Roald Dahl's Shed

[Wowbagger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/13/roald-dahl-family-hut-plea

That's quite a ruse by the Dahl family.

However, I was more interested in the Quiz.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/quiz/2011/sep/13/roald-dahl-quiz

I scored 9/10, stumbling at the last hurdle. I think it's a sign of a mis-spent teaching career.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Or it could be that a mis-spent teaching career has taught you how to guess. I got them all apart from no 6, and I haven't even heard of one or two of the books (eg the Magic Finger). The only ones in that quiz I've ever read are Giant Peach and Charlie!

[Wowbagger]

Or it could be that a mis-spent teaching career has taught you how to guess. I got them all apart from no 6, and I haven't even heard of one or two of the books (eg the Magic Finger). The only ones in that quiz I've ever read are Giant Peach and Charlie!

No, I knew all but the last - which I suppose is what you might expect given that all I've done is read the books and not research into their history.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Well I guessed the last one on the basis that... well, I won't say in case anyone else wants to try the quiz, but I'd never heard before that he had ever considered giving it another name.

As for the contents of his hut, I'm not sure that I want to gaze at his hip bone! His fingers or skull might be more relevant I suppose...

[citoyen]

I also got 9/10. The one I got wrong was the one about Matilda, which is perhaps the only one of his children's books I haven't read. I read them for myself when I was young, and I read them again with my son when he was a bit younger than he is now. He's now moved on to the grown-up books - he only recently read Henry Sugar and loved it. To paraphrase the old Marmite ad, Dahl is the growing-up author you never grow out of.

I got the last one right because I knew the answer - don't know where I've heard it before but the fact must have lodged in my brain.

d.

[rogerzilla]

I do think that copyright after an author's death should be abolished.  As it stands, you can have a lot of rellies milking the dead cash cow for hundreds of years.  The point has been made about the Beatles' copyright on their earliest recordings: in what other career can you (or your descendants) expect to keep getting paid for an afternoon's work you did 50 years ago?

[Charlotte]

I heard Sophie Dahl (aka the Big Stingy Giant, apparently) speaking about this on R4 the other day and I have to say, whilst I could understand that it really will cost half a million quid to preserve RD's writing hut properly, I'm still rather dubious about the whole thing.  Much loved author though RD undoubtedly was, I'd be happy for his books to be his legacy.  Sophie Dahl conveniently never mentions that he was an unfriendly old sod who cheated on his wife and was a massive bully to pretty much everyone around him.  It would appear that he was also a pretty nasty anti-Semite.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think the hut and its contents would be worth preserving if they shed some light on the inspiration for, or process of writing, Dahl's stories. Whether it does that I can't say - except that I find it hard to imagine how his hip bone could be relevant. I'm also not sure that RD's bullying, infidelity and anti-semiticness are relevant to his writing, any more than James Brown's murder of his wife should be allowed to impinge on anyone's enjoyment of his music. Let writers' memorials be their books, musicians' be their music, architects' their buildings, etc.

[citoyen]

I think the hut and its contents would be worth preserving if they shed some light on the inspiration for, or process of writing, Dahl's stories.

I'm with Charlotte on this. I already love his books and I don't see how treating a ball of old sweet wrappers like a holy relic could possibly contribute to a greater understanding or appreciation of those books. It's preposterous.

d.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Zackly.

(and Citoyen, you're slipping - you failed to comment on my missing apostrophes! I've added them now.) 

[rafletcher]

Sophie Dahl conveniently never mentions that he was an unfriendly old sod who cheated on his wife and was a massive bully to pretty much everyone around him.  It would appear that he was also a pretty nasty anti-Semite.

Nor did she mention that the widow is a grasping individual who has been miling the Dahl reputation for years. I don't think the shed had any bearing on his inspoirations - it was probably to get vaway from his wife (like most mens sheds!) and the armchair was simply because he couldn't sit to a desk. Let it rot. The Roald Dahl museum in Aylesbury won't be that improved by having it.

[clarion]

I need a shed!

It's how much?

[urban_biker]

From the photo I can't see any sign of the shed falling down, let alone failing to get through the winter. It already looks pretty solid to me, no loose tiles etc.

[rafletcher]

Indeed, I really can't see why it should cost so much. A replica could be built for far less - and anyway how "authentic" does it have to be - the vast majority of visitors would never know - a bit like Shakespeares Birthplace in Stratford on Avon IIRC. A replica/pastiche, not the original.

[citoyen]

Citoyen, you're slipping - you failed to comment on my missing apostrophes!

When I'm on the forum, I'm off duty. If you want me to correct your punctuation, you'll have to pay the going rate.

d.