I wouldn’t change the text of any books, but I don’t think Roald Dahl wrote worthwhile children’s books. I bought several when my daughter was little: I thought they would be humorous, whimsical, fantastical. We read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory six or seven years ago. I was shocked. It was a grade school boy’s violent revenge fantasy. Several unappealing, unattractive children receive ghastly punishments, and disappear. While Charlie ultimately inherits the chocolate factory and all his wishes come true. I remember his family members sleeping cold and shivering side by side, and some starved to death. We didn’t read any more of them, as I didn’t want my daughter to be influenced by such juvenile evil. I don’t like that a reference to the great Rudyard Kipling was replaced by a reference to the also great and currently trendy Jane Austen. They shouldn’t change the text, I agree. But parents should research the books before allowing their children to read them. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was dark, bitter, and sadistic, and not good for children. Or adults.
After I commented, I found some articles about it. The candy factory ran using the work of slaves and abused its workers. A review of the movie observed that the vehicles used to transport the children being considered had fewer seats each time, as though the number to be discarded and dispatched were determined ahead of time. There were hints of pedarasty, as in the flavors of the wallpaper licked. Willy Wonka was depraved and insane. A number of reviewers said that both the book and the movie had creeped them out both as children and adults. I think it’s only that everyone thinks that children love candy, so they must enjoy a book about a candy factory, without looking at it more closely. Also because the name Roald Dahl is well-known. I’m against censorship and altering texts, but am in favor of choosing not to read or watch unsavory books or movies. I can’t think of any way that that book might be redeemed. We read A Little Princess several years ago, and it was similar in some ways. A little girl is orphaned and treated horribly when she no longer has money, is forced to slave as a scullery maid. But remains polite and loving, helping those around her, even a rat. Maintaining her virtuous character. I bought the hardbacked version with watercolor illustrations by Tasha Tudor, and we’ll keep it as our civilzation sinks into the void.
I wouldn’t change the text of any books, but I don’t think Roald Dahl wrote worthwhile children’s books. I bought several when my daughter was little: I thought they would be humorous, whimsical, fantastical. We read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory six or seven years ago. I was shocked. It was a grade school boy’s violent revenge fantasy. Several unappealing, unattractive children receive ghastly punishments, and disappear. While Charlie ultimately inherits the chocolate factory and all his wishes come true. I remember his family members sleeping cold and shivering side by side, and some starved to death. We didn’t read any more of them, as I didn’t want my daughter to be influenced by such juvenile evil. I don’t like that a reference to the great Rudyard Kipling was replaced by a reference to the also great and currently trendy Jane Austen. They shouldn’t change the text, I agree. But parents should research the books before allowing their children to read them. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was dark, bitter, and sadistic, and not good for children. Or adults.
I am admittedly not the biggest Dahl fan for the reasons you list.
After I commented, I found some articles about it. The candy factory ran using the work of slaves and abused its workers. A review of the movie observed that the vehicles used to transport the children being considered had fewer seats each time, as though the number to be discarded and dispatched were determined ahead of time. There were hints of pedarasty, as in the flavors of the wallpaper licked. Willy Wonka was depraved and insane. A number of reviewers said that both the book and the movie had creeped them out both as children and adults. I think it’s only that everyone thinks that children love candy, so they must enjoy a book about a candy factory, without looking at it more closely. Also because the name Roald Dahl is well-known. I’m against censorship and altering texts, but am in favor of choosing not to read or watch unsavory books or movies. I can’t think of any way that that book might be redeemed. We read A Little Princess several years ago, and it was similar in some ways. A little girl is orphaned and treated horribly when she no longer has money, is forced to slave as a scullery maid. But remains polite and loving, helping those around her, even a rat. Maintaining her virtuous character. I bought the hardbacked version with watercolor illustrations by Tasha Tudor, and we’ll keep it as our civilzation sinks into the void.
I heard long ago that Willy Wonka represents Satan, so I always view the film adaptations through that lens.
That makes sense. Crazy bright colors and lunatic frenzy, trying to sell the world forbidden fruit.