I seems to me just someone suggesting a positive if people stop reading Roald Dahl books, as opposed to someone wanting people to stop reading Roald Dahl.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I'll take you at your word, but if that's the case, then Poe's law is definitely in effect.
That's arguably a distinction without a difference.
If one thinks that doing A will lead to something positive, doesn't it stand to reason that they want A to happen?
Could be worse, I live in WV. My state only exists because we stayed with the Union unlike those traitors in VA. Which makes flying it even more fucked up.
When I interact with people who do this (also in PA, if you're unaware), I explain to them that they're basically flying a Dallas Cowboys flag, and it usually causes the desired level of distress.
No, because the post-event positive can be less of, as much of, or a completely different from, positive as the pre-event state: for instance in the former of those cases the concept of a "consolation prize".
Apparently Dahl was working out some childhood trauma stemming from repeated canings and other corporal punishments inflicted on him. In case anyone still wanted to believe that you can beat a child and have them grow up happy and well-adjusted.
That ain't necessarily indicative of bad writing. Plenty of great art is stocked almost exclusively with terrible (as in, morally awful) characters. Almost nobody in Wuthering Heights is a reasonable, halfway decent human being, and its one of my favourite novels.
No, I think Dahl was a genuinely fantastic writer of children's stories, even if the morality may be somewhat off some modern ideals.
He writes as someone who really tapped into how many children feel about the world: an ability for children to see themselves in his protagonists - including some of the darker sides of mischievousness, other troublemaking, and resentment of adult authority.
He has a take that the world is a harsh place - as someone who had been through a particularly brutal boarding school and was brought up on novelists such as Dickens might do. But his protagonists, whilst not necessarily paragons of virtue (what children are?), are smart, resourceful and fight against injustices and to overcome trials. In the end, they usually find happiness in loving and supportive, if not necessarily conventional, families. In this sense, I think one thing that does come through from Dahl's stories is a strong, core of belief in goodness and kindness, even if he was too flawed to live up to much of that in own his personal life and had notions of race and gender pretty typical of his less enlightened era. (He was highly altruistic in some respects, mind.)
There's plenty of room in children's literature for authors like Dahl.
I was being hyperbolic with my comment. Dahl has his place. I just dont like his writing
As to not living up to 'modern sensibilities' or whatever... I didn't like Dahl writing as a kid. So I dont know if modern is the right thing here as this was the 80s. The turning point for me was the Twits. Possibly the Enormous Crocodile too. I'm not into bullying and the bullied become the bully is awful. My daughter loves the Matilda movies, and they are some of the most fucked up pieces of kids fiction in creation.
There arent many authors I actively dislike in this world. Dahl and Ben Shapiro are the only two I can think of right now. I'd prefer to read them Harry Potter or Enders Game.
All those positive things about being resourceful, disrespecting authority or having a core belief in goodness.... I think many other authors do the same thing and way better
This is not meant to take this things from your interpretation of Dahl. But I strongly disagree. I still let my kids enjoy Dahl... but I am not interested in reading these to them. They can read it to themselves. I understand he had a terrible time in boarding school. I think he learnt the wrong lessons when he was bullied
(Take notes DeSantis. Just because you dont like something, it doesn't mean you ban it. You let people choose for themselves.)
I’ve read both the books for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - fucking hell Glass Elevator was WEIRD - and Matilda as well as seen the films. Neither Charlie nor Matilda strike me as bullies. Matilda could be a bit of a cheeky shit but it’s hard to look at that objectively considering her parents are neglectful and outright criminal, her brother is a douche and Ms. Trunchball is at best a massive child abuser and at worst a murderer. It’s really hard to view Matilda’s less than virtuous actions as anything other than if not justified then necessary to her survival and best interests.
Now the whole cast of Revolting Rhymes? Utter bastards to a man. But given the name of the book you’re not exactly going in blind.
Fucked up how?
It portrays dark and fucked up things, and does so (sometimes) in a comic way, but that doesn't make the work fucked up. We recognise these things as uncomfortable and abusive, and it deals with them with humour nonetheless, which I think can be healthy.
I would say Charlie is fine. Probably one of a couple of kid characters who did nothing wrong. Grandpa Joe is the asshole in that book
Yes, Trunchball is an asshole. Just because someone is an asshole, that does not mean you get to be an asshole.
I completely understand that I am in a minority when I say this. This is not normal people sense of morality. It's mine. Eg. I don't find Matilda humorous Silvanus, I see it as continuing the circle of violence. I cannot find humour in that. I understand most people don't see it this way
I also don't find all those Funniest Home Video shows funny at all. From the time I was a little kid. I remember my family all sitting down and watching them and me just looking aghast at anyone thinking any of this was funny
I went and did something else for an hour
I went and did something else for an hour
If Trunchball was just an asshole, Matilda would be out of line. But she’s not; she murdered her brother for his money and property, broke her now orphaned niece’s arm when she was eight (or thereabouts) deliberately and later brags she did it once she can do it again and inflicts physical and emotional abuse upon her students. The woman is a deranged and dangerous villain who in a sane world would have been long prosecuted for any number of crimes.
For years I called the show America's Funniest Groin Injuries.
I agree, most of those weren’t funny. Some were, usually the ones that were essentially a precursor to cute cat videos but it was essentially a cavalcade of people getting hurt.
Here, I'll do a real world context. You have dictators like Mussolini or Saddam who caused untold damage to people lives. This does not mean I'm interested in seeing them hang
As I said, I know I'm in a minority here. Most people would see hanging Hussein as just. I don't
Right, but that's capital punishment. Miss Trunchbull is merely scared by Matilda posing as a ghost of her murder victim, causing her to abandon the house and Magnus' inheritance-- both of which she stole anyway. Everything that happens to her is damn mild by literature standards-- even children's literature.
And just think how many sent in they won't have shown because the injuries were too serious.