Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

249 replies

Oakenbeach · 21/12/2018 23:36

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

OP posts:
Helmetbymidnight · 22/12/2018 11:38

no, but is interesting how we make excuses for some transgressions and some professions and not others.
Anti-semitism - ok
Paedophilic- no
Sexism - ok
I was surprised to see Mel Gibson in a new film the other day- I think successful men mostly can get away with stuff that women and less successful men can’t.

Monkeynuts18 · 22/12/2018 11:40

Well, I don’t agree, because you can’t ban something because the author held certain views that aren’t expressed in his work.

That said, I think you’re right that he was a pretty unpleasant character. And though I enjoyed his books as a child, I think quite a few of them (not all) are devoid of any moral message or substance.

Not quite the same thing but I was devastated to discover a few months ago that Christopher Robin was estranged from his father (AA Milne) because CR thought his father exploited his childhood for commercial gain.

I think my point is, there’s darkness behind a lot of magical children’s books and films. I don’t know why that is. But we just have to enjoy them at face value.

Monkeynuts18 · 22/12/2018 11:43

Just another thing - people are rarely all good or all bad. Most of us fall somewhere in between. Dahl held some unpleasant views but he also did produce some good books and do some good work in the field of healthcare. We shouldn’t expect people to be good all the way through just because they’re a venerated author.

mothertruck3r · 22/12/2018 11:48

Banning of books is totalitarian. Book burning and banning is ironically what the Nazis advocated and if you banned all books whose authors had dodgy opinions (homophobia, misogyny, supremacism, pro-slavery) you'd have to ban most religious tomes too (the bible, koran, torah etc). Do you advocate banning these too OP?

Helmetbymidnight · 22/12/2018 11:50

Now that’s not a bad idea Grin

Helmetbymidnight · 22/12/2018 11:55

English literature from Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Evelyn Waugh is riddled with anti-semitism - best thing is to be aware and discuss- not to ban.

silentcrow · 22/12/2018 12:11

Banning books doesn't work anyhow. All you do is increase sales - look at the recent nonsense over The Hate U Give in the US, people clubbed together to fund whole class sets. In the digital era it's nigh on impossible to do anyway. There will be copies leaked whatever you do. There will be no more burning of the Library of Alexandria.

As a librarian I am viscerally against the banning of books. What I am into is appropriate curation - it's a no-brainer to put, say, Judy Blume into a children's library, but you wouldn't put Forever in the 7-11 section, would you? Likewise, stocking Mein Kampf in an ordinary small-town library isn't appropriate, but putting it in a university library is important for anyone wanting to study totalitarianism. Those are content choices that librarians and booksellers make every day.

As for banning books because you don't like something the author said, no. It's far, far too subjective (have you read 1984? It's a warning, not a manual). Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If ideas are objectionable, let them stand, be examined, and allowed to fail in full view. It is always better to discuss than ban because there's so much to learn from discussion.

mirialis · 22/12/2018 12:34

stocking Mein Kampf in an ordinary small-town library isn't appropriate, but putting it in a university library is important for anyone wanting to study totalitarianism

You can buy it on Amazon - no reason it shouldn't be in a small-town library!

missbattenburg · 22/12/2018 13:14

The most interesting thought, in debates like this (at least to me) is the firm knowledge than in 50 years time people will think of the views the OP - and all of us - hold as being prejudiced and evil.

We think we're morally good people. Future generations will think us morally defunct, in some way or another. They will have firm beliefs about what is right that are at total odds with our beliefs today.

Which if our views they will be repulsed by, it's hard to say...

  • perhaps they will consider keeping animals as pets as a form of imprisonment
  • perhaps they will consider the way we consider crime to be a concious choice as heartless (for example, there is a case in the US in which a brain tumour was at the root of some very questionable behaviour by a father - maybe science will prove medical reasons for criminal actions)
  • perhaps they will think they way we own so much stuff as repugnant and wasteful

Whatever it is, I think it's guaranteed our grandchildren or great grandchildren will be ashamed or angry at some of the ways we think today (OP included).

missesbiggens · 22/12/2018 14:28

Possibly, Miss Battenberg. But then, things seem to go in waves rather than consistently upwards. Each 'up' is higher, but civilisation always seems to go backwards after a period of progression. Bit like a sine wave with bigger peaks at each interval. There might be a name for that....

Confusedbeetle · 22/12/2018 14:43

Judge the books, not the author. Many famous people are good at their art but not nice people, eg comedians

ReflectentMonatomism · 22/12/2018 14:45

Many famous people are good at their art but not nice people

Indeed, it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that people are good at their art precisely because they are not nice people.

FlyingElbows · 22/12/2018 14:52

I absolutely cannot understand people who want to "ban" anything which might prompt critical thinking, discussion and debate. It's just mind boggling.

ScrommidgeClaryAndSpunt · 22/12/2018 15:09

Why stop there, OP? Let's ban all literature where the author had or is suspected to have had (let's face it, who needs proof of anything when you have supposition) unpalatable opinions.

We can even give it a name - degenerate or un-British, perhaps - and send gangs of right-thinking people round to collect it all up, put it in a big pile somewhere public and set it alight. You know, I think some people somewhere might even have done that before. Can't quite remember where or when or what happened to them afterwards, though.

Quickerthanavicar · 22/12/2018 15:14

Crucify Him.

Whataboutbobbo · 22/12/2018 15:21
Biscuit
ReflectentMonatomism · 22/12/2018 15:37

We can even give it a name - degenerate or un-British, perhaps - and send gangs of right-thinking people round to collect it all up, put it in a big pile somewhere public and set it alight.

The hilarious thing about the Reichskulturkammer - well, it would be hilarious were it not for the pile of corpses - is that they were wrong about everything. All the persecution of artists, all the Entartete Kunst exhibitions? The state approved art is all shit. Every word, note and brushstroke, worthless. I saw an exhibition in Berlin a few years ago of the stuff that was not Entartete, and it was meretricious crap. Yes, the exhibition was ideologically freighted, but it is hard to be even handed with fascist realism.

Book burners don't just stop with the stuff "everyone" "knows" is "bad". They don't stop.

derxa · 22/12/2018 15:37

What do we actually know about todays children's authors, the likes of Tom Bates, jeff kinney,Jacqueline wilson, David walliams etc? We know nothing, they could secretly hold all kinds of anti

semantic/homophobic/racist/sexist views

Very good point. Modern writers know that certain views will ensure censure and lack of sales.

Jebuschristchocolatebar · 22/12/2018 15:41

Banning books or censorship was and still is a big part of many questionable regimes.

dadshere · 22/12/2018 15:46

How very silly.

ReflectentMonatomism · 22/12/2018 15:54

Why is David Walliams being cited as some sort of paragon of right-on-ness? His claims to know another about the President's Club and its appalling attitudes and behaviours other than being there, being paid, speaking at it and being on its publicity, that is are not plausible.

ReflectentMonatomism · 22/12/2018 15:55

His claims to know nothing about the

StroppyWoman · 22/12/2018 16:10

This is a wind-up, isn't it.
No sane person would advocate banning children's books because the long-dead author expressed some unsavoury opinions. The author's politics and views aren't important, it's the wonderful books that stand alone.

Being an arsehole doesn't invalidate his status was a wonderful writer.

brizzledrizzle · 22/12/2018 16:31

Should i stop my girls from reading his books? I won't because 1 they bloody love the badly written tripe he spouts and 2, they are reading and enjoying it, something which is becoming lost in todays generation.

I wouldn't waste my money on his books so we borrowed them from the library instead for the short time that my DC liked them. They got to read them and I wasn't giving him my hard earned cash.

Weightsandmeasures · 22/12/2018 16:38

If the books do not express anti-semitism then they shouldn't be banned.

I don't believe he shoukd be excused because of his age or the time he lived. For instance many sexist books have been removed from shelves because they are highly offensive. It bygone eras child abuse was ignored. That it was long time ago or that the abusers are of a different generation does not mean they should be brought to justice and shamed.

Roald Dahl books shouldn't be banned because they are not anti-semitic. He did not channel his views through them but he should not be celebrated. His age and the time he lived in does not excuse his abhorrent views. They were wrong then and are still wrong now.

Swipe left for the next trending thread