This is an opinion piece in Dagens Nyheter. The author is responsible for the opinions in the article.
What actually defines a classic? Can it be offended? These are questions that have been on my mind during the recent debate surrounding reinterpretations of children’s book classics. Over the past few years, several sequels and new versions of well-known children’s books have been published. For example, novels and screenplays about Pippi Longstocking have been given new illustrations, created both by the talented comic artist Fabian Göranson and by an anonymous and likely highly artificial intelligence. In addition to Elsa Beskow’s “The Children of the Forest” (Tomtebobarnen), “The Straw Hut” (Hattstugan, 1930) has also been released in a new and very readable version, “The Straw Hut Preschool on an Excursion” (2025) by Katarina Kuick and Charlotte Ramel.
The debate erupted after Margareta Sörenson’s critique of Kristina Sigunsdotter and Maria Löfgren’s “Tales of the Forest Children,” a collection of new stories about Beskow’s classic and well-known children (Expressen, January 5). Author and illustrator Anna-Clara Tidholm later called some of the reinterpretations “violations of cultural heritage” (Expressen, January 9). Professor Elina Druker subsequently described how such works risk becoming a “systematic watering down of children’s literature” (Expressen, January 26).
I was the first to support the criticism. It’s provocative that Rabén & Sjögren doesn’t hire a real illustrator when they publish Lindgren’s “Pippi Celebrates Christmas” (1945) under the new, more marketable title “Pippi Saves Christmas.” But is it really as offensive that Bonnier Carlsen hires two established children’s book creators to expand on “The Children of the Forest”? As publisher Ulrika Caperius writes (Expressen, February 2), Beskow’s book ends with an invitation: “What else they get up to, you have to think about yourself, so you have a story that will never end!”
The question is also whether any of these works actually violate cultural heritage. Critic and literary scholar Frank Kermode has written about the importance of change for the survival of the classic work: “We must choose to give them the blessing of change, for it will save them from their only other possible fate – namely, ultimately becoming junk.” The classic is characterized by its ability to adapt, to be reinterpreted and even distorted without losing its position in the canon. Consider a classic like Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” (1865). It’s clear that the book’s countless interpretations – a personal favorite is the pornographic musical “Alice in Wonderland: An X-rated musical fantasy” (1976) – have only served to solidify its position in the canon. The enduring appeal of classic stories often lies in their ability to be reimagined for new audiences.
From that perspective, the reinterpretations can rather be seen as proof of the originals’ classic status. Since Beskow died 70 years ago, her works are now public domain, free to be used, changed, and distorted. Perhaps it’s just a matter of sitting back and waiting for “The Children of the Forest: A Musical for Adults Only.”
