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.

> >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)

In at least one of the movies, Wonka reveals that he saved the entire race of Oompa-Loompas from some sort of ecological disaster, giving them a new home, and jobs.

Personally, I don't recall any of them seeming to resent their work, peeing in a bottle, or being sniped at in performance reviews. Reasonable labor for reasonable compensation is quite fulfilling (although that sentiment is often twisted sadistically by those in power into a caricature of 'reasonable').

> his rivals would give their front teeth to be part of the tour, so he certainly thought that there were secrets to be stolen.

But it doesn't mean that those secrets would be discoverable via the tour.

> 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.