There's an expectation in the media and amongst religious groups that well-known people must be perfect and all-knowing (of the future in particular). I understand the reasoning, their actions are public statements, readers/listeners may imitate them. But find me a perfect person... In the case of Dahl, if he had been perfect to today's standards, we would not have any of the anti-authoritarian twist, wildly inventive language, or dark creativity that has made his writing so self-empowering, and mind-opening to young and old around the world, especially the odd ones of us who were pushed to the side for one reason or another.  I'm not validating criminal or harmful acts at all, but what Jacobs brings up against Dahl seems quite minor and typical of human beings. We would have to look into wider context to know if Dahl was indeed an anti-semite and anti-Pygmy and if he caused harm to these identities. From his writings, it appears he wasn't. And if he was, to what extent should that affect the good effects of his writing on children and others?When I was 9 or so years old I remember thinking "Roald Dahl is a good artist because he's one of the few people who can attract readers from many walks of life."PS- I wonder if any self-identifying Romani person will have been hurt by his beloved writing spot, named the Gipsy House. Or, you know, if this is just... privileged, distant speculation?

There's an expectation in the media and amongst religious groups that well-known people must be perfect and all-knowing (of the future in particular). I understand the reasoning, their actions are public statements, readers/listeners may imitate them. But find me a perfect person... In the case of Dahl, if he had been perfect to today's standards, we would not have any of the anti-authoritarian twist, wildly inventive language, or dark creativity that has made his writing so self-empowering, and mind-opening to young and old around the world, especially the odd ones of us who were pushed to the side for one reason or another.  I'm not validating criminal or harmful acts at all, but what Jacobs brings up against Dahl seems quite minor and typical of human beings. We would have to look into wider context to know if Dahl was indeed an anti-semite and anti-Pygmy and if he caused harm to these identities. From his writings, it appears he wasn't. And if he was, to what extent should that affect the good effects of his writing on children and others?When I was 9 or so years old I remember thinking "Roald Dahl is a good artist because he's one of the few people who can attract readers from many walks of life."PS- I wonder if any self-identifying Romani person will have been hurt by his beloved writing spot, named the Gipsy House. Or, you know, if this is just... privileged, distant speculation?

user
yes
assistant