#neil gaiman got me thinking

[leutjaneausten]

The BFG Isn’t a BFD

I’ve read Roald Dahl’s books to little kids for years. Let me tell you how that goes.

Imogen West-KnightsFeb 23, 20233:18 PM

As it happens, I have spent quite a lot of time over the past decade reading Roald Dahl books with small children as part of a side hustle in tutoring English. Matilda, The BFG, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Twits: all of them. All these books have moments in them that are a little sticky for modern readers, and that you can contextualize for children, if you want to. I think, from experience, that even small children are capable of understanding something like “In the past, more people thought it was OK to be rude about people who were different from them, but now we don’t do that because it’s upsetting/unfair/wrong.” Dahl’s books are full of material that needs a little explaining to kids, but perhaps more importantly here, the world’s full of other children’s books. I choose to read these to kids because I feel comfortable helping kids through them. It is not required.

I mention all of this, obviously, because of a new episode in a doomed and stupid enterprise of our times: Yet again, adults are getting angry online about children’s books. It was announced earlier this week that the Roald Dahl Story Company, which controls the rights to the late author’s books, worked in conjunction with Puffin, the books’ publisher, and a collective who campaign to make children’s literature more inclusive, on what they call “small and carefully considered” changes to the texts, to ensure Dahl’s books “continue to be enjoyed by all children today.” These have apparently included changes to language regarding things like weight, mental health, gender, violent behavior, and race, and whole extra sentences added about topics such as why it’s OK for women to wear wigs, in The Witches.

What’s interesting about this unneeded controversy is that I haven’t so far seen anybody, anywhere on the political spectrum, who thinks this is a good idea. Loudmouths on the right think it’s “woke cancel culture” nonsense, and loudmouths on the left think it smacks of literary censorship. So why has this happened?

Listen: Roald Dahl was a shitbag. This is known. In an infamous 1983 interview, he said that “there is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity. Maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere.” He was, by some accounts, a more general racist, a misogynist, a bully. I understand the publisher’s impulse to look at these works, which bear marks of the views of their author, and want to try to buff them to a higher shine under the gaze of the contemporary world. Generally, though, I don’t think it serves anybody very well if we scrub away everything that is troubling in this way.

Do we now need more detail on how the Oompa-Loompas are being compensated fairly for their work?

It’s uncomfortable that the world has changed, and that many cultural works of a time before now still exist and are enjoyable. Sometimes, it’s an obvious move to make small changes to a literary text to update it for modern audiences. Surely few would dispute, for example, that changing the name of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None from what it used to be removed offensive language while preserving the value of the work.

But what’s happened here is more extensive, and much less obvious in its merit. What Puffin has actually done in this case is a mess. For instance, Augustus Gloop will be “enormous” rather than “fat.” This performs no sensitivity purpose, because the character is fat. Much of his strand of the plot revolves around this fact. And even taking the word “fat” out at all implies that fat is an insult in and of itself, rather than a descriptor of one possible body type. What has been achieved here?

This whole thing also seems like a misunderstanding about what is appealing about the world of Roald Dahl in the first place. Or not, in fact, a misunderstanding, but something closer to a cynical attempt to sanitize the I.P. before Netflix gets their hands on it to pump out a load of new Dahl adaptations, as they will be doing in the coming years after a deal with the Roald Dahl Story Company. Puffin can change lines like “so I shipped them all over here—every man, woman and child in the Oompa-Loompa tribe” to “so, they all agreed to come over—each and every Oompa Loompa.” Fine, but do we now need more detail on how the Oompa-Loompas are being compensated fairly for their work? Does any child in the world give a shit about that? I’m being facetious, but the point is that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a horrible little story in many ways. Changing specific phrases doesn’t change the shape of these books themselves. They are nasty books. Dahl was a nasty writer for adults as well: His short stories are some of the most memorable and twisted things I’ve read. The Twits is about a husband and a wife torturing each other for fun. In Matilda, a little boy is forced to eat an entire chocolate cake until he is almost sick as a punishment. In George’s Marvelous Medicine, George kills his grandmother by shrinking her out of existence. The nastiness is a feature, not a bug.

You can choose not to read these books to your children, should you wish, and you would have fair reasons. Or you can do a bit of course-correction while reading them. And it’s a course-correction that has to be done with children all the time, anyway. Recently, I was having a drawing contest with a 6-year-old. She picked the theme: princesses, because it’s almost always princesses. She started to draw hers, and when she drew the body, it came out round. “She looks a bit fat,” she said, wrinkling her nose. I said that was OK—the princess can be fat. And she thought about it, shrugged, and we carried on drawing. I don’t say this to go: hark at me, great woke savior and influencer of young minds. I just mean that it’s pretty easy to do, and would be just as easy to do while reading.

My problem with Rolled Oats is that he’s clumsy, ham fisted and oafish. Kids get subtly and wit, and they deserve someone who writes up to them. I think Rolled Oats is a clueless adult’s idea of what kids might like.

[thebroccolination]

Years ago, one of my favorite Japanese idols appeared on a variety show segment in which he made fun of women in an all-female gym. At one point, he looked at a bodybuilder across the room and joked, “Is it okay for me to say this? Is that even a woman?”

The male crew laughed, and he grinned.

I’d been his fan for years. Since university, in fact. We’re the same age. He writes, I write. I thought he was beautiful and funny, and even though I didn’t share his particular insecurities or social awkwardness, I found those parts of him endearing. Those were the flaws that proved to me that I was seeing him as a whole human, not a polished industry product.

I had thought, “I know who he is,” and yet, I didn’t.

Since he was in a company for all-male idol groups, I’d rarely seen him in contexts that involved women. Hearing him casually mock women who were exercising in a gym designed to be safe from men’s judgment and then seeing him eagerly look for approval from the men behind the camera put an irreparable crack in the veneer.

If I’d been younger when this segment aired, I would have taken it more to heart. He’d been my very public favorite in fandom, and everyone knew me as his fan. It would have felt like a personal attack for people to see that segment and turn to stare at me like I were his accomplice. I probably would’ve felt pressured to defend him, but I’ll never know if I would have.

The segment aired when I was older and much less involved in online fandom spaces. I didn’t identify myself as His Fan so much as “a fan who likes him.” I didn’t write fic for the group anymore, and I lived in Japan where my main community had become in-person friend groups. So when this segment aired, I decided to stop following him.

Everyone has their thresholds, and in this case, mine was that single display of casual misogyny. It wasn’t Big News. Definitely not an uppercase “s” Scandal for him, or even a lowercase one, and I doubt many people even remember it happened. A few days after it aired, people stopped talking about it. The general consensus seemed to be, “He shouldn’t have said that, but it wasn’t that bad, and he could have said or done much worse.”

And sure, he could have. But I’d expected better from someone who had based so much of his public persona on his intelligence and love of books. I knew he was smart enough to know what he was doing, and his need for male approval at the expense of women kicked the pedestal out from under him for me. It might have only been One Thing, but it felt like more iceberg than isolated incident.

Everything I had loved about him was still there. He was still funny and beautiful and smart and clever, and I didn’t flip a switch into hating him overnight or even now, but I knew I couldn’t see him the way I used to. Everyone has their thresholds, and he had crossed one of mine.

Not long after this, a friend’s favorite idol was embroiled in a scandal, and she couldn’t come to grips with it. At one point, she asked me, “What would you do if it were your favorite?”

I said, “I’d stop supporting them. Because if someone I admire did something like that, they wouldn’t be admirable to me anymore. The person I was following didn’t exist. I just didn’t know it yet.”

I see the argument that we shouldn’t put people on a pedestal, and I semi-agree with the concept. But it’s not that I think we shouldn’t glorify people because all people are flawed; I think we should admire people as long as we feel they deserve to be admired. Those pedestals should be temporary and specific.

Because some people are extraordinary. Extraordinarily kind, beautiful, talented, gentle, loving, ambitious, hard-working, friendly, magnetic, clever, funny, etc. Some pedestals are earned for one thing, and they can be canceled out by another. Or maybe that extraordinary thing they were admired for lessened over time—or it turned out to be an illusion all along.

No one should be so utterly enshrined by admiration that their flaws, warning signs, and poor behavior are automatically dismissed or forgiven or explained away. Pedestals should be merit-based and up for regular renewal.

Some celebrities and people of note have pedestals in my mind’s gallery. The majority of them are admirable to me because of their kindness. And I know that because I put them up there, I’m also the one who can take the pedestals away. I don’t live in fear of any celebrity disappointing me, because I already know it’s possible for each and every one of them. As much as I may appreciate their music, their acting, their speeches, their gestures, their humor, I know there’s a very solid chance that they may say or do something that crosses one of my lines. If they do, I’ll just do the same thing I did with an idol I used to love a long time ago: quietly withdraw my support.

I think one of the greatest mistakes a person can make with parasocial relationships is underestimating how much power you yourself can have in the dynamic. Who or what you love is only part of you if you choose to incorporate it into your self-identity. Otherwise, they’re just someone or something you love. Your values and ethics are more intrinsically who you are because you made them.

Through your life experiences, your disagreements with adults as you grow up and shape your worldview, your conflicts with systemic oppression, finding your place in the status quo, and deciding how (or if) you include community in your life—those are the deepest tenets of who you are.

I don’t think parasocial relationships are intrinsically bad—as long as you can walk away.

[metaphysicpareidolic]

moments that should have been in the sandman tv show

1. Dream’s far superior mind duel outfit

2. John Dee eating a fly

3. this

4. literally described as looking like a “wet puppy” (something along those lines) by neil himself

5.

bip

6. world’s worst laugh

7. the most twinkified fit ever concieved

[aziraphales-lawyer]

Literally no other way I could describe it right now.

[tio-trile]

I’m sorry, not to be super negative, but a “bridge” between s1 and 3? S2 was intentionally pointless filler? Like I get the three-act structure, but Jesus if you (Gaiman) can’t come up with a feasible way to tie what is supposedly the sequel plot to the existing canon, maybe he just isn’t that good of a writer!! (I’ve only read gomens and American gods, and American gods was………………… a slog. I never bothered with the show despite the phenomenal cast) Like season 2 was unfathomably bad, and I just can’t see Terry setting up a sequel that would require SIX EPISODES of filler to cover in order to get to the next part of the plot. S1 shouldn’t have happened but it did. S2 just straight shouldn’t exist and tbh I hope s3 is cancelled because I think it’d be really funny if NG was so up his ass with fan service that he fucks his chance to write a “sequel”

This. And I don't think we would be this angry had it all been "pointless filler" (imagine if we got 6 episodes worth of the S1 ep3 cold opening 😂 I probably would have been like "...okay? Cool I guess!" had it all been in-character, with no progression of the plot); I've talked about how it changed the characters irreparably in several past asks. I'm not gonna insult all of Neil Gaiman's writing because this because I've genuinely enjoyed some of his work, but like I said in a previous ask, a piece of media should be able to be good on its own without any context or explanation. And that's exactly it -- WHAT IF season 3 never gets written? Season 2 would just be left on its own, sucking til the end of time. Why make something bad that cannot stand by itself just because you hope a sequel gets made? Why not make something good from the get-go if you can?

[coffeeinthelibrary]

my favourite thing about The Ocean at the End of the Lane is that it wasn't until the nickname "handsome george" that I realised that the entire family was nameless. like obviously microcosm and all that and metaphor but also the fact that it's written in such a way that its not a notable thing for most of the novel (or maybe that's me being unobservant)

[t3acupz]

🌻

tucker bestie ✨!!

last night i went down another jtuck rabbit hole. i was feeling the urge to watch him in westworld, and then i remembered that i also loved evan rachel wood’s character dolores and how their scene together was so hot (my bisexual brain short circuits when i see it)

then i was like oh yeah! they were both child actors. she was in the movie thirteen which is one of my favs (still shocking no matter how many times you watch it).

i was like huh i wonder what evan rachel wood is up to now so i googled her and she did a documentary called phoenix rising. it’s a harrowing recollection of the abuse she suffered when she was in a relationship with marilyn manson. she was so brave to speak about her experiences and to work on changing the statute of limitation laws in california, doing all this while filming westworld. truly wishing her all the best— she’s so talented, smart, and sweet and one of the only voices in hollywood willing to call out the monsters.

[cytryndor]

okay, but my headcanon is that when someone asks aziraphale what the "a" stand for in a.z.fell he'll reply with 'anthony". doesn't really suit him, but it sure as hell suits a man named anthony j crowley

[twoscriddler]

all the negative criticism i’ve seen of gomens s2 can be boiled down to “it’s too queer and it makes me uncomfortable” which means it was great and neil did his job

[nerdgirlriot]

thinking about how a lot of my writing from A Certain Time was just Gaiman cosplay

still have a lot to unpack about this apparently

[thegreatbuttoneer]

[jimothyjanthony]

it's probably a given but do you think when crowley said "we could've been us," he didn't just mean their "group of two" but the versions of themselves that they had become? the versions that had been shaped by the place they fell in love with and protected so fiercely? they could've wholeheartedly, unapologetically been the "us" they'd always wanted to be.

romance or no, what mattered most (aside from the world) was "them" as a unit. the "us" that allowed for "them" to come into existence. aziraphale and crowley aren't the same angel and demon they were at the start. couple or no, they were both changed (arguably for the better) by the world they lived in and by being around each other.

i wonder if crowley is hoping that even if they're not an "us," that they're still "them" - still those versions of themselves they've evolved into. aziraphale, too.

[catboydan]

I finally rewatched Good Omens s1 and watched Good Omens s2 and I'm now crying, they've been pining since the very beginning of everything and they deserve happiness not that ending they got

you know what though? we're gonna get there. THEY are gonna get there. they're gonna get that cottage in the south downs, and all we have to do is harass the studios to pay their workers so the strikes can end and we'll finally get to see our ineffable idiots have a happy ending ;-;

[loverboybrightsideghost]

yeah i'm still waiting for good omens the musical and i'll keep waiting as long as it takes so i don't think i have much of a problem waiting for go3 (if it comes)

[amaterasu-masami]

Me, ep 1 s 2 of Good Omens: Neil Gaiman, the visionary. What have you cooked up for us in these last few years? 😄😄😄

Me, ep 6 s 2 of Good Omens: Oh God, I guess I'll just have to read the book, huh? No choice now I can't be expected to wait 🥴🥴🥴

Me, skimming Good Omens, the novel:...where is it?....Where... where is...what's happening where's the...where's the fucking-

Me, after a quick Google ask, the second half of "Kronos Unveiled" from The Incredibles soundtrack playing menacingly in the background of my one bedroom apartment, the room is spinning. My dog is beginning to feel my anxiety. My neighbors are gathering at my door arguing over who should knock in harsh whispers despite my pitiful screams of desperation overshadowing their voices. My home and my hair in disarray. I rush to the bathroom, splashing water on my face in an attempt to ground myself in reality again despite it being exactly where I can no longer exist. I stare at my dripping face in the mirror. I'm panting. The sink continues to run. My emotions have rendered me unrecognizable. There's a smirking monster staring at me:

MeThe Monster: It's been years now...I wonder what the girls have cooked up on ao3 for me 😄😄😄

[justcallmeemily]

This is why open communication is key for a healthy relationship folks.

no but it's the way for aziraphale "nothing lasts forever" meant "i'm willing to give up the bookshop if it means i can be with you safely" and for crowley it meant "nothing lasts forever, not the bookshop, not earth, not us"