RDMorrell wrote:Coming back to the debate about William and the Nasties, I don't think it's an anti-Jewish story at all (notwithstanding the stereotyping used), but rather anti-Nazi. Moreover, I believe that it's actually designed to challenge the readers' own prejudices. (Anti-Semitism was quite common in Europe prior to World War II, and Crompton - whether she actually shared such views or not - would certainly have observed it, and children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs until they're old enough to make up their own minds about things.)
To be very generous, this story may contain elements of anti-Nazism but unfortunately is, at the same time, anti-Semitic. It must be remembered that this was a children's story and no child should have to read about a "hook nosed" Jew within any context. Anti-Semitism (described as the oldest hatred) has existed for 2000 years and I am well aware of its history. To claim that it was "quite common in Europe prior to World War II" needs some clarification. It was certainly common amongst Eastern European peasantry and in some of their Western European counterparts, not so amongst most of the more enlightened and the intelligentsia. Crompton was clearly not a member of the latter two groups. It is true that most children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs, I certainly did which is why, as the child of decidedly non-racist parents, I was shocked and repelled by Crompton's negative, stereotypical descriptions of a Jew.
R.D.Morrell wrote:So the message I think that Crompton is actually trying to convey is that Jews aren't so bad after all and that prejudice against them is both foolish and, well, "nasty". Rather than reinforcing prejudice, it's actually a piece of biting social commentary that turns it on its head in the end and challenges it.
So why did she resort to using such distasteful and offensive descriptions in the first place? If her idea was to reverse prejudicial ideas about Jews she went about it in a very strange way. This was no "piece of biting social commentary" which would, in any case, be misunderstood as such by most children. If she had intended to write in that manner she made a very clumsy job of it which was certainly inappropriate for children. It was certainly not necessary for her to use such emotive language in order to show that "Jews aren't so bad after all". I never thought they were, I'm not so sure about Crompton's views and, as a child, I felt insulted that she imagined all her readership would share hers.
R.D.Morrell wrote:All that said, there are parts of the story that make for extremely uncomfortable reading, and I can understand why it was removed from later editions of William the Detective. But if Richmal Crompton's true intention had been to write a piece of anti-Jewish propaganda, I don't believe the story would have ended the way it did. I think she has been much cleverer with this story than people give her credit for.
I think that your feelings towards Crompton are far more generous than she deserves. I also don't believe that she intended to write a piece of obviously anti-Jewish propaganda, but not for the same reasons that you give. She would have been aware that in order for the story to be accepted for publication this would not have been possible and therefore tempered the obviously crude descriptions of Mr Isaacs by giving the story a positive and acceptable ending. I cannot believe that someone who was not anti-semitic would have used the words she did in initially describing a Jewish character. If her intention had been to produce a salient piece of writing that would warn children of the dangers of racial stereotyping then this was a very clumsy and inappropriate way to go about it. It would have been much cleverer to have avoided the distateful descriptions and I can only repeat that it is unthinkable that someone who is not anti-Semitic would have used her words in the first place. It is for the latter reason that I believe the story was removed from later editions.