Reflection and Analysis

The Problem with "Going Woke" Censorship - 3/15/23

What I can tell you, though, is that given I do know Some Time Never: A Fable for Supermen, which is the actual title of the work, is about WWIII and WWIV, and the nuclear apocalypse was written in 1948. Personally, I can't blame our Jewish pawnbroker for trying to seek shelter from nuclear fallout in a safe in the same way one might seek shelter during the bombings of Britain, given the actual nuclear bomb shelter didn't come about until the late 1950s, which would be a decade after the book was written. I also find it rather humanizing that this character would be afraid of bombing, just like everyone else.

As I said, context matters here, but if I'm not buying that the above is antisentism, why should I believe Madame Rosette, the brothel owner being described as "a filthy old Syrian Jewess" is describing her as being filthy because she's a Jew rather than the more likely explanation, her being a brothel owner and in a filthy line of work? Of course, someone who hasn't bothered looking up either of these books will see the references and take them out of context as intended, which is the honest problem with sensitivity readers - it's about taking offense at anything, even when the offense was never intended in the first place.

But to quote the second quote on his page...

"Dahl had Jewish friends, including the philosopher , who commented: "I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak." Amelia Foster, director of the in Great Missenden, says: 'This is again an example of how Dahl refused to take anything seriously, even himself. He was very angry at the Israelis. He had a childish reaction to what was going on in Israel. Dahl wanted to provoke, as he always provoked at dinner. His publisher was a Jew, his agent was a Jew... and he thought nothing but good things of them. He asked me to be his managing director, and I'm Jewish.'"

Which, I'm not sure I'd call Dahl's reaction to learning of over 20,000 losing their lives childish, knowing full well this man lived through WWII, but keep in mind as well what that one book of his I mentioned, the book which is supposed to be his first adult novel. His anti-war stance when it comes to Israel, it honestly shouldn't be attributed to antisemitism, but instead PTSD, something that they just got the vocabulary for ten years before he died, yet wouldn't have been associated with WWII vets during his lifetime.

As for him admitting he was antisematic, even that has to be taken with a grain of salt given the media labeled anyone who opening objected to the killing of 20,000 civilians by Israel as antisemitic unless of course that person was themselves a Jew, much in the same those making existing IP politically correct by their standards are labeling anybody who disagrees with them as racist and how this got a few saying, "okay, if my disagreeing means I'm racist, then I'm am."

Funny how the narratives of these works that they fix to no longer be racist are now racist when they weren't before,the works that are fixed so they're no longer sexist now are. Funny as well how those pushing this idea that Dahl's disagreeing with the killing of 20,000 civilians by Israel are the same people saw Zionism back in the day as a way to get rid of their Jewish populations and effectively be more white.

And yes, that's a generalization, I know, but these days we've got people claiming Tolkien is antisemitic because of his Dwarves, despite his own words saying otherwise. And we've got people claiming the Goblins in Harry Potter are antisemitic, that the Orcs in Tolkien are racist against Black people, while insisting things like Harry Potter needing to have a cast that is 50% POC despite the population of Great Britain thirty years after the books are supposed to take place only being 10% POC. Funny as well how the same applies for Rings of Power, which is supposed to represent Great Britian from a long ago era and yet they actively white washed the actual POC in Tolkien's work for a political agenda.

Which, I hadn't planned on focusing on Dahl, but it is all to evident those editing his work don't understand his work, that his work is satire. I mean, come on. So what when it comes to what Michele Lansberg is quoted as saying in regards to the controversy, that "evil, domineering, smelly, fat, ugly women are [Dahl's] favorite villains."

Are we really supposed to believe an overweight child is going to want to relate to the villains? And before anybody argues that only ever seeing fat characters like this sends the message such people are evil, let me remind people yet again of Bruce Bogtrotter, another one of his characters, one who isn't at all evil.

But then, if one thinks about it, we're talking about a group for whom the politically correct message is that villains should always be described as beautiful, so girls get it through their heads that looking beautiful is a horrible thing they should avoid, that girls who are pretty are in fact evil creatures who are the ones to blame for the way others girls feel ugly in their own bodies, rather than pushing the message that one is beautiful just the way they are.

I mean, we're already making sure male characters are dumb and useless just so the female characters can be super empowered, and thus girls feel awesome about themselves, right?

This brings me to the problem with this whole sensitivity reader movement that it's all about perceived offenses rather than actual offenses. We're also teaching kids to be over senesitive to words while also undersestimating their intelligence, something Dahl never did. No, seriously. He didn't not use a word simply because he thought some kid might have a meltdown over seeing that particular word, nor did he underestimate their intelligence in what they read.

Let's instead remember that in 1973, when an actual real issue arrived, Dahl took the time to change the skin color of the Oompa-Loompas. It was the writer himself who made the decision, not some outsider and definitely not one who didn't bother paying attention to what he was trying to say and do, taking it out of context while also outright banning words like the word fat and making sure the villians empowered girls to take on STEM because they took on non-steretyped jobs for girls.

Because when I was growing up, I was a shoe-in for becoming a scientist or a small buisness if owner if that's not the route I'd already picked because I saw the bad guys being just that!

And there you have how ridiculous things have gotten, with villianous female characters being used to push STEM for girls!

And yes, I really do wish the above was a joke someone came up with rather than reality.

Anyways, I've been working on this for some time, getting my thoughts out and need to go do other things so I'm just going to push publish and let it be, grammar errors and all.