Replying to Avatar alanajoy

How can we learn from the past if we rewrite it? It would be as though no progress was ever made. Not to say there isn’t progress left to make, there’s so much, too much! But the record of our wins and losses, the lessons depicted in them, the strategies passed on through generations disappear. We are moved back to start.

What respect do we show historically brilliant artists the respect they earned it life by modifying the intent in their death? Augustus Gloop WAS fat. That was the point. The archetype was gluttony. It is an adjective. I’m insulted a slur is being protected on what the author did NOT intend it to be, but one of countless ways his gluttony caused him trouble. What should be censored here? What is so scandalous? Gluttony does lead to becoming overweight. This is not opinion, it’s fact: Relevant to the character development Roald Dahl put forth and a significant catalyst in the lessons he imparts on the reader through the story. Fat is now charged to… enormous? Help me understand how that’s better? Better enough to justify rewriting the work of this renowned author.

Oompa Loompah’s were described as “tiny”, “titchy” or “no higher than my knee,”… now it will just say “small”. Oompa Loompas were ORANGE. They are a made up thing. How bland is this clever writing now?

I’m furious over this, I predict it becoming normalized and that scares me. I will be ranting about this for a while I can tell so just a heads up.

Anyway, mood:

In the original 1964 edition, the Oompa Loompas were “a tribe of 3,000 amiable black pygmies who have been imported by Mr. Willy Wonka from ‘the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had been before.’ Mr. Wonka keeps them in the factory, where they have replaced the sacked white workers. Wonka’s little slaves are delighted with their new circumstances, and particularly with their diet of chocolate. Before they lived on green caterpillars, beetles, eucalyptus leaves, ‘and the bark of the bong-bong tree.'”

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Thank you for sharing this. Do you think it’s appropriate to change the book, no matter what it contains?

For things like this, the original versions need to be preserved not because they are good but BECAUSE they are reprehensible. The original Wonka story and slaves and manner of worker exploitation it seems - we should all have a problem with that. Apparently changing the OPs to a bunch of dehumanized waddling orange midgets make it all ok. Honestly I wish I known the original context when seeing the movie - you get much more of a dark cautionary tale rather than "lovable whimsy" and the "eccentricities of the wealthy"

Roald Dahl changed it himself.

The Futurama episode at the Slurm Factory alluded to this "unknown" tidbit - never read the original book (likely a reason for that, huh). WWCC is a great movie, but I feel like this needs a gritty reboot replete with confectionary union busting on the backs of pygmy slaves and Wonka spiking everyone's chocolate with acid before the boat ride. Let the people who made "Infinity Pool" produce and direct.