Roald Dahl and I:
A Frank Discussion
About Censorship,
Bigotry, and My
Childhood

As a child, I positively revered Roald Dahl. The British children's author captured my imagination like few others, and I have fond memories of reading some of his stories, like The BFG and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, both in classrooms and by myself.

Charlie has always had an especially special place in my heart. It's humor and zany premise had an indelible impact on my personality and imagination, and the 1971 film adaptation of the novel, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, starring Gene Wilder as the titular candy man, was one of the first movies I ever saw and had a deep impact on my love for both movies and musicals. 

Indeed, I can recall almost all the times I cracked open Charlie to reread it. In fact, I have a very vivid memory of reading the book aloud in a fourth-grade English class and pretending not to see a line in which Wonka says something to the effect of "burp, you silly ass," so I could swear in class with no repercussions. I would not be the man I am today without some of these books.

But Roald Dahl's story is more complicated than the moniker "beloved children's author" would suggest. Some of Dahl's stories have not aged well, and, what is more troubling, is that the author had a history of racism, misogyny, and antisemitism. How do we reconcile this problematic Dahl with the Dahl who wrote the classics that served as the foundations of so many of our childhoods?

The Roald Dahl Story Company and Puffin Books, the publisher of Dahl's stories, have recently taken steps to address these concerns. Minor changes are presently being made to new editions of books like Charlie and The BFG to make them more suitable to modern audiences.

The original messages of the stories, as well as most of Dahl's word choices, remain intact in these new editions of the books. The changes simply reflect the new language and social standards of the 21st century. Augustus Gloop, from Charlie, is described as "enormous" instead of "fat." Mrs. Twit, from The Twits, is said to be "beastly" instead of "ugly and beastly." References to color and culture, which could be construed as negative comments directed towards certain groups of people, have also been revised in several of these books, notably the aforementioned Twits and BFG. 

These changes have been put in place, a spokesperson for the Roald Dahl Story Company said, "to ensure that Roald Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today." The move has sparked criticism from several people and groups, including the United Kingdom's Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, who argue the changes are unnecessary and detract from the value of Dahl's stories.

I would argue, however, that such quality-of-life changes are necessary to preserve these stories for the enjoyment of future audiences. The message behind Augustus Gloop's character, that greed and gluttony are negative traits and will get you into trouble, is not diminished by altering the language of the book so overweight children do not feel othered by it.

In a world where "cancel culture" is said to be destroying the very fabric of our society, the changes made to these books were made carefully and sensitively. Dahl, despite his checkered history and sometimes problematic language, has not been "canceled," and all his stories remain in print. The "censorship" of his stories has been mild and I have seen no one arguing that Dahl's stories should go out of print specifically because he made rude references to a Twit's appearance. 

Any outrage I have seen surrounding Dahl's stories has come from pearl-clutching conservatives who are angry that we, as a society, have largely decided it is bad to call children fat and to associate weight problems with moral failure. If the spirit and language of the author, which they claim they are defending with this “anti-censorship campaign," remain largely intact, why do they care if minor changes are made to the books?

The answer usually is that they don't really care, they want to participate in "culture war" battles to prove their mettle and manufacture outrage. It's a distraction, and such complaints and cries of censorship where it really does not exist should not be given any credence. 

Minor changes to Dahl’s books only address the most visible of the author's problems, however. I am more than welcoming of altering his books to make them better for modern audiences, but the question remains as to whether these changes are enough to rehabilitate Dahl. His bigoted behaviors remain, and they are incredibly questionable. 

For years, the popularity of Dahl’s books overshadowed allegations of his bigotry, but after his death in 1990, at the ripe old age of 74, more and more of his disgusting comments and behaviors came to light. A native of Wales, a constituent country of the United Kingdom, Dahl worked for multinational oil corporation Shell Public Limited Company in British Tanganyika (Tanzania). He served in the Royal Air Force during World War II and was injured in combat. He subsequently served as an assistant air attache in the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., and began writing short stories for the Saturday Evening Post. In 1953, he married American actress Patricia Neal, who nicknamed him “Roald the Rotten” due to the alleged abuse she suffered at his hands.

Dahl’s first big hits coincided with tragedy in his personal life. In 1961, he published James and the Giant Peach, probably his first universally-known hit, which was followed by the equally-famous Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 1964, and Fantastic Mr. Fox in 1970. Right before the publication of James, Dahl’s son Theo suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident, and a year after the publication of Mr. Fox his daughter, Olivia, died of measles. The book was dedicated to her. 

The 1970s produced a lull in ridiculously famous books being written by the author, but the 1980s were something of a second renaissance for Dahl. It was also during the ‘80s, however, that Dahl made his most famous bigoted comments: the ones about Jewish people and Israel.

Time magazine collected many of Dahl’s most egregious comments into a useful compendium: “What to Know About Children’s Author Roald Dahl’s Controversial Legacy,” originally published in March 2021, but updated in February 2023. Some of the comments are couched in vague criticisms of Israel (which he would use as a defense to say his comments weren’t motivated by race or creed, but rather by the excesses of a state), but most are outright vulgarisms. 

“Never before in the history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much-pitied victims to barbarous murderers,” he said once in an article on the 1982 Lebanon War. Another time, he declared the quiet part out loud: “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.” 

Before his death in 1990, he declared outright that he was anti-semitic: “I’m certainly anti-Israeli and I’ve become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It’s the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren’t any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that’s why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel.”

Dahl’s family has apologized for the comments he made during his life, but that doesn’t erase their intent or their impact. I return to the question that prefaced this article: how do we reconcile the two disparate Dahl’s, the storyteller and the anti-semite?

I would argue, if we want to continue enjoying Dahl’s books, we cannot “reconcile” the two halves of this author. Most artists have skeletons in their closets, and those skeletons must be acknowledged in order for us to properly enjoy their art. If we do not, to borrow a phrase I coined for one of my other works, we do a disservice both to the art itself and posterity. Racism and antisemitism are gross, but we do no good if we do not acknowledge that they exist, condemn racists and anti-semites, and grow as a society in the hopes of eventually eliminating racism and antisemitism. Sometimes, that is easier said than done.

I started this article believing that it would simply be a news story about the recent edits made to Dahl’s books, but I quickly went down a rabbit hole and desired to broaden its focus to talk about issues that are important to me. To give you an idea of the scope of this project, I began writing in February and have been consistently adding little by little to it since then. What I learned about Dahl while in the research phase of this process was shocking. I know that childhood heroes don't exist in a vacuum and often have far darker stories than we, as children, are led to believe, but learning what I did was like getting hit by a cement truck or a small train. It seemed nearly unbelievable that a man like Dahl, who wrote so many stories with morals about fairness and kindness, could harbor so many unfair and unkind thoughts and beliefs.

This was the first time something like this had happened to me. I don't know what it is about my nature, but I naturally tend to stray rather far from idolatry and hero-worship. I look up uncritically to few, if any, people and have taken strides to educate myself on the lives of anyone I become interested in to avoid that idol-making I am so personally averse to. I'll never forget the first time I listened to "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds," but every time I praise the lyrical and musical genius of John Lennon I make sure to remember what he did to his first wife, his first son, and the abuse and inappropriate behavior he sometimes subjected his friends, colleagues, loved ones, fans, and subordinates to. Watching Psycho (1960) with my grandpa is one of the happiest memories I have, but I can't talk about Alfred Hitchcock without thinking about poor Tippi Hedren and the disgusting way she was treated on and off the set of The Birds (1963). I am used to the creators of the art I consume being less than reputable people, and so I am used to consuming that art while remembering the misdeeds of the artist, but I guess it just never occurred to me that Dahl could be one of the disreputable actors I would have to condemn. 

The disappointing part is that there's probably no real satisfying answer as to how he was able to write the way he did while thinking the way he did. The answer is, most likely, simple cognitive dissonance. No matter how venomous his language, Dahl probably thought he was being fair and balanced in his assessment of “the Jewish character.” He was wrong, of course, but finer human minds have convinced themselves of similar disgusting and flagrant mistruths in the past. Tens of thousands of monsters go to bed every night only after convincing themselves that they are on the side of good, that they are righteous. Is it really a surprise that such a score of monsters might include "brilliant" artists who are given incredible leeway to act improperly because of their "brilliance?"

Once the shock (which was much more momentary than this article probably makes it appear, I was only shocked for a few seconds) had settled and I had contented myself with Dahl's true colors, what did I do? Well, I went on with my day. I went on with my life. I realized that Dahl's behavior was not a comment on me or my childhood, and I didn't immediately take to Twitter to join The Great Dahl Debate in real-time. I did not cry, I did not moan, I did not grumble. I accepted that this author was a bad person, and I moved on from it.

I believe that so many people take negatively to being informed of the faults of their heroes and cannot healthily deal with that initial feeling of shock because they feel that it is a comment directed to deride or abuse them for enjoying the work of a "problematic" artist. They are pushed to defend these bad people because they feel like it is necessary to defend their childhoods, their happy memories, themselves. I'm here to tell you once and for all: that is not the case… if they absorb and engage with the art of said problematic artist in a mature and responsible way.

We are not defined by what some dead white guy who wrote a few impactful books erroneously thought about one thing or another, and we can prevent more people from developing beliefs like his if we're honest in our telling of his life and his artwork: "This was how the Oompa-Loompas were described in an early draft of the book, and this is how that reflects negatively on Dahl and his narrow view of the world." We can continue to enjoy the happiness that is able to be gleaned from Charlie, BFG, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, as long, and only as long, as we are willing to acknowledge their shortcomings as works of art (and update them for modern audiences accordingly) and the shortcomings of their creator. This is called reclamatory justice, and the best part about it is that it makes all the worst people angry. 

But then again, I'm just a middle-class white kid from semi-rural Massachusetts. You might be asking yourself "What does he know about discrimination or how it feels to be discriminated against? Why does he get to decide what to do with this bigoted author’s works?" 

And, well, that's a great point. The truth is all I know about discrimination is from the books I read and the history I study. I have never experienced sex or gender discrimination, let alone racial or religious discrimination, so I have to defer to the experts on this one, the people who actually experience the pain and hurt of adversity on a day-to-day basis. They all reserve the right to disagree with me and to take umbrage with what I talk about in this article, and I hope they will use that right to correct anything that I may have gotten wrong. Ultimately, though, I hope they understand that the point of this article is to provide a mechanism for them, and for us allies, to reclaim things lost to reactionaries as our own, and by doing so diminish their power to do harm. I felt a need to use the platform I have as a cisgender white man to talk about something I have thought long and hard about, based on testimony from disadvantaged groups, and I hope I used it properly.

I think Abraham Foxman, the Jewish national director-emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League, put it best when he said "Talent is no guarantee of wisdom. Praise for Mr. Dahl as a writer must not obscure the fact that he was also a bigot." Such sentiments are shared by me entirely and should be our guiding light when we look to reclaim his works or the works of a similar figure.