Now there is a GOOD thought! And endless suppliy of chocolate....plus I think Willy was a little bit into some of the kink if ya' know what I mean! Hubba Hubba. HAHAHAHAHA
Oh, no...I completely understand. I STILL have a huge crush on him! Hmmmmm...I wonder if that's healthy? An unrequited love since 1971? (And I do have the movie too!) : )
Hahaha! Well, Blackhellkat and I had a similar problem arise with Joe Strummer...and Jean Reno...and Eddie Izzard...so far (we have scarily similar tastes in men--'cept she's got this thing for Sammy Hagar that I will never understand!) We worked out a custody deal...every other weekend and holidays. Saved our friendship! ; )
Well you think Sammy Hagar is scary....wait'll I tell you about my Rob Zombie and scary looking (but harmless law abiding if there's such a thing) biker man fetish. HAAHAHAHA
I find it kind of interesting that everyone seems so into that book/film. I found it disturbing that basically the only passive character is rewarded and any initiative on any of the kids parts results in a horrible end --it's kind of like a modern Stuwelpeter (basically a story created to scare children into "good" behavior usually accompanied with graphic illustrations). There are other disturbing problems with Dahl's work.
I think that most children's literature could be seen as disturbing. I agree that Dahl's work incorporates a certain use of "grotesques" that makes his work more unsettling than a lot of other kids' stories, which is why I liked it so much as a kid (and as an adult). I'm not sure that it is Charlie's passiveness that is rewarded so much as his good heart. Much of Dahl's work does depict the triumph of the child who gets "lost in the crowd" and is thought to be insignificant by almost everyone around him/her. I suspect that's an idea that's appealed to all of us at one time or another, no?
His "good heart" is demonstrated with his willingness to starve to death quietly (the "deserving poor" starving quietly in the shadow of Wonka's factory). There are also good cases for misogyny and anti-Semitism in his work.
Actually, I'm all for the grotesque (the Gormenghast trilogy, etc.) --but I definitely think there are reasons that Dahl's books should not be given to younger children. Of course, I don't feel strongly enough about this to stop selling his books.
If you're interested in another side of Dahl, you might want to check out his book Switch Bitch.
Hmmmmm...well, I'll have to read the "Charlie" books again and see if I agree. I'll also check out Switch Bitch. If I remember right, that's a collection of stories? (I think it is at least. It's been quite a while since I've read any of his stuff.)
After all that, I should admit that I only remember reading one of his books. Most of these opinions come from Michele Landsberg's Reading for the Love of It: Best Books for Young Readers. I tend to read more books on books (especially in areas like kidlit) than the actual books themselves.
It's not a bad book. I've heard most of the charges before except the anti-Semitism charge and she supports that one both with plot analysis, but also with an interview he gave. Also, racism should be added too. I guess in the orginal version he had the chocolate slaves (Oompa Loompas) as fuzzy-headed Africans. And the misogyny I've heard about from several sources. Try finding a positive female character in his books. They range from neutral to very negative.
I hope I'm not coming off overly PC, because I'm not. I'm usually against books because they're badly written, not due to content. For example, I despise Le Guin's 4th book to the Earthsea "Trilogy" (basically a feminist revisionist history of Earthsea to solve ideological problems in a fantasy series she wrote twenty years earlier) --but I dislike it because propoganda rarely translates well into literature and it changes the character of Earthsea, but more importantly I don't think it's very good.
I can think of a couple of positive female characters in his books, but I certainly can't argue that none of his work portrayed women in a bad light. And I don't think you are coming off as overly "PC" either...there's nothing wrong with recognizing the negative aspects (as well as the positive) in a writer's work. I do think that sort of thing can be taken to an extreme, though. If we look hard enough, we can find something objectionable in just about anything that's ever been written. (As to Le Guin, I've never been a fan of hers...simply a matter of taste, no more profound reason than that.) : )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
you laugh, but....
From:
Re: you laugh, but....
From:
Re: you laugh, but....
From:
Re: you laugh, but....
From:
Re: you laugh, but....
From:
Re: you laugh, but....
From:
no subject
From:
Warty Warthog Wonka?
From:
Re: Warty Warthog Wonka?
From:
Re: Warty Warthog Wonka?
From:
Willy Wonka?
From:
Re: Willy Wonka?
From:
More on Dahl
Actually, I'm all for the grotesque (the Gormenghast trilogy, etc.) --but I definitely think there are reasons that Dahl's books should not be given to younger children. Of course, I don't feel strongly enough about this to stop selling his books.
If you're interested in another side of Dahl, you might want to check out his book Switch Bitch.
From:
Re: More on Dahl
From:
Disclaimer
From:
Re: Disclaimer
From:
Re: Disclaimer
I hope I'm not coming off overly PC, because I'm not. I'm usually against books because they're badly written, not due to content. For example, I despise Le Guin's 4th book to the Earthsea "Trilogy" (basically a feminist revisionist history of Earthsea to solve ideological problems in a fantasy series she wrote twenty years earlier) --but I dislike it because propoganda rarely translates well into literature and it changes the character of Earthsea, but more importantly I don't think it's very good.
From:
Re: Disclaimer