morphs into tacit consent on the actions motivated by that opinion. Silence or lack of protest also acts as a means of encouragement.

IMHO, I wouldn’t use the word in any fiction unless I was trying to prove an antagonist was a sexist jerk. But I’m sure there are better authors out there who can probably write it without raising my ire.

And I believe Shiloh and Julie were expressing much the same kind of sentiment. Disapproval doesn't mean doing more than wishing the author wouldn't do it, and perhaps avoiding their books or checking them more thoroughly in future if I was worried.

This is good. I’m still surprised other blogs I read haven’t mentioned this yet. Compare this HarperCollins clause insertion to, say, the leak of SMeyer’s Midnight Sun or any other instance of piracy/filesharing exposed. I’m expressing general disappointment that reactions to this haven’t been widespread enough to push it into the major media spotlight, because that’s apparently the measure that it takes for public shame and outrage to force a change.

Whenever one qualifies an absolute statement by inserting a ‘but,' it renders the statement meaningless.

Only if the two things are mutually incompatible.

Do I dislike the idea of the word ‘twat’ being used in a children’s book? Yes, absolutely.

Would I compel or ban or punish an author for using it? Absolutely not (and that means I wouldn’t want anyone else doing it on my behalf)

Would I write to an author expressing my unease at its use? Yes, if I was a parent. I see that as dialogue. But nothing in that would be to say I had any right to demand a change, or a right to expect it.

And I believe Shiloh and Julie were expressing much the same kind of sentiment. Disapproval doesn’t mean doing more than wishing the author wouldn’t do it, and perhaps avoiding their books or checking them more thoroughly in future if I was worried.

I don't approve of censorship at all, but I also don't approve of kids losing their innocence any sooner than they have to or being exposed to inappropriate crap. If it was geared more for 15-16 and older, yeah, but 10? Nope.

Whenever one qualifies an absolute statement by inserting a ‘but,’ it renders the statement meaningless. I’m not trying to pick on Shiloh or Julie here; it’s perfectly understandable to want to protect one’s children from subjects that are controversial for their age groups. However, NO ONE has the right to tell me or my family what we can and cannot read as children or adults. *WE* make that choice.

It’s a very simple concept: either you vet your kids’ reading lists prior to them reading the books (this goes for TV as well: another reason why it’s better for TV time to be part of family time instead of an ‘alone’ hobby), or you deal with the results of giving over free reign to your children. Whose fault is it that the author’s views and beliefs aren’t in line with your own?

Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. But don’t tell everyone else what ten-year olds should and should not read.

I’m actually somewhat disturbed that this hasn’t provoked more outrage from romance/erotica writers, who more than any other type of author are stigmatized, mocked and ostracized from mainstream media circles because of their creative work. You know what pidgeonholing feels like better than almost all of us. What right does anyone have to tell your editor to tone down your writing to meet the equivalent of a PG-13 rating to be in a book chain or a library? We KNOW the general population is judgemental and illogical; that’s why we have pseudonyms for authors. If you meet your deadlines and do a good job, what right does ANYONE have to tell you that you can’t smoke or drink or go to clubs or protest at political events or stay up late or write pieces completely separate from your first genre, be they autobiographis, YA fiction or textbook essays?

It’s bad enough that the MPAA has executed Newspeak so completely on the film industry. I’d rather sell my articles off a street corner and write my own children’s books for our family than support any publisher or chain or author who supports such ridiculous censorship.

I am always in favor of using free speech to defend free speech.

England has more restrictive speech laws and policies than the US. So does Canada, for that matter, which I always remind myself when I get that “grass is always greener” thing after contemplating our current political and economic climate.

If I wrote “I’m going to spank your fanny” in a US children’s book, where it would be understood as “I’m going to spank your bottom,” I would certainly not cavil for a nanosecond when my UK publishers asked to change it.

“Twat” has much more negative valence (a/k/a “shock value”) in the US than it does in the UK. The publisher asked Ms. Wilson about the change, and she agreed. It would seem that she doesn’t think the word “twat” is essential to her book, so I’m not sure why people are making such a fuss about this.

I must agree with Ann Somerville that it’s a relief to know that the author was consulted and agreed with the language change in her book. Much better than the alternative, certainly!

Duffy’s poem, Education for Leisure, was removed following a single complaint (similar to the Wilson situation). As The Guardian notes:

Most parents would see it as timely and sensible for teenagers to discuss knife crime at school, guided by a teacher and prompted by an intelligent piece of writing by an award-winning author which tries to get inside a potential killer’s head.

Duffy’s clever riposte is a poem called Mrs Schofield’s GCSE (after the external examiner who complained about the poem):

You must prepare your bosom for his knife,

said Portia to Antonio in which

of Shakespeare’s Comedies? Who killed his wife,

insane with jealousy? And which Scots witch

knew Something wicked this way comes? Who said

Is this a dagger which I see? Which Tragedy?

…

(excerpt)

A publisher responding to complaints by their customers does not automatically mean 1984 is upon us. There is a lot in between point A and point Z.

For me, the crucial point was that the change was not imposed on the author, but discussed with her in a rational manner, and she agreed with it. That’s not censorship, that’s revisiting an issue and considering the original decision again.

By the way, I talked to my British (London-born) husband about this today. I said ‘would you be happy to have the word ‘twat’ used in a book aimed at ten year olds?’ His immediate response was ‘No. It means ‘c*nt.’

So it’s not as simple as English people think it’s okay. I first heard the word used in England and it was very clear it was intended as a pretty nasty insult, and although I know women, including myself, who use it to mean ‘twit’ or ‘idiot’, I know other women who object as fiercely to its use as the ‘c’ word.

I think parents can expect that books aimed at children will be free of the more objectionable swear words, without having to read every single page of every book their kid reads (hell, at 10, I chose my own library books and I know my mother never read any of them. Never even came up against a ‘bloody’ in them.) At the same time, I don’t want authors forced to change what they write to protect sensibilities. If Wilson had objected to the change, I’d support her right to do so.

The matter was settled sensibly and the only overreactor here is the Walmart-owned ASDA chain, which doesn’t surprise me. It’s a horrible supermarket chain.

But Asda (that’s Wal-Mart) pulling it off the shelves seems like powerful over-reaction. And yes, I’d rather “hold to some ideal” than “cater to the customer” if that ideal is letting an author use the words that her or she feels convey the meaning best. I guess this is why Wilson is one of the authors who is against the labeling of books by age group.

The shift happens at different rates, both geographically and by age group. Obviously from the comments here, “twat” is a word in transition. My guess is that the author used it without intending the specific physiological meaning. The publisher’s response doesn’t really surprise me; I’d just prefer to make it a “teachable moment” about language meaning.

I don’t approve of censorship at all, but I also don’t approve of kids losing their innocence any sooner than they have to or being exposed to inappropriate crap. If it was geared more for 15-16 and older, yeah, but 10? Nope.

edited…

I’m against censorship, but I believe that children’s books have a different set of standards and if it was one parent or twelve that sent letters complaining, then good on the publisher for paying attention. I doubt that changing one word hurt the author at all or changed the integrity of the characters.

But let’s be real, the publisher is all about the $$$. If they see a potential loss of revenue because of publicity over that word, what should they do? Hold to some ideal or cater to their customer? These are CHILDREN’S books. Let’s not forget that.

A publisher responding to complaints by their customers does not automatically mean 1984 is upon us. There is a lot in between point A and point Z.

Does the word belong in a book for 10-year-olds, I think that depends on the kid. My 11-year-old is a LOT more street-wise than my 17-year-old was six years ago. A relocation and older sister make a difference. Language in today’s YA is a lot stronger than when I was growing up. Not professing a right or wrong position, simply a statement that some words that would not have been heard on the playground 10-15 years ago, are being heard there now. So I understand why a word like this could find it’s place in a YA.

If someone wants to protect their kids from all the bad things in the world, I empathize and understand that, but read the book, watch the show or ask who, what, where or why BEFORE their child is exposed to something. If the book’s assigned reading, teachers generally try to work around issues like this or at least warn parents of any unusual content.

A parent shouldn’t assume that because it’s marketed for kids it’s okay for their kid. Knowledge is power, and some people just want others to do their vetting for them. Accountability is first and foremost my job as a parent and as an individual. I decide what’s right for my family, and I get pretty irked when others try to tell me how to parent my kids.

This is good news to me. I firmly believe all parents should censor everything their children read, watch, or play, while at the same time training them to descern good from crap when they're on their own.

I don’t have a problem with parents attempting to monitor what their children read, if they choose, but they shouldn’t try to do that through the publisher! Having raised four, I know that they are going to be exposed to all sorts of language and ideas, and I’ve found that it’s better to spend one’s energy teaching them to question and investigate (and yes, discern) than to spend it trying to wrap them in cotton wool, as Tracey’s mum would say.

Wouldn’t, myself, get up in arms about the change if the author has okayed it. If she used the word in the normal playground sense, then found the book was being read by an audience who understood the word differently, and decided to clarify the meaning of the text by changing the word – fair enough.

Oh dear Lord. It’s the regional problem again – I find it incredible that RH seem to want to homogenise (with an s) language – to make us all speak some OKPC kind of lingo where we all know what a chip or a boot or a pavement is and where the bad words are taken out of the language so no-one can use them any more.

Hmmm. Didn’t someone write a book about that?

As the other UK responders have said although theoretically it’s a slang word for that part of the female anatomy it’s used HERE for a plonker, a nit-wit, someone who’s messed up big time. Twit doesn’t even cover it.

The thought of censoring children’s access to literature makes my hair stand on end. The only writer my mother kept out of the house was Enid Blyton – and that was nothing to do with the racism slurs that were levelled at her – they came later, it was because she didn’t think the writing was good enough for me to read. She said that if JKR had been around when I was a kid, she’d not have bought those either. Her “banning” Blyton only meant I went and sought it out in libraries though, of course.

I’m supremely grateful that my mother let me read anything I wanted, and if I were to have children there’s no book I wouldn’t let them read. But if it was “edited” into Newspeak, I wouldn’t have it in the house. I had to learn the difference between chips and crisps, twat and twit, boot and trunk by myself by reading books from other countries – I didn’t need a Publishing Nanny to do it for me.

Well it’s one of those words that my mom finds offensive – maybe cause she associates it as a derogatory term for female genitalia. But I don’t find that offensive as I associate it with twit. And as someone who’s worked in a school (11-16), compared to some of the things you here on the playground, twat really isn’t that offensive.

I’ll just add here that the UK is incredibly regional when it comes to language. So that may only be true for the area I live in.