The first paragraph mentions Salman Rushdie, which reminded me of this[0]. For anyone interested in free speech, victim blaming and such, these Dahl quotes are interesting:
'In a letter to The Times of London, Dahl called Rushdie "a dangerous opportunist," saying he "must have been totally aware of the deep and violent feelings his book would stir up among devout Muslims. In other words, he knew exactly what he was doing and cannot plead otherwise. This kind of sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on to the top of the best-seller list, — but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it." The author of dark children's books and stories for adults (who himself once had police protection after getting death threats) also advocated self-censorship. It "puts a severe strain on the very power principle that the writer has an absolute right to say what he likes," he wrote. "In a civilized world we all have a moral obligation to apply a modicum of censorship to our own work in order to reinforce this principle of free speech."'
Christopher Hitchens was a staunch defender of him during the Satanic Verses debacle and was disgusted by the lack of reaction (or, when there is a reaction, the lack of bravery to make it public) in the religious and literary communities:
"One might have thought that such arrogant state-sponsored homicide, directed at a lonely and peaceful individual who pursued a life devoted to language, would have called forth a general condemnation. But such was not the case. In considered statements, the Vatican, the archbishop of Canterbury, the chief sephardic rabbi of Israel all took a stand in sympathy with–the ayatollah. So did the cardinal archbishop of New York and many other lesser religious figures. While they usually managed a few words in which to deplore the resort to violence, all these men stated that the main problem raised by the publication of The Satanic Verses was not murder by mercenaries, but blasphemy. Some public figures not in holy orders, such as the Marxist writer John Berger, the Tory historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, and the doyen of espionage authors John Le Carré, also pronounced that Rushdie was the author of his own troubles, and had brought them on himself by “offending” a great monotheistic religion. There seemed nothing fantastic, to these people, in the British police having to defend an Indian-born ex-Muslim citizen from a concerted campaign to take his life in the name of god."
Those interested in Dahl might also be keen to note his career as a World War I flying ace, and then (again as a Military officer), World War II espionage agent sent by the British to nudge the Americans into war. As a member of the British Diplomatic Legation in Washington, DC he gained access to the Georgetown cocktail party circuit, and from there, helped build social consensus among many (including Mrs. Roosevelt) about the importance of an American entry into the War. No need to trust my word for it, check out Jennet Conant's fantastic book on the matter, "The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington"
https://www.amazon.com/Irregulars-Roald-British-Wartime-Wash...
Another famous childrens' author, Arthur Ransome (of 'Swallows and Amazons'), and a contemporary of Dahl, was at one time a British agent in revolutionary Russia!
He even found himself inadvertently involved in the formation of the Red Army; during his subsequent escape from Russia, he narrowly avoided their clutches by employing his wit and intelligence - the stuff of fiction, but this was for real. He had a genuinely fascinating life.
Also worth a look are Boy and Going Solo, Dahl's autobiographies of some of those events. Both excellent, aimed at adults, and a surprising little window into the forces that shaped Dahl-the-author.
I loved those books, but I'm not sure how much was exaggerated. Dahl was a shockingly compulsive liar all his life, which somewhat unsurprisingly also made him an excellent author.
I can't recommend enough for kids who grew up reading Dahl like I did, who are now adults, to read his adult short story collections. "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar", "Switch Bitch" and "Kiss Kiss" are all excellent.
I had no idea The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar was for adults. I read that when I was only eight or so after reading other Dahl books like Matilda and The Witches. I loved the premise.
I'm fairly sure I have been criticized by one of my 5 year old son's teachers for reading him Roald Dahl books. However they are such magic stories; he loves listening to them just as much as I love reading them for him.
Many people become teachers who have no business doing so. My sister and I, as an example, entered elementary school able to read (perhaps at a 2nd grade level? I had no concept of reading levels until much later so I'm not sure). Her first teacher, fired shortly after this, kept telling my sister she was stupid, couldn't read, couldn't do math, etc. It took her a decade to recover.
My point: On a forum with tens of thousands (more?) of users, nearly every permutation of awful or incompetent person will have been encountered by someone here.
To whomever downvoted me: Would love to know the reason for the downvote; am I a bad father for reading Roald Dahl, one of my own childhood favourites?
There are obviously a few (many?) who think less of Roal Dahl's books.. I guess he's not PC enough
There seems to be more of this happening lately, and it's really annoying. If someone's incensed enough to downvote a perfectly reasonable, sane comment, at least have the decency to write a reason. That's what the system of downvoting and comments is for, after all: expanding and/or elucidating a discussion.
Your original comment is echoed in various mentions of Dahl I've heard over the years: that he's overly cruel, and therefore unsuitable for kids. But these adults often miss the fact that he's delightfully cruel (with justice coming to the people who deserve it!), and ironic in way that a younger audience enthusiastically responds to.
Thanks; appreciated, and that's a great explanation which I'll remember next time someone is questioning my choice!
There is clearly a common thread of morality through his books which is rare these days. My son responds well to it, and wants to be one of the good guys! (I should be so lucky.. but still :))
My other, non-hereto-mentioned reason is that Dahl is of direct Norwegian ancestry, and so is my son (well, with an Australian mum) - so I take that as a bonus.
Actually, the system of down voting is to reduce the inappropriate and/or off-topic noise. Responses with dowvotes, in most cases, increase the off-topic noise, defeating the purpose.
I seldom downvote. But since crossing the 500 karma mark recently I seldom up vote too - when using my iPhone. The reason? I have inadvertently downvoted a few times. The buttons are too close for dexterity-challenged fingers.
Voting is an anxiety ridden experience now for me. HN got interesting with karmic power.
I nearly hit the downvote because I couldn't believe any teacher would tell you not to read Dahl to your kid. Maybe one teacher in a million? Even then I doubt it.
I have a lot of friends who are teachers and their advice is read ANYTHING you like to kids. So few parents bother that they threw the rule book out decades ago.
I know, right!? Sadly, it's a true story. I obviously can't give the full details, but my son was asked directly by this teacher, why are you reading Roald Dahl books? I couldn't believe it. A phone call to the principal followed..
On a side note, son just fell asleep (Australia) as I was reading another few pages of Danny and the Champion of the World to him - well maybe half an hour's worth. Quality time; it makes for such good night time reading. (Danny is a very brave boy!).
I remember reading Dahl as a child and now I'm reading them to my kids.
They didn't feel half as dark then as they do now. And compared to the nightmares children invent for themselves, Dahl stories are probably pretty tame.
Now reading his book "The Great Automatic Grammatizator" which is a short story collection. It has got the short story by the book title name. Written in 1954, the story revolves around a machine which automatically writes articles. Reading in 2016 this story gives an interesting read. BTW this is the first Roald Dahl book I am reading
I found a copy of, "Over To You" in a backpackers in New Zealand. I read, and had read to me, most of Dahl's children's books, but I never knew him as a writer of adult books, let alone non fiction books on war. But there his writing was, narrating about fining prostitutes in Cairo during WWII.
Coming from the magic of the rest of his books both are quite a shift but they give you clue into the events that shaped his mind for the rest of his stories.
Dahl was what I grew up reading. He was amazing, and I remember spending days just being captured in the delight of his books and the illustrations on the side.
The illustrations were done by Sir Quentin Blake, who was knighted in 2013 for his work in children's lit. Pretty powerful one-two punch, Dahl and Blake.
Those uninterested can also consult his wikipedia entry, posted here for ease of access. Though I highly recommend the book. It is quite good. And available on tape for those with long commutes, and Audible accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl
I remember reading some of the kid's books and I think it was BFG with so many made-up words that I was thinking "here's a start up name, and another one, and for sure no one has bought this domain. Good times :)
I'll have to re-read "George's Marvellous Medicine", that was my first Roald Dahl book. My dad bought it for me on a journey across the Irish Sea on a holiday trip. He bought my sister "The Magic Finger", which she finished quite quickly and was impatiently waiting for me to finish mine so she could read it. She was 2 years younger than me but reading at a level quite a bit older than me. I was reading at a age younger than I was (this is based on our school reports). "George's Marvellous Medicine" actually kickstarted my reading and love of books, so I'll always be very grateful for that.
'In a letter to The Times of London, Dahl called Rushdie "a dangerous opportunist," saying he "must have been totally aware of the deep and violent feelings his book would stir up among devout Muslims. In other words, he knew exactly what he was doing and cannot plead otherwise. This kind of sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on to the top of the best-seller list, — but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it." The author of dark children's books and stories for adults (who himself once had police protection after getting death threats) also advocated self-censorship. It "puts a severe strain on the very power principle that the writer has an absolute right to say what he likes," he wrote. "In a civilized world we all have a moral obligation to apply a modicum of censorship to our own work in order to reinforce this principle of free speech."'
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/arts/04iht-15donadio.64826...