Roald Dahl

[SydneyRover]

And just think, if the of the first novels about one of those 4,000 religions hadn't been translated, those in the western world may have had to learn Hebrew or another language.

[BobG]

The point about 4,000 religions is surely that each and every one of them claims to speak truth and the followers of every one claim theirs is the true faith. Some proselytise  their chosen religion.

The difficulty that Sydney, I, and many millions of others have with the concept of religion is that each and every one of these 4,000 claim to be the one True religion.

It don't compute do it.

BobG

[ncRover]

Everybody has their own meaning to life because there is no all binding meaning. If religion helps people to live their life with a meaning that resonates with them, then good for them.

The major religions are a thing for a reason. They have been here long before we have and will remain long after we will.

[SydneyRover]

I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.

[wilts rover]

Here’s another one:

“Medieval classics may be ‘racist and misogynist’, say Oxford scholars

University puts trigger warning on works such as The Canterbury Tales as students told they might encounter ‘troubling’ themes”

Fancy that!

As part of my degree, we studied the great Thomas Hardy, one of my favourite authors of all time. One of the women on the course, an ultra feminist, maintained that Hardy's novels showed him to be a misogynist.

Unbelievable.

What evidence did she give for this SS?

It was when we studied "Tess of the d'Urbervilles", Wilts. She put the constant demise of Tess throughout the story as being down to Hardy being a woman hater, when in actual fact it was because of the bigotry of Victorian society, which Hardy was alluding to.

'Justice was done and the president of the immortals had finished his sport with Tess' (or something like that). Wonder what she thought to The Mayor of Casterbridge?

Some people want to be offending by anything. And others want to be able to offend them. As this thread has shown.

[wilts rover]

And just think, if the of the first novels about one of those 4,000 religions hadn't been translated, those in the western world may have had to learn Hebrew or another language.

And it has been re-written/re-edited several times. To bring it up-to-date with a 'modern' readership.

Presumably that's wrong and it should still be in Latin?

[SydneyRover]

I guess one way to look at the editing especially in regards to the Dahl books is if you are happy to have your kids, any kids use what they've read in and around the classroom and the home, for others to use it the workplace and of course on the forum then it should be ok to leave it as it is.

[ravenrover]

My grandchildren love me also, but not because I call people I dislike "pigs".

No you just stick to calling/inferring people childish, but your answer to the question I asked is?

[Bentley Bullet]

My grandchildren love me also, but not because I call people I dislike "pigs".

No you just stick to calling/inferring people childish, but your answer to the question I asked is?

I think comparing Johnson to a pig is rather childish.

[ravenrover]

At last, an answer to a direct question keep it up BB
I'd better just stick to call him a liar

[ncRover]

A or B, BST?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Excuse me?

[Bentley Bullet]

At last, an answer to a direct question keep it up BB
I'd better just stick to call him a liar

Good lad. Perhaps the next stage of the new improved you is to call out a liar irrespective of what political party they belong to. There will be plenty of opportunitites when Labour get in next.

[ravenrover]

And I will unlike you with this shower, as I would irespective of which Party is in power Other than never voting Tory I have no political alliegiance

[Bentley Bullet]

Might I add getting your facts right as part of your development also?

[ncRover]

Excuse me?

My question to you on reply #50

[ravenrover]

Might I add getting your facts right as part of your development also?

Please point me in the correct direction and I will apologise

[Bentley Bullet]

I can do that for you, regarding your comment "unlike you with this shower, as I would irespective of which Party is in".

I've never denied Boris is a liar. He was voted leader with full knowledge of the fact. But he is what many people describe as an honest liar, unlike many of his opponents.

For the record, in fear of repeating myself, I didn't vote Tory.

[ravenrover]

Lovely, that's a great start but can you point me in the direction of previous posts where you have criticised or condemned a Tory.
Oh for the record I haven't said or implied you actually voted Tory

[BillyStubbsTears]

My apologies, I missed that.

Of those two choices, I'd certainly go for B. But that's a rather simplistic dichotomy if you don't mind me saying so. Sometimes society needs a shove to discuss and reflect on these issues. Without the sort of shove that this "re-writing" gives, we don't tend to reflect on the lazy and insidious stereotyping that often exists in works from previous generations and we risk promulgating it down the generations.

There's a third way of looking at the issue of course. That Dahl was a brilliant and engaging author who created works that children love, while also being a deeply unpleasant personality who injected many of his own prejudices into his works. Why not try to bring his work up to date by saving the brilliance and excising the bigotry?

That, I'd suggest, is the best way to deal with books aimed at children. Classic fiction aimed at an adult audience is, I think, in a different category. Here, I'd let bigotry and stereotyping stand as being part of what the culture was then. But I certainly wouldn't get upset about people pointing out and critiquing the bigotry and stereotyping.

By the way, it turns out Dahl WAS anti-Semitic. Here's some text from and article of his from 1983.

“There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity. 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.”

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh, by the way, as an example of how you can retain the joy of the story while removing (some) of the lazy bigotry, it's worth noting that in the first edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompah Loompahs were black African pygmies. Later editions and the original film re-cast them as non-race specific.

How would you have felt about watching a kids' film in which the Oompah Loompahs had all been black?

[Bentley Bullet]

Lovely, that's a great start but can you point me in the direction of previous posts where you have criticised or condemned a Tory.
Oh for the record I haven't said or implied you actually voted Tory

For the record, I never said you did.

Also for the record, with fear of repeating myself in answering this question far too often than should have been necessary, I defended Boris simply to balance up the barrage of hate portrayed on this forum, albeit by just a handful of people.

Now, how about that apology?

[BillyStubbsTears]

What I think you're saying BB is that you knew Johnson was a pathological liar, the line of whom we've never seen in UK politics. And, rather than reflect on that and criticise his lying, because a few folk pointed out his lies, you took it on yourself to try to convince yourself that other politicians are at least as bad.

[i_ateallthepies]

False equivalence, is the simple last resort of those on a political side who simply cannot bear for their chosen representatives to be shown to be liars or corrupt.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So it doesn't matter that Johnson was sacked from one job for inventing a story in an article.

It doesn't matter that Johnson started his career writing lying articles about EU regulations that didn't exist.

It doesn't matter that he got sacked from his first political job for lying to his boss about whether he was cheating on his wife.

It doesn't matter that he tipped the Brexit vote by lying about EU payments and the imminent ascension of Turkey.

It doesn't matter that Johnson attended numerous parties when we were on lockdown, lied to Parliament about it and has now run up a bill of more that £1/4m of public money defending his lies.

None of that matters, because Starmer once slipped up in Parliament when defending himself from another lie from Johnson, said something incorrect and set the record straight within the hour.

In BB-land, Starmer is as big a liar as Johnson. And Starmer is to be criticised for that while he makes no comment on Johnson.

[ravenrover]

Lovely, that's a great start but can you point me in the direction of previous posts where you have criticised or condemned a Tory.
Oh for the record I haven't said or implied you actually voted Tory

For the record, I never said you did.

Also for the record, with fear of repeating myself in answering this question far too often than should have been necessary, I defended Boris simply to balance up the barrage of hate portrayed on this forum, albeit by just a handful of people.

Now, how about that apology?

Previous posts?

[ncRover]

My apologies, I missed that.

Of those two choices, I'd certainly go for B. But that's a rather simplistic dichotomy if you don't mind me saying so. Sometimes society needs a shove to discuss and reflect on these issues. Without the sort of shove that this "re-writing" gives, we don't tend to reflect on the lazy and insidious stereotyping that often exists in works from previous generations and we risk promulgating it down the generations.

There's a third way of looking at the issue of course. That Dahl was a brilliant and engaging author who created works that children love, while also being a deeply unpleasant personality who injected many of his own prejudices into his works. Why not try to bring his work up to date by saving the brilliance and excising the bigotry?

That, I'd suggest, is the best way to deal with books aimed at children. Classic fiction aimed at an adult audience is, I think, in a different category. Here, I'd let bigotry and stereotyping stand as being part of what the culture was then. But I certainly wouldn't get upset about people pointing out and critiquing the bigotry and stereotyping.

By the way, it turns out Dahl WAS anti-Semitic. Here's some text from and article of his from 1983.

“There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity. 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.”

Thank you.

Yes I found that example of him being a nasty piece of work yesterday, but I can’t find any examples like that in his works.

Again making fun of race / religion is obviously where I draw the line as that freedom of speech encroaches on other’s freedom, as well as just being disgusting.

But again, the examples given in the article are nowhere near that offensive. How inoffensive do we want our society to get? Stadium bans for Rovers fans who shout “you fat bas**rd” when the opposition GK takes a kick?

Yes this is children’s books but it’s adults who are getting offended here. Like Sydney said above, I’ll add to that and say that the parents can make decisions rather than have this insidious culture that seeks to control everything.

I think artistic integrity, intellectual property and an accurate representation of past work trump the issue with content in question here.

Good debating as always.

[ncRover]

I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.

Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.

The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.

Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.

You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.

[danumdon]

I'm pretty sure the greeks, romans and scandi's were thinking along those lines too for a while.

Good point, but that’s more the replacement of some religions with others due to the collapse of civilisations I think.

The African continent has 1.2 billion people and is growing. The vast majority of them are Christian or Muslim. So don’t assume that the decline of religion in the western world is indicative of a global pattern. You also shouldn’t assume that our civilised society isn’t in part as a result of the order that religion gives to chaos.

Until science objectively tells us the best rules for life or explains to us why there is a physical realm rather than nothing, humans will continue to elicit religious behaviour.

You could argue that rigid political ideology is a form of religious behaviour without the worship of a deity.

Your right about the spread and continual draw of religion especially in the developing world.

What you have to ask yourself is why is religion and openly religious people in the west a declining situation.

Is it because these people consider themselves to have a superior intellect and don't need all this mumbo jumbo? or could it be that some of this disposition have an unconscious  bias towards developing regions and their populations, customs and creeds.

I would imagine most are not even aware of this fact but some will be and they will be telling you why that's not the case anytime soon.

[Bentley Bullet]

What I think you're saying BB is that you knew Johnson was a pathological liar, the line of whom we've never seen in UK politics. And, rather than reflect on that and criticise his lying, because a few folk pointed out his lies, you took it on yourself to try to convince yourself that other politicians are at least as bad.

What you think I'm saying is incorrect, so there's no change there. I never denied Johnson told lies, unlike you who never admitted Starmer did. In your bent and biased world, only Johnson told lies, whereas Starmer only made untruthful mistakes!

Social media nowadays means politicians are under the spotlight 24/7, meaning anything and everything they say, either on or off the record is brought out in public, enabling people, like you, to select and share those that suit your agenda. That has left us with a country full of hate and bad losers who will no longer accept a vote that goes against them.

With the amount of time spent with cameras pushed in their faces these days, there is little wonder why the leading one and most detested by the bad losers, Boris Johnson, was the one accused of being the biggest liar seen in UK politics. What encourages this is Johnsons off the cuff remarks which are all far too often taken far too seriously by those, like you, with an agenda.

I honestly think if Brian Clough was a Tory MP he'd be called a liar because he said he'd often take a walk across the River Trent.

Starmer will be just as bad when he has the pressure of being in power, and those who will be on the losing side of the vote this time will get their revenge and rip Starmer a new arsehole.

I will be one of them.