The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Six More

Many of Roald Dahl’s stories incorporate a first-person narrator who acts as a passive observer of the behaviors of others. Others employ an omniscient third-person narration that allows for a more robust character development. In “The Boy Who Talked with Animals,” the narrator is a nondescript traveler and passive observer of the events in the story. Although he criticizes others for their flippancy and cruelty toward the sea turtle, he does not intervene or speak up. Dahl’s first-person narrators are quick to offer evaluations of their observations but often do not participate in the action of the story. In this first story, Dahl’s narrator calls one tourist who pokes the turtle with a piece of driftwood an “idiotic man.” This technique—the insertion of the narrator’s assessments into the plot—creates a point-of-view for the story with some of the specificity of a character (opinions, judgements, personal quirks, etc.) but with a layer of distance from the action and players in the narrative. Dahl’s children’s novel Matilda provides many examples of this technique, such as the narrator’s opening musing about parents: “Even when their own child is the most disgusting little blister you could ever imagine, they still think that he or she is wonderful (Dahl, Roald. Matilda. New York Puffin Books, 1988, p. 1). Similarly in “The Boy Who Talked with Animals,” Dahl’s draws the narrator not as a disembodied, fully omniscient presence, but as a subjective observer with their own perspective on events similar to the reader, creating the impression that the reader is standing on the beach with the rest of the crowd, observing the beached turtle and the small boy tightly hugging the terrapin’s neck.

Dahl uses both direct and indirect characterization in the story. For example, the reader learns that the crowd feels remorse for treating the turtle with such disregard when the boy demands that the creature is set free. The narrator offers this information with direct characterization, stating explicitly the reactions of the crowd: “Here and there in the crowd it was possible to sense a slight change of mood, a feeling of uneasiness, a touch even of shame” (11). Dahl uses indirect characterization when describing a couple who attempts to buy the turtle’s shell from the fishermen. The reader is left with the impression that the man and woman are spoiled and self-indulgent based upon the dialogue: “‘And if I know you, baby,’ his wife said, beaming at him, ‘you’re going to get that shell’” (8). Both examples underscore the theme of Kindness and Cruelty with the tourists’ cruelty and indifference to the turtle’s plight juxtaposed with David’s kindness and empathy.

Dahl’s use of a highly perceptive and critical narrator creates more opportunity to apply direct characterization, an element reminiscent of the writer’s work as a writer of children’s fiction where more direct characterization is often helpful—here we see it applied to material with darker themes that suggest Dahl is targeting an older audience. Laura Viñas Valle’s analysis in an article published by the University of Castilla-La Mancha argues that Dahl does not alter his style for children and adults (“The Narrative Voice in Roald Dahl’s Children’s and Adult Books.” Core, 2007). Instead, Valle suggests that the only differences between his works written either for children or adults is the introduction of dark themes and events and the use of abrupt endings which include a sharp turn in the narrative—both of which are found in this story. The author uses more macabre elements such as the mating ritual of the lizards and the story of the dead tourist to build suspense and mystery in the narrative, leading to the reveal of David’s supernatural ability to communicate with the turtle and highlighting The Transformative Power of Magic. The hasty ending suggests Dahl is addressing an audience more accustomed to plots which fail to provide a tidy “happily ever after.” The stylistic similarities between the stories in this collection and the narrative style of Dahl’s children’s fiction reinforce the argument that Dahl employs only slight tweaks to structure and subject matter when writing for a slightly more mature audience.