Scan barcode
A review by debicates
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl
3.0
An odd experience. I mean, odder than normal.
Do you know what two books should not be read back-to-back? I do.
Previous to Dahl's book, I just read the 1963 essays [b:The Fire Next Time|464260|The Fire Next Time|James Baldwin|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657560861l/464260._SY75_.jpg|1129041] by James Baldwin. That read was like having surgery on all your organs, where you are splayed with your innards exposed and, now, sewn back up, you are still sore to the touch.
Then, next, I read this 1964 children's book by Roald Dahl, making a very odd pairing. I "ouched" a few times at things that I would not have had a reaction to at all had I read this as a kid in the 60s. Still, I don't ascribe to the near-sightedness of judging everything under the sun by today's standards, but I do notice them now.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was entertaining, well-written, fabulously imaginative. No wonder it's clearly a classic, beloved by millions around the world. You have to love Dahl for all the children who love him. He knows what they like. His stories see the world through the eyes of children, and rallies them around another child for whom life is deeply unfair. Always in the end, with the help of often odd characters, hurrah! Sweet justice and happiness is had.
Wait. It just occurs to me that my two back-to-back reads aren't entirely an odd pair. They both share that subject of unfairness. Baldwin's child, though, is black America, and that story is still being written.
Sigh.
Well, not all meals have to be kale and broccoli. Chocolate is a good treat. So it is with books--not all have to be serious, much less serious to an adult. It's quite alright to enjoy a book, to dream of fantastical sweets and being given the answers to all your problems simply because you are deserving. Do remember, though, the part where you need to actually be deserving by having a kind and loving heart.
May I suggest in lieu of a lifetime of chocolate and a magic man in a velvet coat with tails appearing, let us grownups keep working on fairness and justice within ourselves. Let's be the good guys of the story we live.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
This is book No. 6 of my personal reading project, Reelin' in the Years, where I read, in sequence of publication year beginning with the year I was born, authors that I have not yet read.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Do you know what two books should not be read back-to-back? I do.
Previous to Dahl's book, I just read the 1963 essays [b:The Fire Next Time|464260|The Fire Next Time|James Baldwin|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657560861l/464260._SY75_.jpg|1129041] by James Baldwin. That read was like having surgery on all your organs, where you are splayed with your innards exposed and, now, sewn back up, you are still sore to the touch.
Then, next, I read this 1964 children's book by Roald Dahl, making a very odd pairing. I "ouched" a few times at things that I would not have had a reaction to at all had I read this as a kid in the 60s. Still, I don't ascribe to the near-sightedness of judging everything under the sun by today's standards, but I do notice them now.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was entertaining, well-written, fabulously imaginative. No wonder it's clearly a classic, beloved by millions around the world. You have to love Dahl for all the children who love him. He knows what they like. His stories see the world through the eyes of children, and rallies them around another child for whom life is deeply unfair. Always in the end, with the help of often odd characters, hurrah! Sweet justice and happiness is had.
Wait. It just occurs to me that my two back-to-back reads aren't entirely an odd pair. They both share that subject of unfairness. Baldwin's child, though, is black America, and that story is still being written.
Sigh.
Well, not all meals have to be kale and broccoli. Chocolate is a good treat. So it is with books--not all have to be serious, much less serious to an adult. It's quite alright to enjoy a book, to dream of fantastical sweets and being given the answers to all your problems simply because you are deserving. Do remember, though, the part where you need to actually be deserving by having a kind and loving heart.
May I suggest in lieu of a lifetime of chocolate and a magic man in a velvet coat with tails appearing, let us grownups keep working on fairness and justice within ourselves. Let's be the good guys of the story we live.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
This is book No. 6 of my personal reading project, Reelin' in the Years, where I read, in sequence of publication year beginning with the year I was born, authors that I have not yet read.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.