“The dangerous transphobia of Roald Dahl’s “Matilda”

[Rainfallrainbow]

I went to see Matilda and was googling reviews. I thought it wa excellent! Came across this article:

www.salon.com/2013/10/27/the_dangerous_transphobia_of_roald_dahls_matilda/

Thoughts? I just don’t see it myself.

I think it's more a pantomimey kind of thing in this show isn't it? Rather than being about trans.

Agree it's a bit shit.

If the complaint had been one of sexism, I would’ve got it. There are some valid points made in the article re. the portrayal of Miss Honey vs Trunchbull. But I just don’t get how it’s transphobic at all.

I very much doubt that Roald Dahl, who was born in 1916 and died in 1990, was even aware of trans issues, let alone that he was transphobic! Sexist, quite possibly (most of his generation are/were), but all this trans crap and back-dating it to things that were written long before 'trans' was a thing are nonsense.

Exactly what offred said.

The children are the heroes of Dahl’s books. All the adults are deeply flawed, and self absorbed and don’t see the children as people and this do damage.

I don’t even think it’s particularly sexist. It’s showing that the people who seem to be fluffy and perfect can do as much damage as the ogres. That appearances on the outside don’t always translate to what’s inside. And that children can and do have stronger moral compasses than grown ups.

Yet another EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME article from someone with absolutely zero self insight.

Offred is nailing it in my opinion - we recently listened to it in the car, and I had forgotten all the stereotyped side comments (like Blyton in the faraway tree) - but it still rings out - Matilda is the hero, it's about the child, and the exaggerated adults are all from a child's black and white view (I also agree about the passivity of Miss Honey, and Matilda being the one with the strength which inspires her to actually do something)

James and the Giant peach is the same, hell, Charlie and the chocolate factory - it's all a child hero, and the world viewed through that child's eyes.

I thought it was very peculiar that they had a man playing that character, as the character is a woman.

The fact they chose a man to play her shows the sexism in the people doing the casting. The idea that a woman written as having lots of masculine characteristics can be played by a man is sexist. Part of the reason I'm sure is that then they can have a bit of a pantomime dame stype thing going on - a man pretending to be a woman is funny and again this is due to sexism.

Has this person only seen it? Why don't they read the book? Saying that the show is the true version of what dahl wrote and that this character "really" being a man is a fact ie they are trans is a bit of a leap.

His books recognise the political realities and the complex humanity of being a child. There is a book for most children where they will find themselves IMO.

I think Dahl as a person was likely deeply deeply damaged and flawed but I’m not sure why this would invalidate his actual books.

I used to subscribe to salon but gave up after a while, it is so extremist.

His books recognise the political realities and the complex humanity of being a child. There is a book for most children where they will find themselves IMO.

I think Dahl as a person was likely deeply deeply damaged and flawed but I’m not sure why this would invalidate his actual books

I don’t think you get quite that depth and breadth of insight without being at least a bit damaged.

I agree.