I'm sick of doomer posts and I want to laugh at hidden weird reactionary sentiments in children's books.
>Opens tour by singing a song about how you shouldn't limit your imagination and literally has the words "Anything you want, do it"
>Rest of the movie is about following arbitrary rules or suffering exaggerated consequences.
>introduces kids to a room where the entire premise is that everything can be eaten
>Doesn't mention that the single largest feature of the room can't be touched or it will be contaminated
FINALLY yes someone mentions it
Brings kid who likes candy to a candy factory
Punishes kid for eating candy
Willy Wonka straight up killed like 3 of those kids, didn't he?
in the book theres a scene where we see the others leaving the factory. the movie is more ambiguous
What you don't like the book about child slaves kidnapped from a "mysterious" continent?
It's arguably worse than that. If I recall the book correctly, Oompa Loompas lived in the South American jungle and were prey for some sort of fantastical creatures. They coveted cocoa beans, but had trouble getting them because of the aforementioned creatures. They were then essentially "rescued" by Wonka and taken to his factory where they could have all the cocoa beans they wanted (in exchange for their labor, of course). They aren't slaves, they're grateful savages who were rescued by a magnanimous industrialist. Barf.
Always since childhood I interpreted Wonka as a caricature of a bad, sad man. As an adult I see him as a caricature of a bad, sad industialist. I always picked up a dark vibe to the oompa loompas presence as well
same, I think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may actually be an early communist litmus test.
What about Lord of the Flies? I put it down maybe 40% through cause I felt so bad over how the little shits treated Piggy.
given how angry people are getting over my slight discomfort with this book, I don't want to cause another struggle session so I'd rather not
okay, fine, here we go
"The Lord of the Flies is proof that anarchism doesn't work."
oh yeah I think anyone who feels skeptical about the premise of Lord of the Flies is likely to be a communist, but then again it's probably also true if you aren't skeptical about it at all. But I also don't want to get into an anarchist vs ML struggle session
Yeah that sounds about right. It's been like 30 years since I read it. That and Treasure Island were my very first two novels I read.
It is a rags-to-riches fantasy that a poor kid buying one chocolate bar for his birthday can have the same outcome as a rich kid whose parents buy millions of chocolate bars at a time.
Charlie manages to stay on until the end of the tour because the rich kids all are impatient and entitled and that leads to their downfall or reversal of fortune.
Oompa-Loompas make a jump from the stage of predation into a quasi-feudal stage.
Idk, Roald Dahl can get pretty grotesque for children's books (see also: The BFG, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda) but there's a lot of his work that has a wholesome and liberatory character.
because the rich kids all are impatient and entitled and that leads to their downfall or reversal of fortune.
but this is the issue, they're kids. I understand we all hate rich people but punishing kids is specifically what I take issue with. Killing them or even using them to some ends is twisted, yes, but strange and unusual punishment on children of all people is just objectively all kinds of fucked up. Say what you want about the Tzar family but Lenin didn't torture any of them.
Obviously it's just a silly children's book but it's also pretty obviously fucked up and an indictment of society's inclination to punishing those who haven't had much time at all to learn what's correct.
It's a children's book, The main character is a child, it makes sense to me that the flawed characters in the story are spoiled children. It's less of a "torture children for fun" and more of a "their flaws brought their own demise upon them". Its supposed to teach the reader (child) those same basic moral lessons. If I remember the story correctly I thought all of the children ended up okay. They had a bad experience but came out okay.
Its not about punishing people unfairly. Thats how kids learn things in generally. Thats how people learn in general. As a kid, you fuck up and end up facing the consequences of said fuck up, hopefully learning that your behavior before was wrong/stupid and shouldn't be done again. Everyone learns through experience, and without proper guidance you will often learn the hard way.
Of course the moral is good when taken at face value and it's altogether quite innocent, I'm just saying that it comes across odd to adults, which is just a funny thing, or freaks the fuck out of children who have trouble with anxiety, which is bad but TBF not really the fault of the author who doesn't have anxiety and doesn't know that mindset.
Who are kids going to identify with and learn from better as moral lessons? Adults, or children closer to their own age?
I'm pretty certain no children were harmed in the writing of the book. And I don't think it's meant for the age range of kids who have learned how to think along the lines that you're doing.
I'm not sure why people are being so defensive, I'm just saying the plot of a children's book with a normal and average plot that is of course common in other books is just kinda fucked up if you think about it too hard. Obviously it works for what it's trying to say but
And I don’t think it’s meant for the age range of kids who have learned how to think along the lines that you’re doing.
Haha, It appears you did not live most of your life with chronic anxiety! Good for you
A lot of things that look simple on the surface are fucked up if you analyze them further.
Haha, It appears you did not live most of your life with chronic anxiety! Good for you
Oh are we diagnosing/categorizing/outgrouping people based on their responses to children's literature now? Flawless.
A lot of things that look simple on the surface are fucked up if you analyze them further.
Yeah I don't really know what you're getting at this is just supposed to be a funny thread with maybe some slight criticism of our society's views on morality.
Oh are we diagnosing/categorizing/outgrouping people based on their responses to children’s literature now? Flawless.
Of course you could have anxiety and not overthink it, but I sure as hell overthunk it as a kid with anxiety. I was just saying it wasn't a universal experience not to overthink things. I'm sorry I communicated that in a bad way that was deeply insensitive and wrong.
My first reply was going to say "no, it's entirely a story about liberation" but you got me to think about it more and how it kinda runs with a bunch of black-and-white Dickensian tropes.
Did you read The Twits as a kid? It's not as well-known but it is definitely an example of Roald Dahl writing some fucked-up stuff, like a step-by-step description of how to gaslight your spouse.
My first reply was going to say “no, it’s entirely a story about liberation” but you got me to think about it more and how it kinda runs with a bunch of black-and-white Dickensian tropes.
yeah, the message of the movie is pretty much objectively good just like Dicken's novels but if you decide to apply an analytical cultural cross-section of it for... Some reason, it comes across as weird. But I know that most people don't do that because doing that is also weird, but I was a weird ass kid. Sorry again for being a sarcastic shit
Did you read The Twits as a kid? It’s not as well-known but it is definitely an example of Roald Dahl writing some fucked-up stuff, like a step-by-step description of how to gaslight your spouse.
No and now I am afraid yet want to know more
Different people react differently to the same things. For instance, as a kid I got all concerned about stuff in Winnie The Pooh, but not in CATCF.
Mr. Twit does a thing to Mrs. Twit where he tries to play on her fear of shrinking, so he slowly makes table and chair legs longer until they're much bigger in proportion to her. And a bunch of other stuff, there's large amounts of animal cruelty in there too.
For instance, as a kid I got all concerned about stuff in Winnie The Pooh, but not in CATCF.
Makes sense, I think I freaked out about Winnie the Pooh at least once too
Mr. Twit does a thing to Mrs. Twit where he tries to play on her fear of shrinking, so he slowly makes table and chair legs longer until they’re much bigger in proportion to her. And a bunch of other stuff, there’s large amounts of animal cruelty in there too.
What the actual fuck
Roald Dahl can get pretty grotesque for children’s books
Adults worry about weird, scary, violent, and surreal aspects in kid's books far more than the kids reading them do. Kids are a lot smarter, tougher, and sometimes wiser than they're given credit for being.
Okay, so; First, this book is written for children. Like 8-12. And I'm going mostly on the movie, which I'm much more familiar with than the books. (the good movie with Gene Wilder, not the Johnny Depp one)
-
All of the other kids except Charlie are rich and have some kind of character flaw. The story is at least partially a morality play, and it has a strong anti-consumerist undertone. Gloop's sin is Gluttony, Mike Teevee's sin is Vanity, Veruca Salt is Pride or Wrath, and Violet... uh... really her sin is just not following lab safety procedures, so let that be a lesson to lab workers. But the point is - All the rich kids are visited with an ironic fate based on their moral failings. And Violet's poor understanding of Lab Safety.
-
Kids are used to adults being arbitrary, bizarre, demanding, and sometimes violent. The book was published in 1964. Corporal punishment wasn't abolished in English schools until 1987. Kid getting punished in ways wildly disproportionate to their behavior would be widely understood by contemporary readers. The punishments inflicted on the sinful kids are the equivalent to being spanked for "talking back" or something. Kids are used to this.
-
A lot of Roald Dahl's books are dark comedies. It's supposed to be funny but also a little scary
-
Wonka is a wizard. He produces wonderful things but no one is clear how he does it. He lives in a castle at the edge of town. He comes and goes on weird wizard business. He's aloof and inscrutable and doesn't mix with the common folk. When we see inside his castle/factory it's full of fantastical processes and seemingly magic inventions and machines. None of it makes any sense to the reader and the viewpoint character but Wonka and the Oompa Loompas have mastery over the magic.
-
The Oompa Loompas are a racist caricatures, noble savages, and Wonka as white savior. They are also a Greek Chorus, providing, in song, commentary on the moral failings and fates of the rich kids as they are eliminated. And they are a wizard's minions; Strange looking, from a distant and bizarre place, engaged in inscrutable tasks.
-
Charlie is a working class hero. His parents are poor factory workers. His grandparents are all elderly, disabled pensioners. His family is struggling to feed themselves. By happenstance he is wisked away to a magical world of danger and enchantment and, due to his basic honesty and good character, he survives and becomes the Chosen One. Grandpa Joe is likewise a working class hero in contrast to the rich parents of the rich kids. Joe has been disabled for twenty years for unknown reasons before miraculously regaining the use of his legs. He provides Charlie with guidance and moral assistance on his journey.
-
When Charlie and Joe transgress against the Wizard and almost meet their doom, their sin is curiosity, mischief, and whimsy. Instead of acting based on arrogance and pride like the other kids, they acted for largely innocent reasons and escaped punishment.
-
Charlie's great moral challenge is whether to steal the Everlasting Gobstopper for Slugworth. The Everlasting Gobstopper is the holy grail for a poor kid in industrial postwar England. A candy that never loses it's flavor and never gets smaller. Charlie has to decide whether to betray the wizard for personal gain, or remain honest and refuse to steal the Gobstopper. Implied; Wonka wants to make the gobstoppers available to poor kids, but Slugworth presumably is in it for the money, so there's more to this than just Charlie and his family; Charlie is making a choice for all the poor children like him.
-
In the end, Charlie returns the Gobstopper to Wonka, rejecting material gain at the cost of his soul. He makes the right decision for the right reasons, becomes the Chosen one, and inherits creation. He and his family are whisked away to live in the magical castle, presumably leaving all their worries behind them.
I'm not actually criticizing the book. I'm just saying it IS fucked up and pretty much objectively horrifying.
The story is at least partially a morality play, and it has a strong anti-consumerist undertone. Gloop’s sin is Gluttony, Mike Teevee’s sin is Vanity, Veruca Salt is Pride or Wrath, and Violet… uh… really her sin is just not following lab safety procedures, so let that be a lesson to lab workers. But the point is - All the rich kids are visited with an ironic fate based on their moral failings. And Violet’s poor understanding of Lab Safety.
This is my issue. Not only are they children but none of these 'sins' are particularly bad. I swear I'm not just committing to my name for the bit, I just legitimately have never seen someone who acts in ways that are inclined to any of those to be actually bad people (Except Wrath, of course acting on anger all the time can lead to hurting others). The only Deadly Sin that's really consistently evil in real life is Greed and it's also suspiciously absent from the list (Unless you count Wonka himself as being representative of Greed, in which case holy shit Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is based???). The rest are mostly just personality quirks or self-sabotage at worst, nothing deserving of suffering.
Following this interpretation of it, it actually comes across more as a criticism of God itself with the twisted and arbitrary punishments, then any sort of reasonable moral fable, which shows how bad and completely fucked it's morals are.
Gluttony kills. It doesn't mean eating a little too much. It means consuming resources wastefully. Gluttony butchers people all across the globe. America takes in so much food, while producing so much, and so much of it ends up in the trash. Also, consider how often some small staple crop gets "found" by a capitalist, and now the population dependent upon it has to fight tooth and nail to get it with the wealthiest of the world. Amaranth and quinoa were dirt cheap, then pricey, and now get exported to super markets at the cost of the people who needed it. Look in the dumpster of any restaurant in the US, see the tons of food they can't stand the thought of someone else eating. Also, look at the brutal practices of the farming industry, how animals are treated, how meat packers are treated, how harvesters are treated. Look at the hog diets, cannibal sandwiches and all meat diets. You think those people know hunger? This is all a game to them. They'll burn through all the world's food to eat what they want.
Vanity kills. You see the diets, the insane workout regimens, the hundreds of dollars of products people use to look young? You ever seen a bully, so full of their appearance, mock someone to the point of self harm? Even death? People who spend their whole life in front of the mirror are not healthy happy people, and they will not hold your best interests at heart. If you've ever read about royals bathing in the blood of virgins, and heard about how badly treated animals are in cosmetics, you know vanity is deadly. Caring about looking nice is fine, but the minute you put it up over other people's lives on your priority list that's a sin.
Every single one of the seven deadly sins is toxic, and they are the causes of every evil act. Every one comes from some fine impulse, needed to stay alive, taken to an extreme and being dangerous.
Those are extremely vague interpretations of them, and they're not actually root causes of suffering. Almost all of the examples you've given are actually suffering caused by capitalism and greed, which corrupted and warped other desires. Yes, these behaviors taken to an extreme are unhealthy, but that extreme is not inherent to or even remotely a normal aspect of those desires. This is not a world where people who desire to constantly find new tastes have to contribute to the waste of entire countries to do so, or a world where people who want to look good or feel important have to do so at the expense of everyone else. You even conceded this point in your own comment! The dangerous, horrible aspects of these are almost all tied together with and intrinsic to culture, economy, wealth, historical events, and many other factors. To reduce these massive systemic issues to personality flaws or 'sins' is a dangerously simplistic view of morality and inherently incompatible with a materialistic and socialist view of humanity.
We could argue for hours and hours over this, but the truth is that none of the things you've listed are the socially accepted definitions of what constitute the Deadly Sins. People do not think of our insane beauty standards when they think of vanity, they think of 'welfare queens' and women who get breast implants. They do not think of our horrible waste of food and valuable products when they think of gluttony, they think of a fat kid who eats too much at dinner. They do not think of the constant rat race and capitalistic grind to be 'on top' as Envy- They think of those who wish to have a fair share of our society's resources. They do not think of rapists and the absolutely monstrous capitalists who use their power to get off on hurting others as Lust- They think that's just a woman who sleeps with too many men. They do not think of the landlords who do nothing and abuse their tenants as Sloth- That's the tenants themselves, who refuse to do the Work. And, most damning, they do not think of our systemic hoarding and conditioned greed as capital-G Greed- They think that WE'RE the greedy ones. We, the people who want everyone to have what they need, yes, they think we're the greedy ones. McCarthyism was a wild ride.
This is the issue with the Deadly Sins as a tool for making moral judgements- They claim that the evil, horrible behaviors that are displayed nearly daily are some sort of personal crime, a sin against God. But these horrible behaviors are not inherent human behavior at all, and are only aesthetically related to their 'healthy' variation. And when you reduce it to personal crime, subjective view of what it entails becomes much more important. And so the reactionary forces can warp and change the definition of evil at will.
We, as communists, cannot think in terms of personal morality. And so I suggest we discard the Deadly Sins entirely from our vocabulary, and instead use the terminology and toolset that has been available for us from the beginning- Dialetical Materialism, and a holistic view of society. You can continue to use the terminology of the Deadly Sins to describe systemic issues, but know that anyone trying to depict them in media will not be saying the same thing as you, and anyone listening will not be hearing the same thing you're trying to say. Of course, using alternative definitions of the Sins as a rhetorical tool when talking with those who believe in them is a valid tactic! And believing in them yourself, is, most likely, fine, but from a wide view we still have to consider the systemic forces and not just the flaws of a select few.
tl;dr personal fault is bullshit
Okay so with the Seven Deadly Sins I like the interpretations where Deadly Sins are obsessions or practices that rule your life. Gluttony isn't eating too much or being fat; It's when you consistently take more than you need, more than you can use, even at the expense of others. Vanity isn't wearing makeup, it's being so obsessed with your appearance or reputation that you'd cut down and try to destroy others if you think they're making you look bad. Pride is when you stomp all over other people's lives and rights because you're so self centered that you don't even notice the suffering you're causing.
It's all over the place in Christian philosophy and theology. You'll definitely find kill-joy Puritans who will rant and rant about how getting a hair cut is vanity or talking back to your mom is Pride and you're going to go to hell, but fuck those writers. I'm much more inclined towards the writers who position the Deadly Sins as something over and above common daily foibles and follies. Like the difference between drinking regularly and alcoholism - It's not a problem until it starts to ruin your life. It trips over in to Deadly Sin when it starts to govern your life and harm you or those around you.
As a real world example;
You can see Pride in the stereotypical Karen. Someone who is so self assured, so confident in their own righteousness, so unaware of the needs or situation of anyone else, that they'll happily call armed cops to "deal with" minority people. And they'll never question if they were right, they'll never experience self doubt. I'd also include Biden. He refuses to use executive orders and the vast powers of the president to help people because he thinks he's better than that, and that it's not suitable for the office of the president. His own stupid pride is causing massive suffering.
Wrath would be all the Liberals baying for the blood of Russians right now. Totally blind hate, a totally unexamined thirst for violence and death.
Gluttony would be Jeff Bezos, hoarding wealthy beyond human comprehension then stabbing at underpaid Amazon workers who dare to unionize for a few more crumbs.
Greed applies pretty broadly. Bezos or Musk would fit, but so would every small business Tyrant stealing wages and tips from workers.
Lust is another appetite sin. Lust for sex is the most boring version, and the one that most Evangelicals obsess over, but their lust for dominion and control over others would be considered as much of a sin by some Christian philosophers as just having casual hookups. If you leave out Christian moralizing against sex you'd be looking at things like people who use manipulation and lies to get other people in bed then discard them to look for another victim. It overlaps in a lot of ways with gluttony and greed, but it's generally aimed more at concrete, physical things like sex. But you could even call a desire for a post workout high lust if you let it control you. Apparently Lust is generally held to be the least of the Seven Deadly Sins, since it's natural to feel desire, so people shouldn't be judged as harshly for this one.
Sloth usually gets translated as laziness, but the word used in Latin actually means something more like carelessness. It's attributed to people who are apathetic, who refuse to use the virtues available to them, who avoid obligations and responsibilities. Liberals, for instance, who :vote: are giving up all their responsibility over their lives to their democrat masters. Virtue is considered something active, it's incumbent on you to go and be virtuous, to care about people, to care about the world. Giving up and handing it all to someone else, or just being indifferent, would be sloth
Envy's pretty easy. People in the office who using office politics to cut down other people for fun, or wreckers who just like seeing other people made miserable when their hard work falls apart. Anyone who sets out to destroy something beautiful simple because it offends them to see beauty.
I know most people's experience with Christianity in the US comes from Evangelicalism or Catholicism or various cults, but this stuff also shows up in classical Greek philosophy, Dante's Divine Comedy (which is a peerless act of shitposting), and Full Metal Alchemist. As for the book we're discussing, it's a magical realism book. The bad kids aren't supposed to be real, fully fleshed out characters. They exist in the story to provide a contrast to Charlie as the everyman hero. They're exaggerated caricatures of their respective vices.
Keep in mind; To you, reading this as an adult, this is an adult man, Wonka, torturing children for being children. To the age-appropriate audience it's people their age getting their comeuppance for bad behavior. Making the consequences exaggerated and over the top makes them absurd, which allows them to be funny while also being a little scary.
I'm reminded of an anecdote from Neil Gaiman, where he talks about how parents reading Coraline with their kids would find the Other Mother's button eyes extremely creepy and disturbing, while kids would just chalk it up to the story being a faery tale. By the same token, an adult reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who has an awareness of unequal power relationships and a strong sense of justice and concerns about how kids are held to unreasonable standards and punished in unreasonable ways is going to have a very different read from a child who is reading a story about a weird magic man with a magic factory. By judging it from the perspective of an adult you may be missing the forest for the trees.
And you're not wrong about it being a critique of God; Wonka is supposed to be weird and a little sinister, a little scary. The punishments are supposed to be unreasonable, that's what makes them interesting and memorable. Wonka isn't a responsible authority figure, for kids he's an example of how adults impose all kinds of weird, arbitrary rules on kids that often don't make sense.
I made a massive writeup about the Deadly Sins in response to another post but basically my concern is one of typical usage: Most people don't actually use the Deadly Sins to refer to excessive behavior. It's to refer to normal behavior that is inherent to all people, and must be absolved through prayer. This is an obviously problematic mindset, because it implies that not only is it not possible to entirely suppress these things, but it also implies that they're all personal responsibility and unable to be affected by material forces.
To use the book itself as an example, almost all of the kids are created the way they are by their parents. And yet, the children themselves are punished! This is my issue, that instead of focusing on the societal forces that create and cause these problematic behaviors, we point at a kid and laugh and say: "Haha! That kid's fat and eats a lot!", in a nearly thought-terminating way. Because when we do that, we don't have to question why the kid eats a lot. They just do! They're bad!
Keep in mind; To you, reading this as an adult, this is an adult man, Wonka, torturing children for being children. To the age-appropriate audience it’s people their age getting their comeuppance for bad behavior. Making the consequences exaggerated and over the top makes them absurd, which allows them to be funny while also being a little scary.
I’m reminded of an anecdote from Neil Gaiman, where he talks about how parents reading Coraline with their kids would find the Other Mother’s button eyes extremely creepy and disturbing, while kids would just chalk it up to the story being a faery tale. By the same token, an adult reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who has an awareness of unequal power relationships and a strong sense of justice and concerns about how kids are held to unreasonable standards and punished in unreasonable ways is going to have a very different read from a child who is reading a story about a weird magic man with a magic factory. By judging it from the perspective of an adult you may be missing the forest for the trees.
Oh yeah, definitely. At this point I'm just using this discussion as an excuse to dunk on the notion of personal morality. Of course Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a fine book that hasn't caused much if at all societal harm.
np, I'm sorry for being so serious about my replies about a silly children's novel.
-
Questions from an Oompa-Loompa Who Reads
Who built the chocolate factory?
In the books you will read the names of chocolatiers.
Did the chocolatiers haul up the lumps of rock ?
In what houses of whimsical Wonka Chocolate Factory did its workers live ?
Where, the evening that the chocolate river was finished, did the hydrologists go?
The candy meadow is full of lollypop trees.
Who erected them ?
Over whom did the Capitalists triumph ?
Had Wonka Chocolate Factory, much praised in song, only palaces for its owner ?
The young Willy Wonka conquered the market.
Was he alone ?
Wonka defeated the other chocolatiers.
Did he not even have an Oompa-Loompa with him ?
William of Wonkaville wept when those children died on his production line.
Was he the only one to weep ?
Every page a profit.
Who made the bars for the owner?
Every 10 years a great man.
Who sold the chocolate?
So many reports.
So many questions.
equally fucked tbh, rich capitalist morally judges children for regular behaviors and subjects them to literal body horror and only gives his factory to Charlie because he survived the Fortnite Battle Royale. Movie portrays this as whimsical and funny, and not the 'temptation Hunger Games' it actually is. It's effectively a rich man torturing random children for his own amusement and justifying it because they're 'bad kids'.
Still a good movie.
In the movie Wonka uses two vehicles that have progressively fewer seats. Clear premeditation
There's a short story somewhere where Violent is an adult, still blue, and an accomplished Ballerina and she basically reflects on the absurdity of childhood and the difficulties of growing up through the lens of having been turned in to a giant blueberry for no very good reason. I can't find it though.
Violent is an adult, still blue, and an accomplished Ballerina
Widowmaker, from the hit game overwatch, origin story
Yeah, I think these inconsistencies are average parts of children's moral tales but all of them together do emit a menacing vibe.
In the novel and both films, Mike is stretched with a taffy puller after he shrinks himself. This insinuates that every basketball team in the world will want him because of his new height.
willy wonka wiki is wild
Supposedly the gates were based on Auchwitz. This might be an urban legend though. Roald Dahl was an old school Anti Semite
Child doesn't like candy, is punished for this heinous character flaw.
Yes. Children should be drowned in chocolate and stretched and juiced. Why can’t they just follow instructions?
-posted from my Wonkaphone
Narratively, they provide a contrast to the plain and honest everyman character.
It's not your fault that they don't truly appreciate the work you do as an entrepeneur. NTA.
-sent with Wonkatalk
Child is arrogant and vain, and suffers for his arrogance and vanity. Though in the movie at least Mike doesn't seem to mind his fate at all and is thrilled to be on TV.
If it helps, it's shown in the book explicitly that all other children survive their ordeal.
Christian concepts of sin + punishment are dumb and stupid and I'm sick of pretending otherwise.
The fact that they live actually makes it all the more horrifying because they have to live in a family that likely despises and hates them for their warped and strange appearance, and in a world full of people who likely will treat them as subhuman for the rest of their lives. Kids dying is dark but honestly way less dark then body horror.
I don't really think anyone should suffer for arrogance or vanity. It's not really a personality flaw that manifests as much more then 'mildly annoying' unless they have power or wealth, in which case there tends to be lots of other issues with that in general.
Doesn't anyone remember why the oompa
Loompas were acquired in the first place? The workers were asking for too much moneyHey! I'm not saying they're not well written. But even well written books can be dark and not mean what they probably meant to mean.
RLM has a good video on it that compares the trials of Willy Wonka to that of temptation and Uncle Joe at every is at every turn trying to corrupt his grandson to sin. It's an interpretation, I'm too tired to argue about Captialism
thats super fucking stupid.
not the interpretation, just that some writer thought it was important to make kids afraid of normal behavior under threat of excruciating agony
I haven't rewatched it in a long time. I don't know what Roald Dahl intention was, he definitely has some of that unfortunate in retrospect stuff that only a British author could do, like the stuff about Oompah loompas being imported slaves that love to work.
i think books that morally judge children just bother me
also, :agony-minion: yeah
