Roald Dahl was anti-semitic? Who knew?

Cafe Society
1

30 years after his death (and 2 years after a very lucrative deal selling his work for $1 Billion) Roald Dahl’s grandchildren have apologized on the website representing his work, for his anti-semitism and his public statements expressing it, which he expressed as late as the 1980’s. One of his gems: “Even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

He was anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, but he carried it further than that, with generalizations about negative characteristics of Jewish people.

The story is here.

I find this depressing. I’ve long been a fan of his work, especially his stories not aimed at children. So we are back again at the debate about whether an author’s repellent views should taint the legacy of their work. I can’t help it, it does for me.

2

Roald Dahl was my first favorite writer. His book, Danny the Champion of the World, was, at age 6, the first “real” book I ever read. I have nothing but good memories of his writing, and I gave his books to my son when he grew old enough to read them.

I’ve known about his antisemitism for a while, and I’ve decided to ignore it. I’m not going to let Roald Dahl ruin my enjoyment of Roald Dahl.

3

I’ve known about it for quite awhile, but I don’t require the creators of art work I like to be saints. There are limits, but I can ignore the unpleasant parts of Roald Dahl while enjoying his works.

4

Dahl was one of my favorite authors while growing up, but reading his work you could just tell there was an undertone of anger. Not even just against Jews specifically, but in general. The guy had one sharp, angry edge to him.

5

I knew, but I learned about it long after he’d left an indelible mark on my childhood.

So I will separate the man from the work, and hope with all my heart that he put more joy into the world with his stories than he sucked out of it with his hatred.

6

Wait, what? One billion dollars?

Bob Dylan’s work is worth a third of Dahl’s? Wow.

7

I’m vaguely aware of his statements, don’t like them, am glad his family apologized. He’s still a good storyteller. He didn’t have the power of a guy like Nixon - I found his statements worse. But it is true that the family should probably do more under the circumstances.

8

The NPR story in the OP links to a story from The Hollywood Reporter that says, “the total production budget for the collection of series and specials is likely to be above $500 million and could reach $1 billion.” So the family isn’t getting that much money; it’s how much they might spend on producing shows based on the licensed content.

9

The fact he was an alcoholic had a lot to do with it. He was the prime example of a mean drunk.

10

I am surprised to learn than his works have been rewritten:

11

Behind a paywall, but apparently it isn’t just racistish things being changed, but things like calling a fat kid fat and an ugly woman ugly.

I look forward to reading Switch Assertive Woman.

12

If you can hold your nose and read Fox, more ridiculous details:

Apparently, we need to embrace all colors of earthworms.

13

In previous editions of James and the Giant Peach, the Centipede sings: “Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that,” and, “Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier.”

Both verses have been removed, and in their place are the rhymes: “Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute / And deserved to be squashed by the fruit,” and, “Aunt Spiker was much of the same / And deserves half of the blame.”

14

Assuming I’m okay with removing the racist and sexist stuff, I don’t really have a problem with them removing the fat stuff, as Dahl seems to almost always depict it as villainous and/or gross.

The main issue I have is the quality of the replacements. The Telegraph citation purports to lists all of the changes. Sometimes they seem to care to the lyricalness of Dahl’s work, but sometimes it’s entirely lifeless. Sometimes they try to keep as much of the original text as possible, and other times it’s just entirely functional.

As for the general concept, I’m generally okay with it as long as they’re open about it and the original is still available and clearly the original. Dahl himself changed things in his books for this reason. It’s not, however, clear to me that this is being followed, as these seem to be describes as new printings, not new editions, and there doesn’t seem to be any reference to the fact that the text has changed.

I do like the updated Rhymes for Sponge and Spiker, though. Not because they get rid of calling them fat and slim, respectively, but because they’re longer and actually in the Dahlian style:

Before (2001 edition):
Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat,/And tremendously flabby at that./Her tummy and waist/Were as soggy as paste -/It was worse on the place where she sat!

After (2022 edition):
Aunt Sponge was a nasty old brute,/And deserved to be squashed by the fruit!/We all felt a big bump/When we dropped with a thump./We left Aunt Sponge behind us/But you needn’t remind us /That we shouldn’t feel rotten,/For we haven’t forgotten/How spiteful she could be!

Before:
Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire,/And dry as a bone, only drier./She was so long and thin/If you carried her in/You could use her for poking the fire!

After:
Aunt Spiker was much the same/And deserves half of the blame./Ta-ra, Aunt Spiker!/(Though we never did like her)/It’s sad but true./If only she knew,/How the absence of charm/Can do so much harm./With thoughts so frightful/One can’t be delightful/And now worms will have Spiker for tea!

15

This reminds me when they did the remaster of the Sam and Max games but then took out references to French people surrendering and Canadian accents.

16

At this rate all stories will eventually be some variation of Itchy and Scratchy sitting in rocking chairs and sharing lemonade.

17

Is… that what you infer from the new lyrics that BigT quoted, for example? Where children sing gleefully about squashing their hated abusive aunts with a massive stonefruit juggernaut, and rejoice over the imminent decomposition of their corpses?

Because it seems odd to me that your takeaway from those verses is a prediction of the softening down of all formerly gruesome or shocking content. (If I’m correctly interpreting your reference to “Itchy and Scratchy sitting in rocking chairs and sharing lemonade”.) IMHO, the revised lyrics are quite a bit more in-your-face than the original ones just mocking the aunts for being, respectively, fat and skinny.

18

I met Roald Dahl when I was 12; he came to my middle school in Oxfordshire. I think he read us something from his Revolting Rhymes book. He then signed books quite obligatorily, all whilst smoking cigarettes… and I’m fairly certain there was some rule about smoking, even back in 1984, in the library.

I might be misremembering this, but I think someone either said “Mr. Dahl, you shouldn’t smoke,” or coughed loudly as he smoked. What I do remember is him making some cranky statement about him being proud to smoke!

I noted that the meanness in the characters in his books might have been inspired by the man himself. Which was fine to learn - Ronald’s crankiness didn’t detract from his talent as a writer; rather it seems it was probably derived in some level from it.

I don’t think that the changes to his prose are a good idea. I can see a foreword or note explaining that the body shaming is problematic, but it’s a problem to me that someone might read that prose and think it’s what Dahl actually wrote.

19

Salman Rushdie does not approve.

20

NM. Misread the headline.