Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Bowdlerising Factory

[noggins]

Prodnose

NOUN
1. an inquisitive person
VERB (intransitive)
2. informal
to make uninvited inquiries

[Martin Y]

Fickelgruber is particularly reminiscent of Schicklgruber, the birthname of Hitler's father. Surely this is the thing Dahl would have most likely had in mind?

It's probably what I would have had in mind when I read it. Foreign name. Sounds German. Sounds like Shicklgruber which is what some people called Hitler for some reason.

Another rival was Prodnose. I think we know what's happening here.

No. What it made me think of was someone who stuck their nose into other people's business. And that's all.

[Martin Y]

I looked at the Wiki page for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory today and not only were the Oompa Loompas originally African pygmies (and I suspect the first copy I read was that version) but also Charlie Bucket himself was originally written as black but Dahl's publisher persuaded him to change that to broaden the book's appeal so that version of Charlie never saw print.

That seemed so perfectly ironic I wondered if the Wiki page had been nobbled.

[bagpuss]

While it hadn't ever occurred to me before that those names were anything other than names that were invented to sound unpleasant, lpm isn't the only one to make the accusation of antisemitism on that basis. The sparseness of results when searching for "Fickelgruber antisemitism" does indicate it's not a common accusation but Roald Dahl's antisemitism doesn't seem to be in doubt, so I'm more than happy to give lpm the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[noggins]

false accusations help the true ones ?

[jimbob]

false accusations help the true ones ?

I think it is more that when there's clear evidence of someone expressing a particular prejudice, things that look to be prejudiced will get interpreted as prejudiced.

More that true accusations help the weaker ones

[bagpuss]

false accusations help the true ones ?

I think it is more that when there's clear evidence of someone expressing a particular prejudice, things that look to be prejudiced will get interpreted as prejudiced.

More that true accusations help the weaker ones

What jimbob said.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the idea that Fickelgruber is meant to be an antisemitic dig. With an author who has shown no other indication of being antisemitic, you'd probably just assume that that's not what they meant and move on. But when the author in question is known to have been vocally antisemitic, then the probability that it was meant as antisemitic, either deliberately or somewhat subconsciously, is that much greater.

It's a bit like your point on the press interest in missing people thread - the probability that someone drowned when they disappeared leaving stuff on a riverbank is rather higher than the probability that any missing person drowned. Here, the probability of a reference being antisemitic when it's written by someone who was known to be antisemitic is much higher than when written by any average author.

Edited to remove extraneous "an"
And again to add link to the post in question.

[noggins]

No that's bollocks.

If it wouldn't be antisemitic if it came from the pen of A N Other, leave it alone.

Go censor Dahl's actual antisemitism.


Feel free to replace Dahl wiht other artists and antisemitism with other -isms.

[bagpuss]

No that's bollocks.

If it wouldn't be antisemitic if it came from the pen of A N Other, leave it alone.

Go censor Dahl's actual antisemitism.


Feel free to replace Dahl wiht other artists and antisemitism with other -isms.

But some people, not just lpm, think this is actual antisemitism, so who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Like most things in life, it's not that simple.

[LydiaGwilt]

Nor is it removing bigotry from a story that leaves nothing if it's removed (little black Sambo, for example)

About 20 years ago it was republished as Little Baba-ji (ji being the Hindi honorific - Mama-ji and Papa-ji also featured) and obviously with Indian characters rather than African (which makes more sense with the tigers and all). When I bought it for my niece, my Mother said that was the version she had had as a child in the 30s. So you can remove the racist name and still leave the story of a resourceful child who avoids being eaten by using the vanity of tigers against themselves. Whether this is still racist, or tigrist, I leave for more informed people to decide.

[noggins]

No that's bollocks.

If it wouldn't be antisemitic if it came from the pen of A N Other, leave it alone.

Go censor Dahl's actual antisemitism.


Feel free to replace Dahl wiht other artists and antisemitism with other -isms.

But some people, not just lpm, think this is actual antisemitism, so who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Like most things in life, it's not that simple.

I get to decide, didn't you get the memo?

[noggins]

Interesting discussion of Sambo

https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcr ... anuary.htm

[bolo]

Nor is it removing bigotry from a story that leaves nothing if it's removed (little black Sambo, for example)

About 20 years ago it was republished as Little Baba-ji (ji being the Hindi honorific - Mama-ji and Papa-ji also featured) and obviously with Indian characters rather than African (which makes more sense with the tigers and all). When I bought it for my niece, my Mother said that was the version she had had as a child in the 30s. So you can remove the racist name and still leave the story of a resourceful child who avoids being eaten by using the vanity of tigers against themselves. Whether this is still racist, or tigrist, I leave for more informed people to decide.

As it happens, I am distantly related to the author of Little Black Sambo, and I read a biography of her a few years ago out of genealogical interest. According to that biography, the book takes place in an imaginary country based on the author's experiences in India, where her husband was in the Indian Medical Service (he ended his career as Surgeon General of Madras). Hence, as you say, the tiger, and also IIRC a reference to ghee. As described in the article noggins linked to, the book was a huge hit in America, often horrendously reillustrated with clearly African American caricatures, but there is no reason to think that the author herself originally intended any connection to Africa or African Americans, or indeed had any real familiarity with either. On the other hand, she was a white Victorian Briton, living a privileged life in India, so some racist views would hardly be a surprise even setting aside the book.

[Tessa K]

No that's bollocks.

If it wouldn't be antisemitic if it came from the pen of A N Other, leave it alone.

Go censor Dahl's actual antisemitism.


Feel free to replace Dahl wiht other artists and antisemitism with other -isms.

But some people, not just lpm, think this is actual antisemitism, so who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Like most things in life, it's not that simple.

I get to decide, didn't you get the memo?

Ask Jewish people?

[Millennie Al]

But a young child calling a black kid in their class the n word because they read it in a book and had no idea that in the 21st century it's pretty universally accepted as an appalling word that no one should use - that I can absolutely imagine happening.

However, in the real world, a young child will say that not because they have read it in a book - where they might think it could be an old-fashioned word which would make them look silly - but because they have heard other people say the same thing.

We have a 9pm watershed on tv so that we know that kids can watch things before that time and not be exposed to adult content.

No. We have it because of people being stupid and old-fashioned. People who seem to think we are living in the 60's before the Internet, since the watershed only applies to live TV and the children can see what they want when they want online.

And what about the kids whose parents are nasty bullies and are bringing their kids up that way too? Is it a good idea if the books they're reading are also teaching them that fat or ugly people are bad people, for example?

If you censor the books, then those children will see only what their parents show them, which does not help at all. And if you think that you can break the link between ugly and bad, you're far too late: From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ugly -

1. very unattractive or unpleasant to look at; offensive to the sense of beauty; displeasing in appearance.
2. disagreeable; unpleasant; objectionable: ugly tricks; ugly discords.
3. morally revolting: ugly crime.
4. threatening trouble or danger: ugly symptoms.
5. mean; hostile; quarrelsome: an ugly mood; an ugly frame of mind.
6. (especially of natural phenomena) unpleasant or dangerous: ugly weather; an ugly sea.

[Millennie Al]

But some people, not just lpm, think this is actual antisemitism, so who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Like most things in life, it's not that simple.

Who gets to decide if a drug works or it doesn't? Should we leave it to what some people think?

[bagpuss]

But some people, not just lpm, think this is actual antisemitism, so who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Like most things in life, it's not that simple.

I get to decide, didn't you get the memo?

Ask Jewish people?

Would seem reasonable, wouldn't it?

[bagpuss]

But a young child calling a black kid in their class the n word because they read it in a book and had no idea that in the 21st century it's pretty universally accepted as an appalling word that no one should use - that I can absolutely imagine happening.

However, in the real world, a young child will say that not because they have read it in a book - where they might think it could be an old-fashioned word which would make them look silly - but because they have heard other people say the same thing.

By 9 or 10 years old, absolutely. At 6 or 7, for a fairly advanced reader? I can definitely see it happening. Kids that age, especially kids who know they're more advanced at reading than their peers, are quite likely to use the new words that they've read in books but not heard friends say, because they think they'll sound clever.

We have a 9pm watershed on tv so that we know that kids can watch things before that time and not be exposed to adult content.

No. We have it because of people being stupid and old-fashioned. People who seem to think we are living in the 60's before the Internet, since the watershed only applies to live TV and the children can see what they want when they want online.

And Netflix and other streaming services have film-style ratings for the same purpose. For iplayer, the time of original showing is a useful proxy. Personally I'd prefer it if everything just shifted to film-style ratings, as the watershed is a very blunt tool, but it's better than nothing where there's no other indication. I mean, I literally bundled the watershed and film ratings into the same point, the point being to indicate that for viewing we're happy to accept that what's appropriate for adults isn't necessarily appropriate for kids. I could have included PEGI ratings too but I assumed 2 examples would be enough for people. But sure, feel free to pick out one bit to sneer at and ignore the actual point entirely.

And what about the kids whose parents are nasty bullies and are bringing their kids up that way too? Is it a good idea if the books they're reading are also teaching them that fat or ugly people are bad people, for example?

If you censor the books, then those children will see only what their parents show them, which does not help at all.

Wait, what? Censoring the books means that those children will see only what their parents show them? Are you suggesting that censoring the books will change what their parents will allow them to see? Because if not, then the only difference taking a few words out of a book will make is that the kids won't see those words. And if the words are things we don't want them to see then where's the problem with that? I'm not sure what point you're making here, at all.

And if you think that you can break the link between ugly and bad, you're far too late: From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ugly -

1. very unattractive or unpleasant to look at; offensive to the sense of beauty; displeasing in appearance.
2. disagreeable; unpleasant; objectionable: ugly tricks; ugly discords.
3. morally revolting: ugly crime.
4. threatening trouble or danger: ugly symptoms.
5. mean; hostile; quarrelsome: an ugly mood; an ugly frame of mind.
6. (especially of natural phenomena) unpleasant or dangerous: ugly weather; an ugly sea.

Well, I'm fairly sure that I personally am not going to break the link between ugly and bad but do you really think that just because it's widespread we shouldn't try? I mean, sexism is pretty widespread too so tell you what, I'll just sit back and let the men get on with it because why bother, it's everywhere.

[bagpuss]

But some people, not just lpm, think this is actual antisemitism, so who gets to decide what is and what isn't? Like most things in life, it's not that simple.

Who gets to decide if a drug works or it doesn't? Should we leave it to what some people think?

Hmmm, let's see. Here's a thing that we can objectively measure using scientific methods to assess its efficacy. But no, let's not bother with that, let's use the method that someone suggested we use on a thing that's quite clearly subjective since different people have looked at the same extremely limited evidence and come to different conclusions. Yep, your argument is perfect, I'm convinced.

[noggins]

I get to decide, didn't you get the memo?

Ask Jewish people?

Would seem reasonable, wouldn't it?

The BDBJ hasnt replied to my email yet, but in the meanwhile, I see no reason to treasure your opinion.

[bagpuss]

Ask Jewish people?

Would seem reasonable, wouldn't it?

The BDBJ hasnt replied to my email yet, but in the meanwhile, I see no reason to treasure your opinion.

Rude of them. And fair dos, I won't be treasuring yours, nor my own for that matter, on this particular point.

[EACLucifer]

Would seem reasonable, wouldn't it?

The BDBJ hasnt replied to my email yet, but in the meanwhile, I see no reason to treasure your opinion.

Rude of them. And fair dos, I won't be treasuring yours, nor my own for that matter, on this particular point.

Main thing about changing a few names is it does nothing to the book as a whole. I understand much of the criticism of the changes, and think there is a point where if you change something enough, it loses its value, and if it has to be changed that much then perhaps it should be retired, but changing a few names does nothing to the value of the book. Dahl's antisemitism is well attested and appalling, I don't see any harm in playing it safe.

[JQH]

Plenty of discussion about how children will react to words such as n*****, which is good. We also need to think how an actual black child will react to seeing such words in a book.

[jimbob]

Plenty of discussion about how children will react to words such as n*****, which is good. We also need to think how an actual black child will react to seeing such words in a book.

Exactly.

[bagpuss]

Plenty of discussion about how children will react to words such as n*****, which is good. We also need to think how an actual black child will react to seeing such words in a book.

Excellent point and thanks for making it.