 |
 |
|
|
|
||
McLuhan, Youth, and Literature”: Part I Eleanor Cameron’s remarks on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in the Horn Book may draw some fire upon her; it’s always perilous to do anything to a bestseller but adulate it. My response to her October article is one of relief and hearty thanks. It is good to have an accurate diagnosis of one’s vague feelings of unease, and to find that somebody else — especially a gentle and perceptive critic — has been feeling a bit queasy too. That Mr. Dahl’s books have a very powerful effect on children is evident. Kids between 8 and 11 seem to be truly fascinated by them; one of mine used to finish Charlie and then start it right over from the beginning (she was subject to these fits for about two months at age 11). She was like one possessed while reading it, and for a while after reading she was, for a usually amiable child, quite nasty. Apparently the books, with their wish-fulfillment, their slam-bang action, and their ethical crassness, provide a genuine escape experience, a tiny psychological fugue, very like that provided by comic books. Perhaps we all need an escape vent now and then, whether it’s Charlie, whisky, Goldfinger, or righteous indignation. Anyhow, kids are very tough. What they find for themselves they should be able to read for themselves. But I boggle at the thought of an adult-parent, librarian, or teacher — actually sitting down to read such a book to children. What on earth for? To teach them to be good “consumers”? The idea of education is a leading forth, isn’t it? — not a stuffing with endless candy, on the model of Mr. Dahl’s factory. URSULA K. LE GUIN
“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”: A Reply Hurray, Roald Dahl for getting to the crux of the matter in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”: A Reply. As an elementary librarian, I have the joy of working with boys and girls whose background and early childhood experiences lead them easily into the world of the classics. Our teachers and I merely expose these delightful children to the best available and can take little credit for their literary development. However, the real satisfaction in my work comes from developing reluctant readers into eager ones. I’ve often blessed such authors as Mr. Dahl, Beverly Cleary, Robert Farley, and yes, even Franklin Dixon. These people with insight into what turns a youngster on have aided those of us who deal daily with children in “hooking” readers — especially boys. Once you have a child’s attention, then you might lead him in diverse and challenging directions. Children of all abilities and backgrounds love Charlie and James and the Giant Peach. Such books are the kind of reading that lure boys and girls into the library habit. So please, Roald Dahl, keep it coming! MARIA L. BRENTON P.S. In reaction to the “In Protest” editorial, I concur completely, Mr. Heins. It was a stupid way for someone to protest. This is especially true since Horn Book fulfills high ideals of journalism and presents many viewpoints, giving guidance to those of us who have come to depend upon it.
I feel that Mr. Dahl did not have to defend himself (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”: A Reply, February Horn Book) if he really believed in his worth as an author. He did not have to emphasize the good traits of his life to prove that he was a capable writer. Criticism will come and go, and it perhaps would have been wiser if Mr. Dahl had left his background behind him and simply upheld his book as a true statement. CATHRINE CRUPKO
|
||
 |
  
 
  |
||||||||
