[grey_earthling]

He also endorsed antisemitism:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160912-the-dark-side-of-r...

> “Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”

[chalst]

> If Dahl had been a nice man, I don’t suppose he would have been able to inflict such refreshingly transgressive views on his young readers. Christopher Hitchens once wrote an essay examining the truth of the accusation that Dahl was an adulterer, bully and anti-Semite. “Of course it’s bloody well true,” he concluded. “How else could Dahl have kept children enthralled and agreeably disgusted and pleasurably afraid? By being Enid Blyton?”

From "Roald Dahl’s troubling legacy - much-loved author stands accused of racism" - https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/roald-dahls-t...

[rsynnott]

> By being Enid Blyton?

Who, interestingly, had her own issues, which are far more visible in the actual books (I think it'd be hard to find anti-semitic themes in most of Dahl's kids' books): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enid_Blyton#Racism,_xenophobia...

(Blyton probably wasn't that much worse than was standard for her time, but largely lacked Dahl's redeeming qualities)

[olah_1]

I truly wish that people didn't swing between extremes on this topic. Surely we can acknowledge the truths of history while also not endorsing genocide. Is that too much to ask?