5 ms·

Or, he's 'whimsical' and child-like. Someone that may not have been able to be a child when they were young. Who knows though; is up for interpretation.

AStonesThrow 1y ago
> Consider the sadistic cruelty Well, I uh, can't do that if I don't see it. I think Wonka's character is a great way to personify the distant coldness of the industrialized corporate bosses of Dahl's day and our own. I can't honestly say that Wonka exhibited any sadism or cruelty. He simply acted as a corporate boss. He was distant, apathetic, unemotional. His Oompa-Loompas were there to do his bidding and nothing more. The children he invited in, well, he CYA'd with the initial contract, [that's why he's unworried about law enforcement, in civil matters], and the misfortunes they met were definitely not at his own hand. They were simply "occupational hazards" from inexperienced and careless persons getting too close to the industrial machinery. Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt, even while lacking regret or remorse. And he was often right there to give assurances to the parents, about the incinerator or the squeezing process or something. Wilder's comic portrayal was masterful as he remained aloof, with a thousand-year-stare in those closeups; his business patter undisturbed by the strange happenings around him; he simply didn't care about this world and was floating in an executive bubble that no other character could understand. He was a politician with no stake in human suffering. As far as showing off trade secrets -- won't read TFA but -- Wonka was essentially giving a Guided Tour for the entire plot. The kids straying from the path, were all meeting misfortune when they did it. They saw what they saw when they saw it, and then they were ushered onwards. Slugworth's entire plan revolved around reverse-engineering a prototype, and that's all he could do! Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day? Especially after four were chewed up in the machinery quite early on A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  That is certainly a perspective i didn't consider. It's been a long time since i last read the books. But i don't agree with you that that's all there is to Wonka. >Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be. >A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas Were they compensated for their efforts? Slave labour. (please don't be offended, it's a joke) >or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride. What of it? Everyone needs a successor. Otherwise when he gets old and infirm, the oompah loompahs and the squirrels will rise up against him and throw him down the garbage chute into the incinerator. Although he did discover immortality so that shouldn't even be a problem. >Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day? The article quotes Wonka where he asserts that his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.
  - AStonesThrow 1y ago
    > No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be. Damn straight, and as a demonstration of moral ethics for an audience of young children, Dahl exploits our instincts to be thrilled/pleased when someone who's really bad gets exactly what they deserve. Key factors in each character's demise is that they didn't die -- they weren't really maimed, injured, or in pain, per se, and we were always left with hope in their recovery. But they all "got their just desserts" in a literal way. Their character sketches were thoroughly drawn as corrupt, indecent, egged on by bad parents, destined for Hell essentially. So yeah, the audience is gleeful and cheers and we revel in this cartoon violence, and we experience it completely differently from Wonka's attitude [hopefully], and when we compare ourselves to the folks on the page, we get to know ourselves better.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - 1y ago
FridayoLeary 1y ago
Even as a child i was disturbed by Wonkas cruelty. The spiteful nature of Dahl comes through in all off his books. He was an excellent writer and i've read all of them, but my parents made it clear that i shouldn't draw any moral lessons from them.

AStonesThrow 1y ago

> Consider the sadistic cruelty Well, I uh, can't do that if I don't see it. I think Wonka's character is a great way to personify the distant coldness of the industrialized corporate bosses of Dahl's day and our own. I can't honestly say that Wonka exhibited any sadism or cruelty. He simply acted as a corporate boss. He was distant, apathetic, unemotional. His Oompa-Loompas were there to do his bidding and nothing more. The children he invited in, well, he CYA'd with the initial contract, [that's why he's unworried about law enforcement, in civil matters], and the misfortunes they met were definitely not at his own hand. They were simply "occupational hazards" from inexperienced and careless persons getting too close to the industrial machinery. Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt, even while lacking regret or remorse. And he was often right there to give assurances to the parents, about the incinerator or the squeezing process or something. Wilder's comic portrayal was masterful as he remained aloof, with a thousand-year-stare in those closeups; his business patter undisturbed by the strange happenings around him; he simply didn't care about this world and was floating in an executive bubble that no other character could understand. He was a politician with no stake in human suffering. As far as showing off trade secrets -- won't read TFA but -- Wonka was essentially giving a Guided Tour for the entire plot. The kids straying from the path, were all meeting misfortune when they did it. They saw what they saw when they saw it, and then they were ushered onwards. Slugworth's entire plan revolved around reverse-engineering a prototype, and that's all he could do! Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day? Especially after four were chewed up in the machinery quite early on A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride.

FridayoLeary 1y ago
That is certainly a perspective i didn't consider. It's been a long time since i last read the books. But i don't agree with you that that's all there is to Wonka. >Wonka was never gratified or pleased when someone got hurt No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be. >A sadistic and cruel business owner would not have hundreds of healthy Oompa-Loompas Were they compensated for their efforts? Slave labour. (please don't be offended, it's a joke) >or a worthy successor who was happy to take over the business after the glass elevator ride. What of it? Everyone needs a successor. Otherwise when he gets old and infirm, the oompah loompahs and the squirrels will rise up against him and throw him down the garbage chute into the incinerator. Although he did discover immortality so that shouldn't even be a problem. >Tell me, if a group of five innocent children and parents toured a real-world modern manufacturing plant or data center, what sort of Trade Secrets would they steal when they were dismissed at the end of a long day? The article quotes Wonka where he asserts that his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  > No, but the author clearly intended that the readers should be. Damn straight, and as a demonstration of moral ethics for an audience of young children, Dahl exploits our instincts to be thrilled/pleased when someone who's really bad gets exactly what they deserve. Key factors in each character's demise is that they didn't die -- they weren't really maimed, injured, or in pain, per se, and we were always left with hope in their recovery. But they all "got their just desserts" in a literal way. Their character sketches were thoroughly drawn as corrupt, indecent, egged on by bad parents, destined for Hell essentially. So yeah, the audience is gleeful and cheers and we revel in this cartoon violence, and we experience it completely differently from Wonka's attitude [hopefully], and when we compare ourselves to the folks on the page, we get to know ourselves better.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1y ago

FridayoLeary 1y ago

Even as a child i was disturbed by Wonkas cruelty. The spiteful nature of Dahl comes through in all off his books. He was an excellent writer and i've read all of them, but my parents made it clear that i shouldn't draw any moral lessons from them.