What did we do to our kids? Dahl was a favorite author around our house, and only now am I learning what an unpleasant person he was.
His early writing in the short story form was impacted by the political situation on the world stage. He believed in a world government and he was extremely sympathetic to Hitler, Mussolini, and the entire Nazi cause. His stories were filled with caricatures of greedy Jews. One suggests ” a little pawnbroker in Housditch called Meatbein who, when the wailing started, would rush downstairs to the large safe in which he kept his money, open it and wriggle inside on to the lowest shelf where he lay like a hibernating hedgehog until the all-clear had gone.” In 1951 he visited Germany with Charles Marsh and luxured in Hitler’s former retreat at Berchtesgaden. His dislike of Jews and especially of Zionists was egged on by Marsh’s Israel hatred, later encapsulated in a revolting letter to Marsh where he mocked the head of East London’s B’Nai B’rith Club.
Suddenly, the Oompa Loompas have context, and it’s not good. When you read how he regarded women, you’ll read The Witches with different eyes, too.
Have you read Dahl’s autobiographical Boy? He had a hell of a childhood. Not to excuse him (plenty of people from bad backgrounds refuse to recycle the abuse), but you can see where a lot of his problems stemmed from.
Yup. No heroes!
Hmmm. This seems at odds with this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/13/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-hero-originally-black-roald-dahl
The Oompa Loompas were problematic, but at least he changed them for the film version, it seems. Perhaps his views improved somewhat over time.
I remember hearing things about him, actually. He was extremely abusive to his ex-wife while they were married.
phlo@#3:
Perhaps his views improved somewhat over time.
From accounts I’ve read it sounds like he got worse and worse – as he became more successful it both vindicated his racism and sense of prosecution. So, he was a great man who was right about everything and there was a jewish conspiracy trying to keep him down. He was a horrible asshole to everyone he worked with at his publisher’s, to the point where they finally had to tell him “we don’t care how much money you are making for us, you cannot continue speaking to the staff in that manner.” Of course, when you confront someone like that, they just stop saying it as loudly and usually double down on the hatred inside. Dahl was well down that path, which makes me believe he was probably a jerk all along, was successful and felt entitled to express it, then switched to being resentful and feeling oppressed by those who tried to haul him in. It’s a familiar pattern.
@Marcus Ranum #4
I agree that he sounds like an extremely unpleasant character – no excuses for the antisemitism, misogyny and bullying. And yet – choosing a black hero for one of his books (if this is true) doesn’t strike me as the action of a garden-variety racist. In this area at least his views may have been more complex.
phlo — I saw that story the other day, too. A couple of thoughts…Even if the story is true, it’s difficult to know what sort of character a black Charle might have turned out to be. Perhaps not a hero?
Also note the somewhat odd account of Dahl’s biographer that the change was made because Dahl’s agent “thought a black Charlie would not appeal to readers.” Really? Seems that “readers” may have some assumptions packed into it.
Another account of Roald Dahl almost being fired by his publisher [lithub]
My comment is not showing up. Maybe it’s too long, or does the server object to the AMAZON link? I’ll try again, if it mutiple-posts, my apologies.
Really, PZ, you’re only now becoming aware of what a prime dick-head Roald Dahl was? I have known about his objectionable personality for a long time. He was a total amoral sex-addict (as the article says), a real-life Don Giovanni, fucked everyone, including, allegedly, Eleanor Roosevelt. There’s a collection of his short stories, named after one in it which he actually did sell to PLAYBOY where it was first published, called SWITCH BITCH (the story and the book itself). It’s about a guy who invents a perfume with extreme aphrodisiac effects on any men who smell it–you lose all self-control, fly into an irresistible sexual frenzy, and fuck anyone who is near you. He tries to use it to take down a politician he hates, but his plan backfires.
I had a suspicion that Dahl was a nasty guy even when I was little, just from reading CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY–the way he is so absolutely unsympathetic to the bad children who bring dreadful misfortunes on themselves. Even worse is JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH, where the happiest moment in the whole book is when James’ guardians–Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker–get crushed by the peach rolling over them. These are Charlie’s principal caregivers, and the possibility of feeling any regret or pity for them whatsoever never even occurs to anyone. Charlie’s new friend the Centipede sings a jolly, graphic song about their terrifying, violent deaths. It’s one thing for a children’s book to have unsympathetic villains, but it’s rare for death to be unambiguously celebrated, for giggling schadenfreude to be the good-guys’ and reader’s ONLY response. (Compare to, for instance, L. Frank Baum, almost all of whose villains have some sympathetic character traits or moments,even the Wicked Witch of the West, in her final speech while she is melting. And Dorothy is shaken and upset after killing her.)
Having said all this, I do VERY STRONGLY recommend reading the less-well known sequel to CHOCOLATE FACTORY, which is called CHARLIE AND THE GREAT GLASS ELEVATOR. You will recall that CHOCOLATE FACTORY ends with them all riding in the great glass elevator used to move around in the factory, and the elevator breaks out through the roof of the factory and goes flying off into the great blue yonder. In this sequel, they ride it into space and visit a satellite, which is infested with hostile amorphous alien life-forms called “vermicious knids”.
The book includes a hilarious scene featuring an unnamed President of USA and his cabinet. The cabinet includes a Minister of Defense who says at one point: “I love blowing things up. It makes such a lovely noise. Woooomph! Wooomph! Wooomph!” And an economic minister who prances around the room with a ledger balanced his arm (or maybe on the top of his head) shouting “I did it! I balanced the budget!”
On the subject of children’s books, let me recommend a great one from 1929, which is in danger of being forgotten: THE CHILDREN’S COUNTRY by Kay Burdekin. It’s high adventure, including magical conflicts with goblins, ghouls, and witches, in a fairyland at least as interesting as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Narnia, or the land of Oz, and it ought to be much more popular and widely-read than it is. I really don’t know why no one has re-published it–maybe Books of Wonder could do it? THE CHILDREN’S COUNTRY is sympathetic to children without being childish. It’s philosophical and thought-provoking without being pedantic. A wonderful, moving adventure story with engaging characters. You can only buy originals and they are pricey, last time I checked the cheapest was seventy-five bucks, but it’s definitely worth the money even if you don’t have kids.
Maybe the server objects to the dirty words?
Really, PZ, you’re only now becoming aware of what a prime d*ck-head Roald Dahl was? I have known about his objectionable personality for a long time. He was a total amoral s*x-addict (as the article says), a real-life Don Giovanni, f*cked everyone, including, allegedly, Eleanor Roosevelt. There’s a collection of his short stories, named after one in it which he actually did sell to PLAYB*Y where it was first published, called SWITCH B*TCH (the story and the book itself). It’s about a guy who invents a perfume with extreme aphrodisiac effects on any men who smell it–you lose all self-control, fly into an irresistible s*xual frenzy, and f*ck anyone who is near you. He tries to use it to take down a politician he hates, but his plan backfires.
I had a suspicion that Dahl was a nasty guy even when I was little, just from reading CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY–the way he is so absolutely unsympathetic to the bad children who bring dreadful misfortunes on themselves. Even worse is JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH, where the happiest moment in the whole book is when James’ guardians–Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker–get crushed by the peach rolling over them. These are Charlie’s principal caregivers, and the possibility of feeling any regret or pity for them whatsoever never even occurs to anyone. Charlie’s new friend the Centipede sings a jolly, graphic song about their terrifying, violent deaths. It’s one thing for a children’s book to have unsympathetic villains, but it’s rare for death to be unambiguously celebrated, for giggling schadenfreude to be the good-guys’ and reader’s ONLY response. (Compare to, for instance, L. Frank Baum, almost all of whose villains have some sympathetic character traits or moments,even the Wicked Witch of the West, in her final speech while she is melting. And Dorothy is shaken and upset after killing her.)
Having said all this, I do VERY STRONGLY recommend reading the less-well known sequel to CHOCOLATE FACTORY, which is called CHARLIE AND THE GREAT GLASS ELEVATOR. You will recall that CHOCOLATE FACTORY ends with them all riding in the great glass elevator used to move around in the factory, and the elevator breaks out through the roof of the factory and goes flying off into the great blue yonder. In this sequel, they ride it into space and visit a satellite, which is infested with hostile amorphous alien life-forms called “vermicious knids”.
The book includes a hilarious scene featuring an unnamed President of USA and his cabinet. The cabinet includes a Minister of Defense who says at one point: “I love blowing things up. It makes such a lovely noise. Woooomph! Wooomph! Wooomph!” And an economic minister who prances around the room with a ledger balanced his arm (or maybe on the top of his head) shouting “I did it! I balanced the budget!”
On the subject of children’s books, let me recommend a great one from 1929, which is in danger of being forgotten: THE CHILDREN’S COUNTRY by Kay Burdekin. It’s high adventure, including magical conflicts with goblins, ghouls, and witches, in a fairyland at least as interesting as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Narnia, or the land of Oz, and it ought to be much more popular and widely-read than it is. I really don’t know why no one has re-published it–maybe Books of Wonder could do it? THE CHILDREN’S COUNTRY is sympathetic to children without being childish. It’s philosophical and thought-provoking without being pedantic. A wonderful, moving adventure story with engaging characters. You can only buy originals and they are pricey, last time I checked the cheapest was seventy-five bucks, but it’s definitely worth the money even if you don’t have kids.
I have a theory that there is a direct correlation between being a genius and being a jerk, probably because the same character and personality traits that make genius more likely also make being a jerk more likely. If I’m right, then perhaps enduring a certain number of jerks may simply be the price we pay for their creative contributions.
If I were you I wouldn’t try to find out the histories of most really good writers. They are generally not very nice people. Check out what happened to Hemingway’s and O’Neal’s kids and how they were treated for a start. Even Pearl Buck dumped her mentally handicapped child. And go on from there.
Best to ignore the people and concentrate on the books.
If the written accounts of Patricia Neal’s stroke and recovery in 1965 are correct, Roald Dahl was not a complete monster.
But, yes, I learned at a relatively young age that there are no perfect people and that excellence at one aspect of life does not guarantee even minimal competence in others.
that was supposed to be the preview button
the point is that editors are often over looked when making evaluations of writers. Their influence is often very important in the writers career..
The writer has the gift of creating a place in time in which a story takes place that has some feel of reality.
Editors help them find a way to say what they want to say or even find out what they want to say or ought to say in order to be successful in the market and in the cultural history in which they exist.
uncle frogy
Well fuck me sideways! Roald Dahl was a flawed human being. Who would have guessed?
So, let us all add him to the list of imperfect people to be reviled, based on a shoddily written hatchet job full of unsubstantiated claims dripping with the authors own prejudices, rumours, and ‘he said she said’ anecdotes.
Oh, and easily debunked lies. The BFG is a story I have read to my children and grandchildren countless times, so many that my 1st. edition and several subsequent books simply fell to pieces in my hands. I can narrate the entire fucking story from memory, so why is it that I have, certainly upwards of a hundred times and with book in hand, missed the bit where the ‘paedophillic’ BFG forced Sophie to stare at the other giants’ phalluses? Could it be because I don’t have access to the warped mind of Nick whatsisface?
And to claim that The BFG is ‘..essentially Big Fucking Giant’ says nothing about Dahl but plenty about the mind of the hack behind the hit-piece. He’s hammering Dahl for his own strange interpretations of Dahl’s stories.
Still, I suppose writing a vitriolic, evidence-shy article on a much-loved author who cannot defend himself gets the poor darling some attention. What’s that old saying? Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Nick succeeded with the first part but fell far short of achieving the latter.
Why are so many people so willing to believe the absolute worse about others based on such an article whilst ignoring the stories and anecdotes by those closest to the subjects at hand?
@10 thirdmill — Sure, at the very least some arrogance walks hand in hand with genius. Dylan, both Lennon and McCartney, Picasso, many other artists were often insufferable. In the sciences, I’ve seen both….for every swaggering Feynman there’s a self-effacing Roy Glauber, for every Watson a Wilson. But there’s something a bit more disconcerting about the H.L. Menckens and Ezra Pounds and Dahls and Polanskis and R Kellys and Ike Turners, their art really does get difficult to admire in light of their personal unpleasantness (or downright obscene criminality). We had all the Dahl books, the short stories, the kids books, the racy adult ones, and the guy could write a very sharp funny story. But even back in the 60s we knew he was an asshole, and his abusive relationship with Neal was common knowledge (though she was evidently quite difficult herself, and he did stay with her through her lengthy convalescence). I’d still recommend My Uncle Oswald or James & The Giant Peach, and my daughter still really likes Michelle Shocked’s first album. But….I probably wouldn’t see Rosemary’s Baby anywhere but public domain.
phlo @ 6
Few people are “garden-variety racists” in that they identify as such and let it guide their every choice in life. His anti-Semitism is well-documented and right there on the pages of his books. He held racist views, which he’s on record about many times, but he was also a complex human being who wanted to see himself as a good person and sometimes contradicted himself. Considering Charlie Bucket’s family is a cartoonishly unpleasant caricature of poverty, with the entire family living in a single bed, I’m relieved Charlie was written as white. There’s a chapter titled “The Family Beings to Starve” that is gruesomely detailed. I don’t want a book about a black family in those circumstances written by a white man with a terrible track record on race.
I’m also pretty doubtful about the story put forth by his widow and biographer; it reminds me of a Rowling retcon.
handsomemrtoad @ 9: It’s not “dirty words,” for future reference. It’s slurs. The misogynistic slur in your post may have been caught in a filter. Fucking, sex, and… Playboy (???) do not need to be censored.
#10 ThirdMill
Not all geniuses are d*ckheads. Einstein, Brahms, and Yuan T. Lee were/are pleasant, ethical people.
I liked Dahl’s horror short stories as much as I like any story of that kind, but I never got into any of Dahl’s children’s books. I did see Matilda on stage and was horrified. It was a good production, but Dahl was a clear sadist. He made deSade, who often winked at his audience, seem a relatively nice guy, even if he was into rough sex play. Dahl had something nasty going on. deSade just got off thinking about it. Dahl needed professional help. deSade just needed to find the right dating site. As with half of Rocky and Bullwinkle, I think most of this went over the heads of children watching the play who were all having a wonderful time.
@19, kaleberg
That seems a bit…excessive. Not sure how Matilda could make you think Dahl needed professional help, but DeSade was just into kinky sex. Yeah, Matilda definitely has sadistic parts, but even the tamest DeSade I’ve read is light years beyond.
What, precisely, is amoral about having a lot of sex?