I don't want to downplay antisemitism - its a real problem. But why does that bother you, given he's dead?
Matilda was one of my favorite books when I was a kid. There's something in it that hits me right in the soul, even as an adult. I hear you when you say his antisemitism is an issue for you - but - I just can't see how that has any bearing on my relationship with his books. As a child I didn't understand, and now as an adult I can't bring myself to care. Its not like the royalties go to him - he's dead.
I struggle more with Scott Orson Card. Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead are fantastic books. Both different, and both absolutely excellent. I'd rather not support him financially given he's used his platform to attack gay people. But I also suspect it would have taken someone with a conservative outlook on life to write Speaker for the dead. There's ideas in that book I never hear anyone talk about. Hearing those perspectives has broadened my outlook a little. My life would be dimmer for not having read his books.
I also think a lot of the delight in Dahl's books comes from his unbridled wildness, and his unabashed delight in being a monster to his characters - in ways modern sensibilities don't approve of. I don't think he would have been on board with the modern insistence on political correctness in children's books. I understand the edits, especially if there's netflix deals in the works. But I suspect history won't look kindly on the edits made to his books. Its ok for Wonka to have slaves (so long as they're not african) and straight up murder annoying children, but he can't call someone fat? This all feels very of-the-moment.
also the image of the Oompa Loompa in 'charlie and the chocolate factory' can also be interpreted as racist. The NAACP launched a protest, back in 1971 - at a time when racist attitudes were much more common. https://daily.jstor.org/roald-dahls-anti-black-racism/
The movie paints them with orange colored skin, no one was protesting that edition of the original text.
No, it isn't. And that article is sheer drivel. On a very questionable site.
Dahl "justified the Holocaust"? He killed Nazis, for crying out loud.
Pointing out that Jewish people are heavily involved in the media isn't inherently anti-semitic. Creating a fictional conspiracy where a group controls the media isn't inherently anti-semitic either.
Witches and goblins have had long noses for ever. Describing them isn't antisemitic.
Jews aren't all women. Jews don't all wear wigs. Jews aren't known for turning English children into mice. The list of differences is long.
Am I really having to point all this out to a grown adult?
> pointing out that Jewish people are heavily involved in the media isn't inherently anti-semitic
'Jews are controlling the media' isn't antisemitic? 'der Stuermer' was depicting caricature Jews with long noses just for the fun of it? And yes, fictional conspiracies were a big deal in antisemitic propaganda - 'the protocols of the elders of zion' is just an example.
You're twisting the words of the person you replied to - you've changed 'heavily involved' to 'controlling'.
And regarding The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The whole point of that book is that it was passed off as not being fictional. It was fraudulently presented as a real text.
“It’s the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren’t any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media – jolly clever thing to do – that’s why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel.”
Ok, I appreciate where you were coming from now, my apologies. Yes, Dahl explicitly talked about Jews controlling the media (although not in his fiction). So yes, I was wrong to jump in on this point.
For example it can be taken it as a call to others to hate your guts too, and it can play out pretty nasty, if the economy turns bad and if people will start to look out for scapegoats.
This is not something entirely abstract, it happened before.
Half my ancestry is Jewish. I'm sure plenty of dead people hate me for one reason or another. But, they're dead and I'm alive. So why should I care?
Its kind of a weird move but there's plenty of other ways we can weave meaning out of whats happening here.
- We could say "Ha ha - you hate Jewish people but your life's work still involved giving beautiful books for me to enjoy! Sounds like you lose, Dahl!". Taking treasure from a dragon is more virtuous if the dragon you're stealing from is evil.
- Or turn this into a story about mending fences. Here's an antisemite and a semite bonding over our shared love of stories. Sounds like a lived example of us being more alike than we are different, after all. Racism, in all its forms, diminishes through empathy and shared understanding. If two communities read different books growing up, they're much less likely to understand each other. If two communities enjoy the same books, they'll find it easier to connect and build bridges. He may have been antisemitic. Isn't that even more reason to use his life's work to bring people closer together?
This might sound weak or saccharine. But I find it pretty hard to imagine any scenario in which enjoying Matilda will somehow incite people to blame "the Jews" for a bad economy. That sounds pretty far fetched to me.
> Taking treasure from a dragon is more virtuous if the dragon you're stealing from is evil.
This is a good way of phrasing what I haven't been able to put into succinct language. I also find it interesting when performers and writers want to choose who is allowed to enjoy their publicly available work based on whether or not values align.
If those stories are allegorical or are reinterpreted in future, inspiring a new generation of anti-semites, then the vitality of the author quickly becomes irrelevant.
Is Matilda allegorical? Can you give me an example from the text?
We don't get to control how people in the future will reinterpret the stories we have today. People in the future could reinterpret anything. That's their right, once we've moved on.
At a practical level, it makes no sense to live in the shadow of future generations' judgement. We're going to earn their scorn regardless. And so will they, if humanity survives long enough.
That's up to you but I think I'd be very concerned about my part in publishing what later went on to incite acts of hatred. I believe Matilda does not promote anything like that, but it's only by considering it in context that I would have thought to look for it and make that determination. Caring about it doesn't automatically mean wanting to see the work censored, or worse, silently modified. But personally if I saw a problem like that I wouldn't want to be involved in the publication or promotion of it.
Matilda was one of my favorite books when I was a kid. There's something in it that hits me right in the soul, even as an adult. I hear you when you say his antisemitism is an issue for you - but - I just can't see how that has any bearing on my relationship with his books. As a child I didn't understand, and now as an adult I can't bring myself to care. Its not like the royalties go to him - he's dead.
I struggle more with Scott Orson Card. Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead are fantastic books. Both different, and both absolutely excellent. I'd rather not support him financially given he's used his platform to attack gay people. But I also suspect it would have taken someone with a conservative outlook on life to write Speaker for the dead. There's ideas in that book I never hear anyone talk about. Hearing those perspectives has broadened my outlook a little. My life would be dimmer for not having read his books.
I also think a lot of the delight in Dahl's books comes from his unbridled wildness, and his unabashed delight in being a monster to his characters - in ways modern sensibilities don't approve of. I don't think he would have been on board with the modern insistence on political correctness in children's books. I understand the edits, especially if there's netflix deals in the works. But I suspect history won't look kindly on the edits made to his books. Its ok for Wonka to have slaves (so long as they're not african) and straight up murder annoying children, but he can't call someone fat? This all feels very of-the-moment.