1astropi
The new FS edition looks great!
https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/the-roald-dahl-collection-set-1.html
One question is - is this a reprint (which is what I believe) or a new FS edition?
Suntup Press sold out of their edition of Charlie - and it was only Charlie not including the other two books. The Artist Edition was $185 (plus shipping) which is already more expensive then the entire FS set by a good chunk! Although to be fair the SP edition features Quentin Blake's illustrations in color, and I believe there are more of them (?)
Thoughts?
https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/the-roald-dahl-collection-set-1.html
One question is - is this a reprint (which is what I believe) or a new FS edition?
Suntup Press sold out of their edition of Charlie - and it was only Charlie not including the other two books. The Artist Edition was $185 (plus shipping) which is already more expensive then the entire FS set by a good chunk! Although to be fair the SP edition features Quentin Blake's illustrations in color, and I believe there are more of them (?)
Thoughts?
2wcarter
2002 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 46 illustrations by Quentin Blake, 189pp Part of 6 volume set
2021 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 192pp. 154 black-and-white illustrations in total integrated with text throughout all 3 volumes by Quentin Blake. Part of 3 volume set.
Looks very similar, but hard to tell without internal pictures.
I do not own either set.
2021 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 192pp. 154 black-and-white illustrations in total integrated with text throughout all 3 volumes by Quentin Blake. Part of 3 volume set.
Looks very similar, but hard to tell without internal pictures.
I do not own either set.
3warehouseisbare
I think the new set is made in China too which is probably why it’s priced pretty nicely for the set.
4kvnchn
>1 astropi: I just received the new set so I can answer this. Giving both Charlies a quick flip, it appears the illustrations are the same, but the layouts are different. Here's a random page from both books. The first picture is from the 2002 set, the second from 2021. The new edition does have larger margins which may be more comfortable for the eyes.
5astropi
>4 kvnchn: Thank you. Can you verify where the books are printed?
6whytewolf1
>5 astropi: They were printed in China.
7kvnchn
>5 astropi: Printed on Yu Long Pure paper at C&C Offset Printing Co. Ltd, China, and bound by them in screen-printed cloth
8astropi
I looked up "Yu Long Pure" paper and that took me right here
https://www.librarything.com/topic/322161
Well, that seems a bit unfortunate. Makes me wonder if the FS can't find a good printer in the UK and if it's really that much cheaper to import books from nearly 8000 km away?
https://www.librarything.com/topic/322161
Well, that seems a bit unfortunate. Makes me wonder if the FS can't find a good printer in the UK and if it's really that much cheaper to import books from nearly 8000 km away?
9jroger1
>8 astropi:
It is getting hard to find a good printer even in the U.S. Here is a July post from a manager at Library of America describing the problem:
“It has been a wild, unprecedented first half of the year at LOA, and I’ll spend the next couple of days answering a few unanswered questions here on Library Thing.
An answer to simbae’s comment at the top of this thread—how our Melville volume, LOA #1, is out of stock—is a good place to start because it allows me to describe the challenges facing LOA (and the printing industry as a whole).
On the one hand, sales of LOA books during the past year have been through the roof, as sales of print books across the industry have skyrocketed. During the past year several LOA titles have sold as many copies in six to eight months as they had in the previous three or four years.
On the flip side, we’ve run out of stock of more titles than we can possibly reprint in such a short time. We currently have more than seventy series titles out of stock and twenty more are so low on stock that they are basically sold out as well. The challenges for reprinting are multiple: so many printing firms have closed down or scaled back during the past few years (in part because of the rise of ebooks and corresponding decline in print sales), that book manufacturers were and are basically unprepared for the onslaught of orders, and they are overwhelmed. Plus, many of them are short-staffed because of retirements and layoffs during the pandemic, and some of the largest printers are in the middle of regions that continue to have COVID outbreaks. The current lead time for printing an LOA book is 14 to 16 weeks (compare that to the 6 to 7 weeks we were accustomed to in the past). Worse, because our previous manufacturer went bankrupt, nearly every title we sent to press is, to the new printer, a “new title” and must go through a full round of proofs, which takes time for both the printer and for LOA staff.
On top of everything else, the last paper mill in the U.S. able to produce paper conforming to LOA specs shut down unexpectedly and permanently at the beginning of this year. In the middle of a pandemic, then, we (and other publishers with similar paper needs) had to contact and negotiate with mills abroad to get paper. Our paper now comes from Finland--and, boy, that has been an interesting process--and I’m pleased to report that the new stock exceeds our expectations. But for about two months this past spring, we literally had no paper at all to print LOA books.
The final challenge facing the LOA and the printing industry as a whole is the uncertainty of the future. Book manufacturers are reluctant to scale back up, because it’s not clear whether the increased sales in books is a temporary effect of the pandemic or something more permanent. Similarly, we are faced with challenges on how many books to print of the titles currently out of stock: do we assume that the sales of the past year are an anomaly? Or might sales be expected to increase because LOA books have been introduced to new readers? The answer is certainly somewhere in between, but it’s a guessing game that can prove expensive and time-consuming if we’re significantly off.
These are only a few of the challenges and obstacles we’ve faced recently, and you can imagine their effect on a publisher with fewer than twenty staff members. We are in a much better place than we were six months ago, but it will take us a couple of years to get everything back in print, and we ask for your patience in the months ahead.
--David”
It is getting hard to find a good printer even in the U.S. Here is a July post from a manager at Library of America describing the problem:
“It has been a wild, unprecedented first half of the year at LOA, and I’ll spend the next couple of days answering a few unanswered questions here on Library Thing.
An answer to simbae’s comment at the top of this thread—how our Melville volume, LOA #1, is out of stock—is a good place to start because it allows me to describe the challenges facing LOA (and the printing industry as a whole).
On the one hand, sales of LOA books during the past year have been through the roof, as sales of print books across the industry have skyrocketed. During the past year several LOA titles have sold as many copies in six to eight months as they had in the previous three or four years.
On the flip side, we’ve run out of stock of more titles than we can possibly reprint in such a short time. We currently have more than seventy series titles out of stock and twenty more are so low on stock that they are basically sold out as well. The challenges for reprinting are multiple: so many printing firms have closed down or scaled back during the past few years (in part because of the rise of ebooks and corresponding decline in print sales), that book manufacturers were and are basically unprepared for the onslaught of orders, and they are overwhelmed. Plus, many of them are short-staffed because of retirements and layoffs during the pandemic, and some of the largest printers are in the middle of regions that continue to have COVID outbreaks. The current lead time for printing an LOA book is 14 to 16 weeks (compare that to the 6 to 7 weeks we were accustomed to in the past). Worse, because our previous manufacturer went bankrupt, nearly every title we sent to press is, to the new printer, a “new title” and must go through a full round of proofs, which takes time for both the printer and for LOA staff.
On top of everything else, the last paper mill in the U.S. able to produce paper conforming to LOA specs shut down unexpectedly and permanently at the beginning of this year. In the middle of a pandemic, then, we (and other publishers with similar paper needs) had to contact and negotiate with mills abroad to get paper. Our paper now comes from Finland--and, boy, that has been an interesting process--and I’m pleased to report that the new stock exceeds our expectations. But for about two months this past spring, we literally had no paper at all to print LOA books.
The final challenge facing the LOA and the printing industry as a whole is the uncertainty of the future. Book manufacturers are reluctant to scale back up, because it’s not clear whether the increased sales in books is a temporary effect of the pandemic or something more permanent. Similarly, we are faced with challenges on how many books to print of the titles currently out of stock: do we assume that the sales of the past year are an anomaly? Or might sales be expected to increase because LOA books have been introduced to new readers? The answer is certainly somewhere in between, but it’s a guessing game that can prove expensive and time-consuming if we’re significantly off.
These are only a few of the challenges and obstacles we’ve faced recently, and you can imagine their effect on a publisher with fewer than twenty staff members. We are in a much better place than we were six months ago, but it will take us a couple of years to get everything back in print, and we ask for your patience in the months ahead.
--David”
10antinous_in_london
>8 astropi: it’s not about finding ‘a good printer in the UK’ as they have used UK printers before. It’s about cost & profit. When pricing the book I’m sure a decision was made on where to print to keep the retail price low, and the profit margin high & China was chosen rather than printing in Europe & hiking the retail price.
Costs in China are rising (especially labour costs) but it is still far cheaper to produce there than in Europe. In some product areas (thankfully not books yet) even China is now too expensive & retailers are moving production to Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Vietnam etc which are cost-wise where China was ten to fifteen years ago.
I’m also assuming that to keep costs down the China-produced books are shipped by boat as this is far cheaper than air-freighting them, but is much slower as it can take 3-4 months for shipments to arrive (or even longer if they get stuck in the Suez Canal !).
Costs in China are rising (especially labour costs) but it is still far cheaper to produce there than in Europe. In some product areas (thankfully not books yet) even China is now too expensive & retailers are moving production to Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Vietnam etc which are cost-wise where China was ten to fifteen years ago.
I’m also assuming that to keep costs down the China-produced books are shipped by boat as this is far cheaper than air-freighting them, but is much slower as it can take 3-4 months for shipments to arrive (or even longer if they get stuck in the Suez Canal !).
11housefulofpaper
>10 antinous_in_london:
You can't assume that the UK printers Folio used a few years ago still operate as offset litho printers, or even exist at all.
On the first point, some time ago now, Tartarus Press reported that their preferred printer of many years was switching to digital printing only. They did find a replacement, but the tone of their message gave the distinct impression that they had few options.
On the second, I believe most UK print works are owned by multinationals. If it's cheaper to move production overseas plus they can make a tidy profit selling the site (which they can, given the current shortage of housing in the UK), then it's pretty certain that the site's days are numbered.
You can't assume that the UK printers Folio used a few years ago still operate as offset litho printers, or even exist at all.
On the first point, some time ago now, Tartarus Press reported that their preferred printer of many years was switching to digital printing only. They did find a replacement, but the tone of their message gave the distinct impression that they had few options.
On the second, I believe most UK print works are owned by multinationals. If it's cheaper to move production overseas plus they can make a tidy profit selling the site (which they can, given the current shortage of housing in the UK), then it's pretty certain that the site's days are numbered.
12Jayked
>10 antinous_in_london:
"it’s not about finding ‘a good printer in the UK’ as they have used UK printers before"
The printers that they used before were mostly swallowed up in takeovers by multinational CPI group, and either sold off for their real estate or reduced to purveyors of low-quality mass-market pap. One or two small printers such as TJ Books of Padstow, occasionally used by Folio, still produce quality work for E.g. Little Toller, but would likely overextend themselves doing large runs for Folio. English trade publishers who want quality are likely to look for it in Eastern European countries rather than at home.
"it’s not about finding ‘a good printer in the UK’ as they have used UK printers before"
The printers that they used before were mostly swallowed up in takeovers by multinational CPI group, and either sold off for their real estate or reduced to purveyors of low-quality mass-market pap. One or two small printers such as TJ Books of Padstow, occasionally used by Folio, still produce quality work for E.g. Little Toller, but would likely overextend themselves doing large runs for Folio. English trade publishers who want quality are likely to look for it in Eastern European countries rather than at home.
13antinous_in_london
Agree re the reduced print capacity in the UK. The original commenter talked solely about UK print as if the only choice was between UK (good) or China (bad), when there are of course far more options available within Europe that have excellent quality. When choosing to print in China over Europe I would assume that cost (and possibly capacity) would account for a large % of the decision.
14antinous_in_london
>11 housefulofpaper: Totally agree. My reply was in response to the suggestion that Folio didn’t seem able to find a UK printer so was printing books 8000km away in China. This seemed to suggest that Folio’s only choice was UK or China, when there are of course numerous excellent European printers which Folio already use, so the decision to produce in China is not only made out of necessity, but with an eye on the balance sheet.
15housefulofpaper
>14 antinous_in_london:
Thanks for pointing out that the point you were making was a subtler one than I realised.
In Folio's defence, I do wonder if Brexit has made them a less attractive source of business for European printers, or if there are capacity issues on the Continent because of the same phenomena Library of America are experiencing (re.>9 jroger1:); or even if both things are true?
(Also, a quick online look for C&C Offset Printing shows then actively pitching for English-language business on their website. It must be tempting, when everywhere else seems to be shutting up shop or become more difficult to do business with).
Thanks for pointing out that the point you were making was a subtler one than I realised.
In Folio's defence, I do wonder if Brexit has made them a less attractive source of business for European printers, or if there are capacity issues on the Continent because of the same phenomena Library of America are experiencing (re.>9 jroger1:); or even if both things are true?
(Also, a quick online look for C&C Offset Printing shows then actively pitching for English-language business on their website. It must be tempting, when everywhere else seems to be shutting up shop or become more difficult to do business with).
16antinous_in_london
I see that today the Roald Dahl estate has been bought by Netflix - i wonder if this will impact future Dahl sets with Netflix now in control of all of his intellectual property across publishing as well as tv-film rights etc
17SF-72
>15 housefulofpaper:
I found it telling that they started printing in China shortly after the Brexit referendum. They also started putting customs stickers on the packages right then, years before it was necessary. It seems to suggest to me that they were cutting themselves off from the EU at least to a degree because of the referendum. I could imagine that possible advantages to printing in the EU were lost with that partnership, while China is quite available and cheap. Whether it makes sense environmentally or whether supporting this particular regime financially is good is another matter that's been discussed on here before though. I guess everyone has to decide for themselves, but I'm not happy about this development.
I found it telling that they started printing in China shortly after the Brexit referendum. They also started putting customs stickers on the packages right then, years before it was necessary. It seems to suggest to me that they were cutting themselves off from the EU at least to a degree because of the referendum. I could imagine that possible advantages to printing in the EU were lost with that partnership, while China is quite available and cheap. Whether it makes sense environmentally or whether supporting this particular regime financially is good is another matter that's been discussed on here before though. I guess everyone has to decide for themselves, but I'm not happy about this development.
18cronshaw
>17 SF-72: It's certainly a possible cause. The pound sterling began losing a lot of value against the Euro and other currencies as soon as David Cameron announced that there would be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, and fell further every time there was news suggesting Brexit was at greater risk of happening. Prior to Cameron's announcement, £1 bought roughly €1.40, now you get less than €1.17, and the two currencies approached parity at one point. That's a costly drop in the value of your currency if you're a UK business sourcing material in the EU.
20astropi
>9 jroger1: thank you, I did not know that. Very interesting, and a bit disappointing of course.
>17 SF-72: I agree, I'm not happy with the FS sending off most/many of their books to China.
>17 SF-72: I agree, I'm not happy with the FS sending off most/many of their books to China.
21affle
>17 SF-72:
I wouldn't like untidy facts to spoil your theory, but I have bought ten FS books since the beginning of last year, one produced in the UK, two in China, and seven in the EU. Would you be happy only if all production was in the EU? What, in the FS's position, would be your criteria for where to place contracts?
I wouldn't like untidy facts to spoil your theory, but I have bought ten FS books since the beginning of last year, one produced in the UK, two in China, and seven in the EU. Would you be happy only if all production was in the EU? What, in the FS's position, would be your criteria for where to place contracts?
22SF-72
>21 affle:
Nice tone. Or not.
They didn't produce any books in China until a few years ago and started at a specific time, shortly after the referendum, which seems telling. I assume that advantages they had producing in the EU were lost with Brexit. The whole customs and tax issue alone is a new problem, cronshaw also mentioned the two currencies, which makes complete sense. As I already wrote, I guess for FS cheapness is a major factor, which I can understand. I don't have to support their choice, though, but that's not because a book is printed outside the EU. I'd actually be happy for them and the UK industry if they could do more in the UK, which has become very difficult over time from what I've read here on the forum. I find it less than ideal to transport goods such long ways if there are alternatives. The same goes for supporting a regime like the Chinese one financially. If that doesn't bother you, that's your choice. I can stand by not being happy about this development, even if I understand the reasons for it.
Nice tone. Or not.
They didn't produce any books in China until a few years ago and started at a specific time, shortly after the referendum, which seems telling. I assume that advantages they had producing in the EU were lost with Brexit. The whole customs and tax issue alone is a new problem, cronshaw also mentioned the two currencies, which makes complete sense. As I already wrote, I guess for FS cheapness is a major factor, which I can understand. I don't have to support their choice, though, but that's not because a book is printed outside the EU. I'd actually be happy for them and the UK industry if they could do more in the UK, which has become very difficult over time from what I've read here on the forum. I find it less than ideal to transport goods such long ways if there are alternatives. The same goes for supporting a regime like the Chinese one financially. If that doesn't bother you, that's your choice. I can stand by not being happy about this development, even if I understand the reasons for it.
23Jayked
>22 SF-72:
"They didn't produce any books in China until a few years ago and started at a specific time, shortly after the referendum, which seems telling."
Not quite true. As pointed out in an earlier thread, they used Hong Kong offset printers as far back as 1993, especially for books with a lot of colour illustrations, including the Presentation volume for 1994.
CC Offset has been used for some years by other UK and American publishers, again especially for coloured art reproduction, by the likes of Thames and Hudson and the British Museum. In those that I own the quality is impeccable. Of course you get what you pay for; Folio may be trying to economise.
"They didn't produce any books in China until a few years ago and started at a specific time, shortly after the referendum, which seems telling."
Not quite true. As pointed out in an earlier thread, they used Hong Kong offset printers as far back as 1993, especially for books with a lot of colour illustrations, including the Presentation volume for 1994.
CC Offset has been used for some years by other UK and American publishers, again especially for coloured art reproduction, by the likes of Thames and Hudson and the British Museum. In those that I own the quality is impeccable. Of course you get what you pay for; Folio may be trying to economise.
24SF-72
>23 Jayked:
I didn't know that there were exceptions before, but they do come across as exceptions. But it's interesting to know that they already had a connection there and seem to have intensified it at the time, judging by what one reads on here. (I naturally don't have every FS title and keep a constant eye on where it's printed. I usually get interested in that when a book is particularly good or problematic, like my smelly Phantom of the Opera - printed in Germany.)
And of course the quality of the books printed in China can be good, though it does seem that there are more problems with some of the Chinese titles than others judging by complaints here about a small number of titles. But that's really not my issue at all since it's something that can be resolved with good quality control.
I didn't know that there were exceptions before, but they do come across as exceptions. But it's interesting to know that they already had a connection there and seem to have intensified it at the time, judging by what one reads on here. (I naturally don't have every FS title and keep a constant eye on where it's printed. I usually get interested in that when a book is particularly good or problematic, like my smelly Phantom of the Opera - printed in Germany.)
And of course the quality of the books printed in China can be good, though it does seem that there are more problems with some of the Chinese titles than others judging by complaints here about a small number of titles. But that's really not my issue at all since it's something that can be resolved with good quality control.
25astropi
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/28/opinions/roald-dahl-antisemitism-netflix-perry/in...
Did not know Dahl was such an antisemite... what a pathetic person. With this new revelation, I simply can not fathom reading his works.
In 1983, for example, he suggested that Jews allowed themselves to be massacred by the Nazis and that "There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." He said, "American Jewish bankers...dominated" the US government. In 1990, months before his death, he summed it all up by saying, "I'm certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic."
His anti-Semitism shows through in his writing, most notoriously in his 1983 novel "The Witches." In that book, Dahl created a caste of hook-nosed women who can literally print money and who like to kidnap and murder innocent children. The characterization appears to draw directly from the blood libel slander, the medieval and modern conspiracy theory that Jews annually kidnap and murder Christian children. The story, incidentally, is also misogynist -- as are my beloved Charlie stories: racist, sexist, ableist and fatphobic (go back and reread about Augustus Gloop, if you don't believe me).
Did not know Dahl was such an antisemite... what a pathetic person. With this new revelation, I simply can not fathom reading his works.
In 1983, for example, he suggested that Jews allowed themselves to be massacred by the Nazis and that "There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." He said, "American Jewish bankers...dominated" the US government. In 1990, months before his death, he summed it all up by saying, "I'm certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic."
His anti-Semitism shows through in his writing, most notoriously in his 1983 novel "The Witches." In that book, Dahl created a caste of hook-nosed women who can literally print money and who like to kidnap and murder innocent children. The characterization appears to draw directly from the blood libel slander, the medieval and modern conspiracy theory that Jews annually kidnap and murder Christian children. The story, incidentally, is also misogynist -- as are my beloved Charlie stories: racist, sexist, ableist and fatphobic (go back and reread about Augustus Gloop, if you don't believe me).
26_WishIReadMore
>25 astropi: Ugh. Surprised this hasn’t come up before.
27red_guy
Even his family have apologised for him! However, human beings who hold revolting views are capable of the most delightful and wonderful art. As an adult, it is a necessary skill to be able to separate the artist and the art, or you will miss out on a great deal.
28Willoyd
>25 astropi:
About as unpleasant as Ian Fleming's work in fact. He seems popular too.
About as unpleasant as Ian Fleming's work in fact. He seems popular too.
29astropi
>27 red_guy: it is a necessary skill to be able to separate the artist and the art
I could not disagree more with that statement. Art is intrinsically tied to the creator, and since in this case Dahl was such a bigot, that hatred manifests itself in his work as was pointed out in the article I cited. Dahl was just a wretched person, and I will not be reading his works.
>28 Willoyd: Thanks for bringing that up. I haven't heard much about Fleming, but it doesn't surprise me he is bigoted, although it sounds like far less than Dahl.
https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/453228/on-her-majesty-s-semitic-service/
I could not disagree more with that statement. Art is intrinsically tied to the creator, and since in this case Dahl was such a bigot, that hatred manifests itself in his work as was pointed out in the article I cited. Dahl was just a wretched person, and I will not be reading his works.
>28 Willoyd: Thanks for bringing that up. I haven't heard much about Fleming, but it doesn't surprise me he is bigoted, although it sounds like far less than Dahl.
https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/453228/on-her-majesty-s-semitic-service/
30DanGoddard98
>29 astropi: I don't totally disagree with you, but nor do I totally agree either. I think a more case by case approach works best for me personally. In the case of Dahl, as pointed out in several earlier posts, I think his views are apparent in some of his works. However I don't think this is by any means the case with all creators, so in some cases it is necessary to separate artist from art (perhaps a poor choice of word, obviously nobody is obliged to do this). I think the further back through time you go, the less pleasant creative types would be considered by todays standards. There is certainaly a separate discussion which could be had about this, but overall I think it is the same point that the personal beliefs of an artist do not have to be present in their works.
31jroger1
>27 red_guy: >29 astropi:
I think it is crucial to separate the two, for otherwise we would miss out on some of the greatest art and literature. Many people my age still refuse to see a Jane Fonda movie because of her anti-war activism 50 years ago.
I once had the opportunity to talk with Mortimer Adler, the late philosopher and great books advocate, and I asked him if he could recommend some good biographies. He said he seldom read them because he wasn’t much interested in the lives of the writers, but only in their ideas.
I think it is crucial to separate the two, for otherwise we would miss out on some of the greatest art and literature. Many people my age still refuse to see a Jane Fonda movie because of her anti-war activism 50 years ago.
I once had the opportunity to talk with Mortimer Adler, the late philosopher and great books advocate, and I asked him if he could recommend some good biographies. He said he seldom read them because he wasn’t much interested in the lives of the writers, but only in their ideas.
32red_guy
>29 astropi: If you can't separate the art from the artist, then it's off to the charity shop with any Folios you may have by L. Frank Baum, H.P Lovecraft, Dickens, Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, Walt Whitman, William Golding, and Patricia Highsmith. Racists, anti-semites, and bigots the lot of them.
The list goes on and on and on. And that's just Folio authors! Folio artists can be even worse - let's never forget the old dog-botherer and Folio favourite Eric Gill (and I'm afraid to say that the dog was only the start).
Of course bad people can make good art, and things really are not as simple as clickbait articles make out. No one is asking you to be their friend or have them round for tea.
The list goes on and on and on. And that's just Folio authors! Folio artists can be even worse - let's never forget the old dog-botherer and Folio favourite Eric Gill (and I'm afraid to say that the dog was only the start).
Of course bad people can make good art, and things really are not as simple as clickbait articles make out. No one is asking you to be their friend or have them round for tea.
33Jayked
Dahl suffered severe head injuries as a fighter pilot when his plane crashed during WW2. I suppose that might partly explain why he had such a wretched reputation for boorishness as he aged. Personally I'm always suspicious of adults writing for children. Breakfast with Blyton? Dinner with Dahl? Not for me.
34red_guy
>33 Jayked: Breakfast with Blyton must at least be better than being invited for tea ....and tennis.
35astropi
>30 DanGoddard98: >31 jroger1: >32 red_guy:
I never separate the art from the artist, but I do look at everything "case by case". Lovecraft is a great example. He certainly was antisemitic, but not to nearly the same degree as Dahl. Lovecraft never mentioned hating Jews, and in fact he married one! Again, he was a bigot, and we can all agree that any bigotry is wrong, but there are varying degrees and different epochs. Lovecraft lived at a time where it was acceptable for a WASP to openly be bigoted against Jews, Blacks, etc. Dahl on the other hand lived at a time when social justice and human rights were taking center stage. The fact that he espoused neo-Nazi rhetoric says everything one needs to know. Of course the further back in time we go, the more accepted (sadly) was antisemitism. Shakespeare is another great example. I am a huge fan of the Bard - and I very much accept that The Merchant of Venice is antisemitic. It was also written in 1596, keep in mind that Jews were not technically allowed in England until Oliver Cromwell overturned the Edict of Expulsion in 1657. I'm not making "excuses" for Shakespeare, rather I consider where and when he was living, and frankly The Merchant of Venice is very enigmatic. You have people who say Shakespeare was humanizing Shylock and by extension Jews, and others saying that's not the case. For instance:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-scholars-still-debate-whether-or...
At the end of the day, as I said I'm not "excusing" Shakespeare, but I find the bigotry in Merchant minuscule compared to the hatred espoused by Dahl.
I never separate the art from the artist, but I do look at everything "case by case". Lovecraft is a great example. He certainly was antisemitic, but not to nearly the same degree as Dahl. Lovecraft never mentioned hating Jews, and in fact he married one! Again, he was a bigot, and we can all agree that any bigotry is wrong, but there are varying degrees and different epochs. Lovecraft lived at a time where it was acceptable for a WASP to openly be bigoted against Jews, Blacks, etc. Dahl on the other hand lived at a time when social justice and human rights were taking center stage. The fact that he espoused neo-Nazi rhetoric says everything one needs to know. Of course the further back in time we go, the more accepted (sadly) was antisemitism. Shakespeare is another great example. I am a huge fan of the Bard - and I very much accept that The Merchant of Venice is antisemitic. It was also written in 1596, keep in mind that Jews were not technically allowed in England until Oliver Cromwell overturned the Edict of Expulsion in 1657. I'm not making "excuses" for Shakespeare, rather I consider where and when he was living, and frankly The Merchant of Venice is very enigmatic. You have people who say Shakespeare was humanizing Shylock and by extension Jews, and others saying that's not the case. For instance:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-scholars-still-debate-whether-or...
At the end of the day, as I said I'm not "excusing" Shakespeare, but I find the bigotry in Merchant minuscule compared to the hatred espoused by Dahl.
36ironjaw
>31 jroger1: you are indeed lucky to have met Mortimer Adler. How was he as a person? I sometimes cannot fathom how much work went into the Great Books of the Western World and all the other related educational books and references that he worked on. I’m slowly working through his works. But yes I agree with his statement. The closer you get to someone the less appealing you find them.
I listened to recent Slightly Foxed podcast and I can’t remember which one but paraphrasing one of the guests remarked it was seldom that nice and kinder people are ever written about or popular and famous. It’s always the ones with controversies, those that are bad and/or evil that are written about. Nice people are not remembered, sadly. That got me thinking a bit.
I listened to recent Slightly Foxed podcast and I can’t remember which one but paraphrasing one of the guests remarked it was seldom that nice and kinder people are ever written about or popular and famous. It’s always the ones with controversies, those that are bad and/or evil that are written about. Nice people are not remembered, sadly. That got me thinking a bit.
37ironjaw
>33 Jayked: I’ve heard that Dahl was an awful father to his kids and had an extreme temper. He lost one daughter that he cared deeply for. In addition, I might be worth mentioning that he was Norwegian and might be worth looking at a historical context and some of the discussion, antisemitism and minor sympathies in Norway during the Second World War. There was resistance, in the same way as in my country Denmark but still some turned a blind eye.
38jroger1
>36 ironjaw: “You are indeed lucky to have met Mortimer Adler. How was he as a person? I sometimes cannot fathom how much work went into the Great Books of the Western World and all the other related educational books and references that he worked on.”
I attended three of Adler’s Aspen Institute seminars when he was in his late 80s and early 90s, physically past his prime but still clear of mind. I understand that he was a tough taskmaster who could not tolerate sloppy thinking when he was a younger professor at the University of Chicago.”
Someone asked him which of his writings he would most be remembered for. He said he hoped it would be the Syntopicon (the collection of 102 essays comprising two volumes of The Great Books of the Western World), but he was afraid it might be “How to Read a Book,” which he co-wrote with Charles Van Doren and which has never been out of print since the 1940s. Adler considered the latter to be among his least significant works.
He said he worked full-time for two years writing the Syntopicon. He wrote all the essays himself and then revised them all for the second edition.
I attended three of Adler’s Aspen Institute seminars when he was in his late 80s and early 90s, physically past his prime but still clear of mind. I understand that he was a tough taskmaster who could not tolerate sloppy thinking when he was a younger professor at the University of Chicago.”
Someone asked him which of his writings he would most be remembered for. He said he hoped it would be the Syntopicon (the collection of 102 essays comprising two volumes of The Great Books of the Western World), but he was afraid it might be “How to Read a Book,” which he co-wrote with Charles Van Doren and which has never been out of print since the 1940s. Adler considered the latter to be among his least significant works.
He said he worked full-time for two years writing the Syntopicon. He wrote all the essays himself and then revised them all for the second edition.
39Jayked
>37 ironjaw:
Granted his background was Norwegian, but he was born and bred in Wales and went to an English public school. He volunteered for the RAF when in Dar es Salaam, working for Shell. During his RAF stint he mentions favourably in "Going Solo" an encounter with a displaced Jew and a band of Jewish orphans who helped him out. He admits his ignorance of the Jewish situation and displays no animosity. That must have come later.
If one starts boycotting writers who showed pro-German and anti-Jewish sympathies preWW2, the list is long. For instance there's an Agatha Christie novel, unlikely to be printed soon, that follows the nazi line of Jewish financiers in Switzerland squeezing the German populace to starvation.
Granted his background was Norwegian, but he was born and bred in Wales and went to an English public school. He volunteered for the RAF when in Dar es Salaam, working for Shell. During his RAF stint he mentions favourably in "Going Solo" an encounter with a displaced Jew and a band of Jewish orphans who helped him out. He admits his ignorance of the Jewish situation and displays no animosity. That must have come later.
If one starts boycotting writers who showed pro-German and anti-Jewish sympathies preWW2, the list is long. For instance there's an Agatha Christie novel, unlikely to be printed soon, that follows the nazi line of Jewish financiers in Switzerland squeezing the German populace to starvation.
40DanGoddard98
>35 astropi: It sounds a lot like you are separating the art from the artist to me. I don't disagree with anything you've said, except for "I never separate the art from the artist". Maybe we both have slightly different interpretations of what it is to separate art from the artist, but as I see it being able to look past something unpleasant in some instances amounts to separating the art from the artist in that case.
I can however see an argument that taking historical context into account means considering the artist when considering the work - as I said where we differ may be more semantic than anything else.
I can however see an argument that taking historical context into account means considering the artist when considering the work - as I said where we differ may be more semantic than anything else.
41ironjaw
>38 jroger1: fascinating. In two years full time. He had a broad array of knowledge and I’m slowly reading some of his works and they are elucidating. Some even frightening such as the impact of television (early 60s) on children that are causing them to lose interest in reading books.
>39 Jayked: I agree absolutely you with. It’s difficult to see a work on its own and also to appreciate the author especially when these upsetting things come up. My niece adores Dahl. She, like many of contemporaries and myself included grew up with Dahl and it’s hard to imagine a person as an antisemite. I’ve seen antisemitism (as well islamophobia) in Scandinavian countries growing up and it’s awful. When you read or adore a book you always want an author to be a model citizen. I’ve chosen never to get too close to authors. i once met Salman Rushdie and he was rude to me. Maybe because I was a fellow Indian or what. I’m not sure, I used to go to so many author gatherings and book signings and what not. But ever since, I’ve just distanced myself and just I admire their work.
>39 Jayked: I agree absolutely you with. It’s difficult to see a work on its own and also to appreciate the author especially when these upsetting things come up. My niece adores Dahl. She, like many of contemporaries and myself included grew up with Dahl and it’s hard to imagine a person as an antisemite. I’ve seen antisemitism (as well islamophobia) in Scandinavian countries growing up and it’s awful. When you read or adore a book you always want an author to be a model citizen. I’ve chosen never to get too close to authors. i once met Salman Rushdie and he was rude to me. Maybe because I was a fellow Indian or what. I’m not sure, I used to go to so many author gatherings and book signings and what not. But ever since, I’ve just distanced myself and just I admire their work.
42jfkf
I think I have read everything Walt Whitman has written and dont recall anything that could be considered racist or anti-Semitic.In fact quite the opposite. Can anyone enlighten me? Red-Guy???
43abysswalker
>42 jfkf: a web search for "Whitman racism" (or similar query) will provide plenty of pointers, mostly to early or unpublished writing.
In this case, his actual celebrated work is so obviously anti-racist in spirit that I could care less if his multitudes contained a few souls misled by the common biases of his contemporaries.
In this case, his actual celebrated work is so obviously anti-racist in spirit that I could care less if his multitudes contained a few souls misled by the common biases of his contemporaries.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
44red_guy
Here's the first thing I came across, - a well argued piece on Medium: https://medium.com/belover/walt-whitman-was-a-racist-dbe2a0b2d9a but as I was saying upthread, if the views of an author stop you from reading them, well then you miss out. Similarly, Dahl was a product of his time as much as Whitman, and the UK (like many other countries) has been a racist society since time immemorial, - sadly it is just the extent to which that racism is made explicit that varies.
Fortunately, neither in Dahl's nor Whitman's work are those repellent views blatantly expressed, or at least to the extent that make them unreadable. However, that does not in any way mean that insights should be glossed over or supressed. Knowledge is always good, even if sometimes it may make us uncomfortable.
Fortunately, neither in Dahl's nor Whitman's work are those repellent views blatantly expressed, or at least to the extent that make them unreadable. However, that does not in any way mean that insights should be glossed over or supressed. Knowledge is always good, even if sometimes it may make us uncomfortable.
45_WishIReadMore
>44 red_guy: I suppose one objection to the knowledge is always good perspective is that to find this knowledge - insights into the degree in which authors’ racist views are manifest in their works - you would have to read it yourself, thereby supporting the author or the estate directly or indirectly. At the end of the day doing that whether for entertainment or intellectual curiosity, the outcome is the same - the author gets their book sold or borrowed from a library.
46antinous_in_london
>45 _WishIReadMore: Whitman & many other potentially troublesome authors are long out of copyright so you can easily read his works online without supporting his estate financially in any way. Since Dahl is now wholly owned by Netflix anyone purchasing his works is financially supporting Netflix which many may also find just as problematic as supporting his estate.
It seems a strange argument that ignorance is preferable to giving an authors estate a few pennies by borrowing one of their books from a library - or do you mean that libraries should be censoring content & only buying books from authors with a proven ‘clean moral record’?
It seems a strange argument that ignorance is preferable to giving an authors estate a few pennies by borrowing one of their books from a library - or do you mean that libraries should be censoring content & only buying books from authors with a proven ‘clean moral record’?
47_WishIReadMore
>46 antinous_in_london: Your second paragraph is so incredibly far beyond a reasonable interpretation of what I said, that I won’t dignify it with a response.
Regarding the rest of your reply, I was only suggesting what the objection of some might be - supporting the author/estate/company. Good point about things being out of copyright. I suppose another way someone might try to understand this is from reading the critiques of others, and then deciding if they’d like to go ahead and support the author’s work.
From my username you might intuit I don’t generally often come across this conundrum myself. Unfortunately.
Regarding the rest of your reply, I was only suggesting what the objection of some might be - supporting the author/estate/company. Good point about things being out of copyright. I suppose another way someone might try to understand this is from reading the critiques of others, and then deciding if they’d like to go ahead and support the author’s work.
From my username you might intuit I don’t generally often come across this conundrum myself. Unfortunately.
48SF-72
>45 _WishIReadMore:
If I'm interested in something from a person or company I don't want to support financially (Disney come to mind), there's usually the option of buying a used copy of a book or film instead of a new one.
If I'm interested in something from a person or company I don't want to support financially (Disney come to mind), there's usually the option of buying a used copy of a book or film instead of a new one.
49antinous_in_london
>47 _WishIReadMore: I find that life is usually too short to research everyone before (or even after) I consume their work & often unpleasant people can produce good work.
I recently read Jane Birkin’s diaries which mention her marriage to the film composer John Barry, of James Bond fame, who started a relationship with her when she was a minor & he was in his 30’s, married her as soon as she turned 18, cheated on her the whole time they were married, then abandoned her & their 3 month old baby when she objected to his continual womanising. It doesn’t make me think much of Barry as a person but has not so far managed to taint the music he produced or the films he composed music for…
I recently read Jane Birkin’s diaries which mention her marriage to the film composer John Barry, of James Bond fame, who started a relationship with her when she was a minor & he was in his 30’s, married her as soon as she turned 18, cheated on her the whole time they were married, then abandoned her & their 3 month old baby when she objected to his continual womanising. It doesn’t make me think much of Barry as a person but has not so far managed to taint the music he produced or the films he composed music for…
50red_guy
>45 _WishIReadMore: My contention throughout this thread is that the separation of an artist's character from their work is a necessary skill, so buying good books by morally dubious authors is fine by me.
The only exception I can see would be with children's fiction, where the moral failings and views of the author are made explicit in their work. I don't think this applies to Dahl, and I don't buy the connection between witches and misogyny or antisemitism. Not being very nice and having warty noses is the fate of witches throughout European literature, and if they need money for their evil plans, magically printing it does not make them antisemitic, does it? (gives sidelong glance at Tolkein's gold-loving dwarves and Rowlings goblin bankers ). Even then, I would censor as little as possible - discussions with children are always the best way.
I think I might make an exception with Enid Blyton, though. And now I come to think of it, some of Folio's nursery drivel (!)
The only exception I can see would be with children's fiction, where the moral failings and views of the author are made explicit in their work. I don't think this applies to Dahl, and I don't buy the connection between witches and misogyny or antisemitism. Not being very nice and having warty noses is the fate of witches throughout European literature, and if they need money for their evil plans, magically printing it does not make them antisemitic, does it? (gives sidelong glance at Tolkein's gold-loving dwarves and Rowlings goblin bankers ). Even then, I would censor as little as possible - discussions with children are always the best way.
I think I might make an exception with Enid Blyton, though. And now I come to think of it, some of Folio's nursery drivel (!)
51jfkf
>44 red_guy: I am not impressed with your source, sounds like some closet case evangelical who is willing to repeat any rumor or hearsay as long as it shows any gay person in a bad context.
52red_guy
>51 jfkf: Impressed or not, that was just the first in a very long list, there are many other to choose from, and all Whitman's quotes are on the record. What's his sexuality got to do with his racism, BTW?
53jfkf
>52 red_guy: I dismissed your source as fake. Show me a published account of his racism. I can say I seen a letter where he says racist things but that is not proof.I have read every major biography and his published letters and his final version of Leaves of Grass and I dont see any hint.I was not talking about his sexuality,I said the source you used was obsessed with criticizing famous gay men.
54red_guy
>53 jfkf: Sorry Bob, I'm too busy this evening but Google is easy enough to work and you won't have to look too far ! :)
55LolaWalser
>50 red_guy:
Not to go rehashing a discussion that's been had many times on LT, I'd just point out that the stereotype of a witch is generally recognised to be misogynistic, and has been used and is still being used against women.
On Dahl specifically, his misogyny is as well documented as his other discriminatory views, in his own words. He wasn't shy about this and although I can't quote the latest instance I came across (in the Introduction to Roald Dahl's Book of Ghost Stories), the sheer gratuitous offensiveness of his remarks is appalling.
I haven't read his children's fiction. I suppose that for most people the issue isn't whether they can or cannot "separate the artist from the art" in some abstract sense, but whether the unsavoury ideas have bled over into the "art". (As has been argued before, it's probably easier to ignore Wagner's antisemitism when listening to music, than Céline's when reading books.)
Not to go rehashing a discussion that's been had many times on LT, I'd just point out that the stereotype of a witch is generally recognised to be misogynistic, and has been used and is still being used against women.
On Dahl specifically, his misogyny is as well documented as his other discriminatory views, in his own words. He wasn't shy about this and although I can't quote the latest instance I came across (in the Introduction to Roald Dahl's Book of Ghost Stories), the sheer gratuitous offensiveness of his remarks is appalling.
I haven't read his children's fiction. I suppose that for most people the issue isn't whether they can or cannot "separate the artist from the art" in some abstract sense, but whether the unsavoury ideas have bled over into the "art". (As has been argued before, it's probably easier to ignore Wagner's antisemitism when listening to music, than Céline's when reading books.)
56jfkf
>54 red_guy: My name is John and we can just drop it.I did not intend to start a fight. I guess it makes me angry to hear someone accuse a long dead man of something of to my knowledge is completely without merit. As for the idea to send former slaves back to Africa or an Island of some sort was Lincolns. With the way they have been treated since they may have been better off.
57red_guy
>55 LolaWalser: I take your point about the origins of witches and their place in children's stories, but as always, talking to children about what they hear and read and helping them sort reality from fiction is never time wasted, and in the classroom at least there is a whole coven of affirmative, cheerful and helpful witches to balance, as it were, the books.
I find that in his work and probably in real life, Dahl is more generally misanthropic than anything else. That cruel unpleasant streak which is uppermost in his adult stories is undoubtedly present in his books for children, in which everything is exaggerated and extreme, from the wickedness of the villains to their eventual punishment. Adults are more often than not the enemy, with the ensuing conflicts and problems are resolved by resourceful girls and boys who restore order to the prevailing misrule. There is a generalised anger there too, and this, together with that feeling that grown-ups just might not be all they appear is the frisson which keeps the child coming back. I have not read the introduction to the ghost story book (is it for adults or children?) and you have not read his stuff for younger readers, so there's not much of an informed discussion we can have on the specifics of either.
However, generally the adults can be morally ambiguous as well as plain nasty, the worst famously being Willy Wonka, with his delicious chocolate made by the Oompa Loompas, apparently an enslaved tribe who are brought from Africa in cardboard boxes with holes in who cheerfully make his sweets (successive illustrators have tried their best with this, but without much success, and the orange dwarfs of the first film are no help). This book, rather than The Witches is the one that gives me pause and I perhaps wouldn't rush to read to a child.
The two I used to like to read to children most are The Twits, an exercise in equal opportunities offensiveness, about a disgusting old couple straight out of Beckett, and The Enormous Crocodile, in which the titular reptile plots unsuccessfully to eat two very soppy children before being thrown into the sun by an outraged elephant. In this one, I think you are very much on the side of the crocodile .
Defence of Dahl's books is really not the hill I would die on, as I find too many of them episodic and structurally unsatisfying, or they dive (sometimes literally) to the bottom, and pander to children's love of the gross and an easy laugh. But they are much loved in the UK, although the witchmongering Jill Murphy and J.K.Rowling may have dislodged Dahl in polls here, both in popularity and the latter in developing her own heady tranche of controversy...
I find that in his work and probably in real life, Dahl is more generally misanthropic than anything else. That cruel unpleasant streak which is uppermost in his adult stories is undoubtedly present in his books for children, in which everything is exaggerated and extreme, from the wickedness of the villains to their eventual punishment. Adults are more often than not the enemy, with the ensuing conflicts and problems are resolved by resourceful girls and boys who restore order to the prevailing misrule. There is a generalised anger there too, and this, together with that feeling that grown-ups just might not be all they appear is the frisson which keeps the child coming back. I have not read the introduction to the ghost story book (is it for adults or children?) and you have not read his stuff for younger readers, so there's not much of an informed discussion we can have on the specifics of either.
However, generally the adults can be morally ambiguous as well as plain nasty, the worst famously being Willy Wonka, with his delicious chocolate made by the Oompa Loompas, apparently an enslaved tribe who are brought from Africa in cardboard boxes with holes in who cheerfully make his sweets (successive illustrators have tried their best with this, but without much success, and the orange dwarfs of the first film are no help). This book, rather than The Witches is the one that gives me pause and I perhaps wouldn't rush to read to a child.
The two I used to like to read to children most are The Twits, an exercise in equal opportunities offensiveness, about a disgusting old couple straight out of Beckett, and The Enormous Crocodile, in which the titular reptile plots unsuccessfully to eat two very soppy children before being thrown into the sun by an outraged elephant. In this one, I think you are very much on the side of the crocodile .
Defence of Dahl's books is really not the hill I would die on, as I find too many of them episodic and structurally unsatisfying, or they dive (sometimes literally) to the bottom, and pander to children's love of the gross and an easy laugh. But they are much loved in the UK, although the witchmongering Jill Murphy and J.K.Rowling may have dislodged Dahl in polls here, both in popularity and the latter in developing her own heady tranche of controversy...
58Clobby
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-and-other-ill...
I noticed yesterday at Barnes and Noble there was an edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory done for the Barnes and Noble hardback classics series. I don't know if anyone here likes those, they do look kinda tacky sometimes. They do feature color illustrations though and are pretty cheap for the quality. Worth checking out at least if you're a fan.
I noticed yesterday at Barnes and Noble there was an edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory done for the Barnes and Noble hardback classics series. I don't know if anyone here likes those, they do look kinda tacky sometimes. They do feature color illustrations though and are pretty cheap for the quality. Worth checking out at least if you're a fan.
59_WishIReadMore
>57 red_guy: Thanks for taking the time to write that, it was an enjoyable read.
60red_guy
>59 _WishIReadMore: Thanks!
61astropi
>44 red_guy: Dahl was a product of his time as much as Whitman, and the UK (like many other countries) has been a racist society since time immemorial
You're certainly correct in that the UK like all countries has always had racism and other forms of discrimination. However, I have a hard time accepting the "Dahl was a product of his time" excuse. Dahl died in 1990, not exactly 1937 (the year Lovecraft died) or 1892 (the year Whitman died). Despite antisemitism being much more accepted during Lovecraft's time, Lovecraft never exhibited such powerful hatred as Dahl. At the end of the day people will read Dahl because he was a talented and influential writer. However, that is not enough for me.
You're certainly correct in that the UK like all countries has always had racism and other forms of discrimination. However, I have a hard time accepting the "Dahl was a product of his time" excuse. Dahl died in 1990, not exactly 1937 (the year Lovecraft died) or 1892 (the year Whitman died). Despite antisemitism being much more accepted during Lovecraft's time, Lovecraft never exhibited such powerful hatred as Dahl. At the end of the day people will read Dahl because he was a talented and influential writer. However, that is not enough for me.
62red_guy
I'm not excusing him in any way whatsoever, but rather thinking that he was born during the first world war in 1916, when ideas of colonialism and empire were still very much alive as to a certain extent they were for me for me in the 1950s and 60s growing up. I vividly remember the scales falling from my eyes as I gradually learned more about it, (and the arguments I had with my parents).
63Jayked
Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views
And will pardon Paul Claudel
Pardons him, for writing well
What a smug Pecksniffian generation we are, ever ready to cast the first stone.
Pardoned Kipling and his views
And will pardon Paul Claudel
Pardons him, for writing well
What a smug Pecksniffian generation we are, ever ready to cast the first stone.
64astropi
>62 red_guy: I understand that, but there is a world of difference between what Dahl said and what one might consider, for lack of a better word, "ignorance".
>63 Jayked: There is nothing Pecksniffian about condemning Dahl for being a horrible antisemite, bigot, misogynist, and the list goes on. Just because he was a talented and popular writer does not make him "untouchable" and in fact I don't foresee anyone "pardoning" Dahl anytime soon. Nor should anyone.
>63 Jayked: There is nothing Pecksniffian about condemning Dahl for being a horrible antisemite, bigot, misogynist, and the list goes on. Just because he was a talented and popular writer does not make him "untouchable" and in fact I don't foresee anyone "pardoning" Dahl anytime soon. Nor should anyone.
65Willoyd
I'm in general terms not a Dahl fan, but i have to admit enjoying Matilda - book, film and musical. Politically incorrect or otherwise.
66PatsChoice
As a minority whose community was slaughtered and subjugated and is discriminated against to this day (I genuinely dislike even having to use these qualifiers, but they serve as prolepses in online discussion), I happily admit that Dahl's—or any artist's—personal background has no effect on my ability to enjoy his work. I must've read The Witches twenty times over growing up!
Virtually all people who have walked this Earth have done good and bad things—to largely varying degrees, of course, but shades of grey they all exhibit. Dahl may be seen as "largely bad" by some, but I think it's quite easy and far from morally reprehensible to enjoy the good he has contributed.
My general philosophy is to stay far away from cancel culture and its derivations. It's much more productive to identify what or who is problematic and why or how that is, and then reconcile how to absorb their contributions while understanding thoroughly why we can't repeat their mistakes. I'll teach my kids to also analyze in this way; they'll have better perspectives for it.
Virtually all people who have walked this Earth have done good and bad things—to largely varying degrees, of course, but shades of grey they all exhibit. Dahl may be seen as "largely bad" by some, but I think it's quite easy and far from morally reprehensible to enjoy the good he has contributed.
My general philosophy is to stay far away from cancel culture and its derivations. It's much more productive to identify what or who is problematic and why or how that is, and then reconcile how to absorb their contributions while understanding thoroughly why we can't repeat their mistakes. I'll teach my kids to also analyze in this way; they'll have better perspectives for it.
67AnnieMod
>66 PatsChoice: I sometimes miss the days when the only information I had about an author was whatever was printed in the book... or an encyclopaedia entry if I was lucky. :)
Everyone chooses what they read based on whatever criteria they want to. Being told up in >64 astropi: "... I don't foresee anyone "pardoning" Dahl anytime soon. Nor should anyone." is arrogant to say the least.
You dig deep enough, you will find something bad about anyone - it's the human condition. The further back the author lived, the more reprehensible they are likely to be to our modern sensibilities. Looking at a work in its historical context is not the same as looking at the author under a microscope and then applying that as historical context.
On a lighter note - If someone is so disgusted by Dahl that they are about to burn/throw away their books, I'd be happy to take them off their hands - after all you would not want to profit from these evil books, right? ;)
Everyone chooses what they read based on whatever criteria they want to. Being told up in >64 astropi: "... I don't foresee anyone "pardoning" Dahl anytime soon. Nor should anyone." is arrogant to say the least.
You dig deep enough, you will find something bad about anyone - it's the human condition. The further back the author lived, the more reprehensible they are likely to be to our modern sensibilities. Looking at a work in its historical context is not the same as looking at the author under a microscope and then applying that as historical context.
On a lighter note - If someone is so disgusted by Dahl that they are about to burn/throw away their books, I'd be happy to take them off their hands - after all you would not want to profit from these evil books, right? ;)
68LolaWalser
>57 red_guy:
I find that in his work and probably in real life, Dahl is more generally misanthropic than anything else.
Note that this is commonly heard in defence of many of his ilk but means nothing when it comes to the issue of insulting those who are already the world's underdogs. Misogyny isn't a forgivable little "side effect" of general hatred of humanity, it's the patriarchy's central doctrine and weapon for specifically subjugating and controlling women. Antisemitism and racism are a global illness. All these discriminatory views, which one might dismiss as private foibles when kept to oneself, become something else when publicised.
>67 AnnieMod:
Actually, as someone above already pointed out, being "a product of one's time" and going against "modern sensibilities" as if it's the "modern sensibilities" that are the problem, is less than a satisfactory comment, if it's ever even meaningful. The fact is that there is a whole lot of racist, misogynistic etc. content in literature past (and present) that many people have nevertheless little to no problem consuming. And while it's become popular among certain factions to deride any noticing of that as "cancel culture" ("PC" in other times etc.), the point, as I see it, is simply to acknowledge this. What one does next, if anything, is up to every individual and depends on context.
I think we can probably agree on that and leave it so. Wouldn't have bothered if this asinine "product of times", "didn't use to be racist" etc. didn't keep popping up. :)
I find that in his work and probably in real life, Dahl is more generally misanthropic than anything else.
Note that this is commonly heard in defence of many of his ilk but means nothing when it comes to the issue of insulting those who are already the world's underdogs. Misogyny isn't a forgivable little "side effect" of general hatred of humanity, it's the patriarchy's central doctrine and weapon for specifically subjugating and controlling women. Antisemitism and racism are a global illness. All these discriminatory views, which one might dismiss as private foibles when kept to oneself, become something else when publicised.
>67 AnnieMod:
Actually, as someone above already pointed out, being "a product of one's time" and going against "modern sensibilities" as if it's the "modern sensibilities" that are the problem, is less than a satisfactory comment, if it's ever even meaningful. The fact is that there is a whole lot of racist, misogynistic etc. content in literature past (and present) that many people have nevertheless little to no problem consuming. And while it's become popular among certain factions to deride any noticing of that as "cancel culture" ("PC" in other times etc.), the point, as I see it, is simply to acknowledge this. What one does next, if anything, is up to every individual and depends on context.
I think we can probably agree on that and leave it so. Wouldn't have bothered if this asinine "product of times", "didn't use to be racist" etc. didn't keep popping up. :)
69astropi
>67 AnnieMod: "... I don't foresee anyone "pardoning" Dahl anytime soon. Nor should anyone." is arrogant to say the least.
What's arrogant about that? If there's anything arrogant in my opinion it's stating I sometimes miss the days when the only information I had about an author was whatever was printed in the book which by the way is never. You always had the opportunity to look-up information and learn about an author, clearly you just choose not to.
The further back the author lived, the more reprehensible they are likely to be to our modern sensibilities.
Again, look at Lovecraft, Whitman, Shakespeare, they all seem far less hateful than Dahl who lived until 1990. So I don't buy that excuse.
I'd be happy to take them off their hands - after all you would not want to profit from these evil books
I never advocated for Dahl to be "canceled" or anything of that manner. That said, I certainly just can't justify reading his works now. I also applaud the Royal Mint which:
British Royal Mint had rejected a proposal to mark the 100th anniversary of Dahl’s birth with a commemorative coin due to the fact that he was “associated with anti-Semitism and not regarded as an author of the highest reputation.”
https://time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-anti-semitism/
Ultimately a decision to read an author, or not to, is a personal one. I would NEVER advocate for censoring anyone (Dahl included). Rather, I am in favor of learning more about each and every author. I do agree that most any historical person will likely have "things" in their psyche we do not agree with. However, as I have stated over and over, there is a fine line between what one finds acceptable and revolting. I would love to be able to say "oh, well, Dahl was not a good person but it won't bother me to read his beloved works" but for better or worse, I can not and will not dissociate the art from the artist. >68 LolaWalser: agreed.
What's arrogant about that? If there's anything arrogant in my opinion it's stating I sometimes miss the days when the only information I had about an author was whatever was printed in the book which by the way is never. You always had the opportunity to look-up information and learn about an author, clearly you just choose not to.
The further back the author lived, the more reprehensible they are likely to be to our modern sensibilities.
Again, look at Lovecraft, Whitman, Shakespeare, they all seem far less hateful than Dahl who lived until 1990. So I don't buy that excuse.
I'd be happy to take them off their hands - after all you would not want to profit from these evil books
I never advocated for Dahl to be "canceled" or anything of that manner. That said, I certainly just can't justify reading his works now. I also applaud the Royal Mint which:
British Royal Mint had rejected a proposal to mark the 100th anniversary of Dahl’s birth with a commemorative coin due to the fact that he was “associated with anti-Semitism and not regarded as an author of the highest reputation.”
https://time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-anti-semitism/
Ultimately a decision to read an author, or not to, is a personal one. I would NEVER advocate for censoring anyone (Dahl included). Rather, I am in favor of learning more about each and every author. I do agree that most any historical person will likely have "things" in their psyche we do not agree with. However, as I have stated over and over, there is a fine line between what one finds acceptable and revolting. I would love to be able to say "oh, well, Dahl was not a good person but it won't bother me to read his beloved works" but for better or worse, I can not and will not dissociate the art from the artist. >68 LolaWalser: agreed.
70AnnieMod
>69 astropi: Assuming that you have the authority to tell people if they should "pardon" someone or not. That assumes that one NEEDS to feel that Dahl needs to be punished for something and then that they should never pardon him. Both are false premises - it is your opinion and I respect that. But the last part of that is just a bit too much :)
My comment was sharing my own experience. Small Bulgarian towns pre-internet are not as full of resources as you imagine them to be; the same towns in the early 90s were even worse for various reasons. Even if the resources could have been found in the country and in a language one could read, that does not mean anything when you cannot travel and cannot ask for them. So let's not assume that whatever resources someone had available were available everywhere.
I don't try to tell people what to do and think, I share my thoughts about what I miss. And I will keep saying it - because it is true. Unfortunately now I have as little choice as back then - it just shifted all the way in the other direction. Modern life is fun that way.
As for the rest - again, keep digging, who knows what will come up again in 10-20 years for the ones that are now considered safe. It is a never ending sprint downhill, especially when this kind of news and revelations sell books and clicks.
Pointing that someone agrees with you does not mean that everyone agrees with you. I can read the thread and I can see who agrees with whom. Does not change what I think.
My comment was sharing my own experience. Small Bulgarian towns pre-internet are not as full of resources as you imagine them to be; the same towns in the early 90s were even worse for various reasons. Even if the resources could have been found in the country and in a language one could read, that does not mean anything when you cannot travel and cannot ask for them. So let's not assume that whatever resources someone had available were available everywhere.
I don't try to tell people what to do and think, I share my thoughts about what I miss. And I will keep saying it - because it is true. Unfortunately now I have as little choice as back then - it just shifted all the way in the other direction. Modern life is fun that way.
As for the rest - again, keep digging, who knows what will come up again in 10-20 years for the ones that are now considered safe. It is a never ending sprint downhill, especially when this kind of news and revelations sell books and clicks.
Pointing that someone agrees with you does not mean that everyone agrees with you. I can read the thread and I can see who agrees with whom. Does not change what I think.
71TheEconomist
>29 astropi: "I haven't heard much about Fleming, but it doesn't surprise me he is bigoted, although it sounds like far less than Dahl."
https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/453228/on-her-majesty-s-semitic-service/
I appreciate that this thread is really about Dahl, and there is a concurrent thread on this forum on the Bond novels, but I can't let your comment pass without noting that, even by the standards of the anti-Fleming brigade, Rogovoy's article (which you have linked to) is thin on substance. The whole basis of the argument is that, when Fleming gives a character a Jewish-sounding name, then that character is invariably a villain. This is untrue, and is easily shown to be untrue - see, for example, this rather tongue-in-cheek response, which lists several incidental and wholly-unvillainish characters with Jewish-sounding names in the Fleming-Bond oeuvre.
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-the-names-bond-yaakov-bond-1.5199585
"In real life, Fleming was a customer of Welsh Jewish jeweller Morris Wartski (mentioned in a previous column), a world-renowned expert on Fabregé. Wartski appeared in Fleming’s novel “The Property of a Lady” (sic - it's actually a short story) when Bond visits his shop and consults its real-life managing director and Wartski’s son-in-law, Kenneth Snowman. "
"Other Jewish characters include ... physician Dr. Stengel, a German Jewish refugee who treats Bond at the end of “Thunderball” (1961), and a Scotland Yard policeman named Dankowitz and a diamond dealer in “Diamonds Are Forever.”"
Not to mention that the man who is thought by many (including Fleming's biographer) to have inspired the character of James Bond was himself a Jew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Reilly
https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/453228/on-her-majesty-s-semitic-service/
I appreciate that this thread is really about Dahl, and there is a concurrent thread on this forum on the Bond novels, but I can't let your comment pass without noting that, even by the standards of the anti-Fleming brigade, Rogovoy's article (which you have linked to) is thin on substance. The whole basis of the argument is that, when Fleming gives a character a Jewish-sounding name, then that character is invariably a villain. This is untrue, and is easily shown to be untrue - see, for example, this rather tongue-in-cheek response, which lists several incidental and wholly-unvillainish characters with Jewish-sounding names in the Fleming-Bond oeuvre.
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-the-names-bond-yaakov-bond-1.5199585
"In real life, Fleming was a customer of Welsh Jewish jeweller Morris Wartski (mentioned in a previous column), a world-renowned expert on Fabregé. Wartski appeared in Fleming’s novel “The Property of a Lady” (sic - it's actually a short story) when Bond visits his shop and consults its real-life managing director and Wartski’s son-in-law, Kenneth Snowman. "
"Other Jewish characters include ... physician Dr. Stengel, a German Jewish refugee who treats Bond at the end of “Thunderball” (1961), and a Scotland Yard policeman named Dankowitz and a diamond dealer in “Diamonds Are Forever.”"
Not to mention that the man who is thought by many (including Fleming's biographer) to have inspired the character of James Bond was himself a Jew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Reilly
72astropi
>71 TheEconomist: thanks for bringing that up, I honestly did not know James Bond was modeled after a Jewish master spy! That said, there are other articles that discuss antisemitic characters within Fleming's work.
https://journals.ku.edu/amerstud/article/download/2204/2163
However, I do think you could make a case that Fleming if anything, had unconscious bias, which quite frankly nearly every person has. So, looking into it I haven't found any evidence to support that Fleming had any malicious intents, unlike Dahl who was clearly a bigot.
https://journals.ku.edu/amerstud/article/download/2204/2163
However, I do think you could make a case that Fleming if anything, had unconscious bias, which quite frankly nearly every person has. So, looking into it I haven't found any evidence to support that Fleming had any malicious intents, unlike Dahl who was clearly a bigot.
73Jeremy53
Interesting and lively discussions, thank you.
My 'read' on this issue is that I try to avoid grounding the work in the context of the artist's life, as I find more often than not it diminishes my experience of it. If you're constantly thinking about literal, historical happenings while reading a work full of metaphors (both intended and accidental), surely it inhibits the possibility of the work being transcendent. (Different for a lot of non-fiction, obviously)
If the metaphors/allusions that are anti-Semitic or misogynistic or racist are wholly intentional and designed to put others down, and these metaphors come across clearly, then I think there is a genuine problem, and as a reader one must also examine one's reactions to it, which is part of the exercise of reading anyway, I guess, aside from pure unfettered escapism. But a part of this issue is that prejudices are ingrained in society over many, many years / generations, so can easily be dismissed as 'oh, he never meant that!', when of course, it's part of a greater, subtle inculcation that is happening.
But where possible, I do try to avoid the grounding in real life (for works of escapism / transcendence). For example, the famous Shostakovich No.8 string quartet very graphically expresses machine gun sounds and other forms of oppression in soviet Russia, and while Shostakovich obviously intended these evocations, the work can absolutely be enjoyed / endured without that contextual knowledge, as it taps into something broader and deeper in the human experience, and may of course trigger feelings in individuals that are caused by specific personal experiences. I don't need to read his biographical work 'Testimony' to respond to the work on an emotional level, and I wonder that if you do read that work, is there a risk you ONLY associate the music with that specific lived experience from then on?
Although, I am somewhat in a 'privileged' position, culturally etc. and have not had to deal personally with much of the types of prejudice discussed here, so this issue is not as raw as it would be for others...
My 'read' on this issue is that I try to avoid grounding the work in the context of the artist's life, as I find more often than not it diminishes my experience of it. If you're constantly thinking about literal, historical happenings while reading a work full of metaphors (both intended and accidental), surely it inhibits the possibility of the work being transcendent. (Different for a lot of non-fiction, obviously)
If the metaphors/allusions that are anti-Semitic or misogynistic or racist are wholly intentional and designed to put others down, and these metaphors come across clearly, then I think there is a genuine problem, and as a reader one must also examine one's reactions to it, which is part of the exercise of reading anyway, I guess, aside from pure unfettered escapism. But a part of this issue is that prejudices are ingrained in society over many, many years / generations, so can easily be dismissed as 'oh, he never meant that!', when of course, it's part of a greater, subtle inculcation that is happening.
But where possible, I do try to avoid the grounding in real life (for works of escapism / transcendence). For example, the famous Shostakovich No.8 string quartet very graphically expresses machine gun sounds and other forms of oppression in soviet Russia, and while Shostakovich obviously intended these evocations, the work can absolutely be enjoyed / endured without that contextual knowledge, as it taps into something broader and deeper in the human experience, and may of course trigger feelings in individuals that are caused by specific personal experiences. I don't need to read his biographical work 'Testimony' to respond to the work on an emotional level, and I wonder that if you do read that work, is there a risk you ONLY associate the music with that specific lived experience from then on?
Although, I am somewhat in a 'privileged' position, culturally etc. and have not had to deal personally with much of the types of prejudice discussed here, so this issue is not as raw as it would be for others...
74astropi
>73 Jeremy53: First, I'm a big fan of Shostakovitch. I think in order to truly appreciate his art, you need to know his background and what he was aiming to achieve. I feel the same is true for writers. The difference between a composer that creates say classical music (without words) and a writer is that obviously it's easier to assess what the writer feels/thinks because it's usually blatantly expressed in clear words! Classical music, much harder. Again, Shostakovitch is a great example because I love his music, but after reading about him I really felt that his work took a whole new dimension. Again, I'm a believe that you can't separate the artist and art.
If the metaphors/allusions that are anti-Semitic or misogynistic or racist are wholly intentional and designed to put others down, and these metaphors come across clearly, then I think there is a genuine problem
What if the metaphors/allusions are subtle? I don't think that makes them any more or less "acceptable" nor does it make the artist any more or less unaccountable.
If the metaphors/allusions that are anti-Semitic or misogynistic or racist are wholly intentional and designed to put others down, and these metaphors come across clearly, then I think there is a genuine problem
What if the metaphors/allusions are subtle? I don't think that makes them any more or less "acceptable" nor does it make the artist any more or less unaccountable.
75AnnieMod
>74 astropi: I'd argue that a great author/composer/artist is able to express all you need to know and make you appreciate their work even if you have no idea if they are male or female or who they were. Knowing their times is different - that helps decipher the common knowledge elements that were never spelled out because everyone knew this. :)
Can background information about the author add a layer to that? Sure.. and the weaker the artist (in whatever media) is, the more background can help. But ultimately, the work needs to be able to stand on its own. And most of what had survived from the old days had been like that. How much do you need to know about Dante or Homer to appreciate their work (the men themselves, not their times). Why would a modern author be any different? :)
Can background information about the author add a layer to that? Sure.. and the weaker the artist (in whatever media) is, the more background can help. But ultimately, the work needs to be able to stand on its own. And most of what had survived from the old days had been like that. How much do you need to know about Dante or Homer to appreciate their work (the men themselves, not their times). Why would a modern author be any different? :)
76Jeremy53
>74 astropi: "...it's easier to assess what the writer feels/thinks because it's usually blatantly expressed in clear words!"
I guess most of the time. Although some modern works are extremely obscure! Some authors I would argue aren't in control of what they're expressing at all, but what is created is something very evocative regardless, but maybe full of unintentional messages. Maybe stream of consciousness is dangerous in that way.
"Shostakovitch is a great example because I love his music, but after reading about him I really felt that his work took a whole new dimension. Again, I'm a believe that you can't separate the artist and art."
I also agree, to a degree - but I played and listened to a lot of Shosta before reading much about him, and it was very powerful. I suppose I was exploring the idea that once you ground yourself in the lived reality of the author/composer, does that risk tying your reactions and emotions to that specific reference? Does it prevent you from seeing that work in any other way? Maybe if you get a bit too obsessed with the factual details, it would...
"What if the metaphors/allusions are subtle? I don't think that makes them any more or less "acceptable" nor does it make the artist any more or less unaccountable."
Again, agree. I should have left out the bit about clear/subtle. Intentional is maybe more relevant - see point above...
I guess most of the time. Although some modern works are extremely obscure! Some authors I would argue aren't in control of what they're expressing at all, but what is created is something very evocative regardless, but maybe full of unintentional messages. Maybe stream of consciousness is dangerous in that way.
"Shostakovitch is a great example because I love his music, but after reading about him I really felt that his work took a whole new dimension. Again, I'm a believe that you can't separate the artist and art."
I also agree, to a degree - but I played and listened to a lot of Shosta before reading much about him, and it was very powerful. I suppose I was exploring the idea that once you ground yourself in the lived reality of the author/composer, does that risk tying your reactions and emotions to that specific reference? Does it prevent you from seeing that work in any other way? Maybe if you get a bit too obsessed with the factual details, it would...
"What if the metaphors/allusions are subtle? I don't think that makes them any more or less "acceptable" nor does it make the artist any more or less unaccountable."
Again, agree. I should have left out the bit about clear/subtle. Intentional is maybe more relevant - see point above...
77Jeremy53
>75 AnnieMod: Yes, that's what I was getting at - it should be able to stand on its own. And a great work of art that lasts - in any medium - will be able to speak to people from a wide range of places and periods... (whether or not you know about the creator's life circumstances)
