It was Roald Dahl day on Tuesday. Dahl would have been 95.
The day got some unwelcome publicity with the announcement by the Dahl Museum in Great Missenden that they were trying to raise £500,000 in order to move and restore the garden shed in which Dahl wrote many of his most famous works. Blogs and tweets ensued, many to the effect that a) that was a hell of a lot of money for a shed, and b) why couldn’t the well-heeled Dahl Estate pay for it?
I have sympathy with both points, but still, you’ve got to hand it to Dahl. There aren’t many writers who have museums devoted to them, and I can’t think of any, other than Burns, Shakespeare and Joyce, who have a “Day”. Even twenty-one years after his death, Dahl shoots effortlessly into the headlines, pushing aside Libya and the meltdown of the Eurozone, merely on the basis that his garden shed is a bit damp.
It’s harder for children’s writers to survive than writers for adults, simply because childhood doesn’t last as long, and their audience must be constantly renewed. Ideally they need to write for a long time, preferably for a generation. At that point, the people who enjoyed the early books are old enough to have children of their own, and may start buying all over again, starting a virtuous circle. Dahl has not only survived, he continues to be read in over fifty languages, and has sold some 100,000,000 books. In bookselling jargon, that’s known as shed-loads.
So here’s the odd thing. Dahl was, and is, incredibly popular. He still has the power to grab headlines. He’s widely loved, but he’s also controversial, having been accused of racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and the glorification of violence amongst other things. He’s been the subject of two full-length biographies, and a third by Michael Rosen is reportedly in progress. Many of his books have been turned into successful commercial movies. There’s lots to be said about Dahl, whether you love or loathe him. So why is it that, apart from one short survey written a year or so after his death, there has never been an academic book about his work?
Let me put this in context. Children’s literature criticism is a thriving part of academia these days (I write it myself). There are, at a cursory count, no less than six full-length academic volumes on Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials (1995-2000). On the Harry Potter books (1997-2007) there are at least fourteen. But on Dahl, whose books have been around so much longer and are so much more numerous, nothing.
I should add that this is about to change, as I’m currently co-editing a collection of academic essays on Dahl that will (we hope) appear next year, but it’s still rather mysterious. Why is it that Dahl – controversial, headline-grabbing, eagerly-consumed Dahl – is so widely ignored by the academics? I find it genuinely puzzling.
Could it be because his books are funny?
15 comments:
Or is it because, headline grabbing or not, a lot of adults also disapprove of his books. I know I read James and the Giant Peach to a class of ten year old children once and was hauled up for reading them "rubbish"!
I think you're right that a lot of adults do disapprove of his books, for various reasons. And maybe that's part of the answer. But (with my academic hat on) I'd say that only makes him more interesting. The ways in which adult gatekeeping and/or censorship work, and the implications of debates about "suitability" for the construction of childhood are just the kind of thing academics like to talk about. (In the case of James, there's also the question of how such "rubbish" manages to stay healthily in print for fifty years.)
Not just funny, also thin. Perhaps thinness is also a difficulty. Dahl's stories are not painful in any way, not to read, nor to drop on your foot. No feel-bad factor. That's the problem.
I don't know, Hilary, they certainly seem to make painful reading for many adults! They're not all unremittingly blithe, either. It's true that if emotional and tonal complexity are what make books worth discussing, then Dahl won't be top of your list (though he won't be at the bottom either), but why should these be the only criteria? It seems like a case of imposing an adult aesthetic on children whose tastes and reading priorities may be very different. We may prefer the adult aesthetic, and even believe that children should be inducted into its mysteries as part of their education, but that doesn't make the other one beneath notice or discussion.
I do agree with you, Charlie. I am a complete fan and so were my children. Not just of the fiction- they were also mesmerised by Boy and Going Solo. But I really believe there is a lot of what I do not want to call snobbery but cannot find a better word for, regarding children's books, and I think Dahl almost ranks with Blyton in this respect. They are too accessible for their own good. And they permit children to have guilt free thoughts that adults do not care for. Teachers and Grannies do not come out well. So I really do believe, too easy, too cheeky, too much fun and too short. Perfect children's reading, but perhaps not for the academics.
I think they would be perfect for the academics! There's such a dark side to them for one thing. Ideas about innocence and evil, the way age and ugliness are depicted, gender, money, all kinds of class stereotypes. Just thinking about the bad children in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and their parents, and Matilda's parents - I'm sure lots could be said about how these reflect Dahl's ideas and contemporary concerns.
There is also the whole issue of cruelty, and how and why this appeals to children so much.
Hmm, maybe a should write a chapter for your book Cathy!
Sorry, Emma, I think I misread your comment first time around! It does sounds as if you should write a chapter. Alas, the book's already written - but you'll be happy to know that all the things you mention do indeed get due attention!
Hi Cathy - didn't read your first comment so not sure what the misunderstanding was: I was only joking by the way, I've no wish to start writing articles about Dahl or entering the world of academia!
I was mainly surprised by Hilary's comments - "too easy, too cheeky, too much fun and too short" and especially "no feel-bad factor" because Dahl has never struck me that way. His stories have a dark - almost sadistic - side to them. They are of apiece in that way with his macabre adult short stories.
I DO think Hilary absolutely right in this respect: " they permit children to have guilt free thoughts that adults do not care for". I suspect she's hit the nail on the head there in identifying their lasting appeal for children.
Feel bad for the children, I meant Emma, not the adults. Plenty for them to feel bad about! But in general I do think that the children end up with very positive feelings about themselves and their power to escape awful circumstances. Dahl gives his readers permission to question and rebel. He's not on the adult's side.
The shed saga is like the beginning of a Dahl story!
I want a 'day' and a 'museum' !!!!
Oh, that shed...
I like his books, but not for me. For reading to kids because yes, they are funny. I speak as a Blyton-hater..
However, I wouldn't give a penny for his shed. In these times, there are far more important things to give money to. Like libraries, so that kids can have more access to books. Or charities that supply books to 3rd World kids, like Bookaid International. What matters most is the person wrapped up in the text, not the shed the words were written in.
I find he is very unfair to children of parents that he doesn't approve of (Augustus Gloop et al in Charlie and the greedy little boy in The Witches) that even as a child I felt was unfair. The punishment of adults never bothered me, but the punishment of children whose parents have allowed them to be spoilt, greedy, obsessed with the telly etc bothered me a lot as a 9 year old. However, I adored Danny, Champion of the World and Fantastic Mr Fox.
It's a shame that some of the money isn't steered towards the local library in the village instead ...
Post a Comment