To think Roald Dahl books should be banned in schools and libraries....

[Oakenbeach]

.... because he’s known to have had expressed some highly anti-Semitic opinions.

In the 70s?

So if we go ahead and silence all those we disagree with, how do we have a debate? How do we learn? Is that what you want OP? That everyone is told how to think? That we end meaningful debate and free speech?

Was he? I have never read a Roald Dahl book that I've seen anything anti-semitic in, and I studied Children's literature and had to look at Roald Dahl far more than I would have liked. I actually don't like his writing style, even as a child I didn't, but so many children do and getting children to enjoy reading is way more important than trying to ban books because of views the author may have held but did not express in their books.

Down with this sort of thing.

Careful now.

Are his books anti- Semitic? No
Do they get children reading? Yes
Are they amazing examples of an incredible imagination? Yes
Did he have some dodgy points of view? Yes
Will the kids care or understand what these views mean? For the majority- no

Do totalitarian regimes ban books? Yes
Do we live in one of these? No, but there's way too many people running around trying to tidy up our past because it makes them uncomfortable now.

PinkAvocado

But it was different back then. People's worlds were extrordionarly small. There wasn't any internet, news could take months to reach you, people rarely left there hime towns let alone travelled the world and experienced different cultures for the fun of it as we do these days. Most people had met 90 percent of all the people they would ever meet in their lifetime by the age of 25. They didn't know any better anf they couldn't afford to know better. So it's not fair to hold them to our moral standards while we drive around everyday with a small advice in our pocket that allows us to access the entire collected knowledge of mankind at the click of a finger.

And Richard Wagner’s music’s banned from Israel!

But not in the UK, despite the fact that he was appropriated by the Nazis, and was both anti-semitic and racist. Why should we deal with Dahl differently?

I wouldn't want to lose the richness of imagination, the storylines that keep the reader enthralled and gripped because the author gets outed for holding questionable views/morals/attitudes. Buying his books does not make him richer as he's been dead for a while. It is possible to enjoy the positive and stimulating products of his mind and denounce the human being he was with his bigotry.

knittedjest, in the 70s?!
Things were different then, but not that bloody different. I think you just described the middle ages.

I don't believe people like OP genuinely believe these types of things they write. I think they do it to impress their weird mates and strangers on internet forums, or they just have mental health problems which makes them crave the attention one gets from thinking up the next ridiculous thing to pretend to be outraged by.

Of course not. If you don't want to read them then don't. Other people have the right to read them. Maybe you types should just ban yourselves.

If we have to ban works written by people with odious views there will be nothing left to read. 19c, people were all for banning the corrupting works of the wicked Oscar Wilde for committing the crime that can't be named. Now, such an archaic view would be considered laughable. Leave the author outside the covers of the book.

Dahl's views as quoted above are repugnant. The idea that in his case it was because he had never travelled, met a wide range of people etc is ludicrous. He was educated in Britain, from a Norwegian family, worked in Kenya as a young man, fighter pilot during the war, must have travelled a lot to promote his books later. His wife Patricia Neal was American.

So no excuse for his views but I still don't think that in any way justifies banning his books. As everyone else has already said what would be left?

And Richard Wagner’s music’s banned from Israel!

Urban myth. His music is not banned at all. It is virtually never played on public radio, but it is available to buy, it is studied, and is occasionally performed at smaller venues. But this is because of public sensitivity, not official banning. And even so, there is debate about separating the person from their work.

All those people saying the 70s weren’t that different 1. He was an old man in the 70s. Old men today, that were young men in the 70s come out with words and phrases that in our more ‘woke’ times we consider no nice but they see no problem with. Yes what RD said was wrong, and not something from the 70s but would have not been out of place when he was young in the 30s and 40s. Remember Oswald Mosley!

1. The 70s really were a different time - watch something like The Professionals and their treatment of women or a lot of the 70s Bond films. Compared with the 60s they went backwards and became more sexist! The 70s WERE different.

But he was also one of the inventors of a shunt used to treat hydrocephalus. His design was a huge improvement on the stunts of the time, which got blocked easily and cause pain and many problems.

He is, therefore, responsible for the gateway into modern-day shunt design. His design helped thousands of children.

Should that be banned?

He's actual books aren't anti-Semitic. Odd they were, I'd agree to the removal. But they aren't.

I'm not overtly opposed to changing things in books. There's many, many books wfitten years ago in which the language use is racist. This includes Agatha Christie, who is hugely popular still. I'm not massively sold on the idea of keeping the original phrasings and discussing it with your children idea. As this discussion isn't something that would be guaranteed for all readers.

And, whilst we're at it, When the Wind Blows, Raymond Briggs, was not 'some CND propaganda thing', it was a representation of a bewildered couple following the instructions for surviving a nuclear attack. These safety instructions were in a leaflet distributed to every household by that great supporter of CND, Margaret Thatcher.

We shouldn't ban the books, but that doesn't mean that his antisemitism doesn't matter, or that it shouldn't be talked about, or that it is OK that he was antisemitic because he was not racist towards other minorities. Or that he deserved to be commemorated on a special issue stamp. The books are great and not antisemitic but he himself was not very nice.

There is also a backlash against Laura Ingalls Wilder and her books, because of her anti Native American sentiments. Her name was taken off an American children's literature award.
You can't 'whitewash' (!) history.

Op I haven’t seen you put forward much of an argument. Can you expand a bit, because everyone seems to disagree with you, and your posts don’t really add any weight to your argument.
I personally don’t remember any such messages from reading the books as a child

Yes but only because his books are badly written and awful to read. I hated them as a child. I know teachers cant use them due to this reason. Theres so many good children books out there.

Op I haven’t seen you put forward much of an argument

Would those of you saying it’s ok to encourage children to read Roald Dahl also be ok with someone displaying a Rolf Harris painting in their house or playing a Gary Glitter CD?

Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter are convicted criminals. What Roald Dahl is alleged to have said is bad, but nothing like as bad as multiple cases of sexual assault on minors.

Would still be ok with someone having a Rolf Harris painting or a Gary Glitter CD, yes.

FFS - what would you do if you went to someone's house and they had a Gary Glitter CD in their music collection??

I never liked Gary Glitter and had no great interest in Rolf Harris, so those specific cases don't arise. I do like Led Zeppelin, David Bowie and a good many other musicians whose behaviour towards women and in some cases very young girls decades ago was appalling. Do I stop listening to the music? No.

Roman Polanski, convicted of raping a young teenager, fugitive from justice. Another vile apology for a human being, but also a great filmmaker. I haven't stopped watching his films because of what I've learned about him as a person.