fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5889 ]

[ SECRET POST #5889 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5889 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #843.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't have a problem with the Roald Dahl estate editing his books to be a little less vicious in certain areas, tastes DO change. I just wish there existed some tech to make the man himself's life be a little less awful towards Jewish people. I hated learning he was such a raging antisemite.

1984 was a warning, not a manual

NAYRT - This is an obnoxious response considering we're talking about magical non-existent technology that would retroactively alter the actions of people long-since dead. It's a flippant wish, with zero potential to be made real.

we're also talking about editing the past to make it more compatible with the present; op made it clear they have no issue with changing the books, which is EXACTLY 1984-level

DA

I translate books, and have been thinking about this a lot recently (the moral arguments for and against deliberately changing older books), and your comment hit me hard. But I think I should probably thank you, anon.

The people pushing for "but couldn't you just ..." are loud and pushy and very sure of the rightness of their cause, but sometimes the road to hell really is paved with good intentions.

NAYRT - The thing is, we already do this and have for hundreds of years with abridged books. The only difference between cutting or rephrasing a couple of lines of overtly racist text in a Dahl book and cutting or summarizing the filler chapter in a Dickens novel where two random townies discuss the politics of the day in thinly veiled metaphors about fish mongers is the emotional reaction people have to the edits.

Was he? I managed to read a whole memoir of his - the one covering his time in the second world war - and I don't remember any anti-semitism in it. There was some questionable stuff about blacks, seeing as he was helping the British attempt to rule over Africa, beforehand. But I'm not sure where you're getting that he had it in for Jews. Mind you, I'm absolutely not asserting that he didn't. This is just the first I'm hearing of it.

if i recall correctly in some letter or other he expressed sympathy with hitler because "jews were annoying".

heres a time article: https://time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-anti-semitism/

here the quote from the article: Later that same year, he doubled down on his statements in an interview with the British magazine New Statesman. “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews,” he said. “I mean, 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.”

AYRT

I will keep that in mind, thanks. What makes it especially ironic is that Hitler did something very similar in Mein Kampf, arguing that he used to be totally repulsed by anti-semitism, and he thinks that, overall, every fair-minded person believes it's boorish and backwards to be prejudiced against a fellow man for their religion. Going on to say that his views changed because the Jews are completely beyond the pale with their criminality and nepotism.

Jeez, though, it's beyond bizarre hearing the same thing in only slightly more restrained words from Dahl. He claimed to have been personally involved with moving German families (living in British territories in Africa) to concentration camps at gunpoint, when the war broke out - he brags about having tricked them into it in his book.

honestly that doesn't surprise me. people who think domination is sometimes ok...think the domination is what's cool, not the reason supposedly justifying it.

AYRT

Exactly.

He was very, very anti-Semitic.

I mean, this isn't really surprising. Being anti-Semitic was very common for an Englishman from his generation and class background. Many of his contemporaries and near-contemporaries were also quite anti-Semitic. Most of them just were more circumspect about it, or died before the 1970s and 1980s and consequently stopped giving press interviews.

idk, im a little weirded out that they boss-babed a passage like being a grocery store clerk is something for women to be ashamed of

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5889 ]

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...