Kiss Kiss by Roald Dahl (1960)

A collection of 11 short stories by Roald Dahl, most published in magazines during the 1950s. The blurb says it contains some of his most macabre stories. Let’s pause a moment to define exactly what that means. Macabre = ‘disturbing because concerned with or causing a fear of death’ but that doesn’t seem adequate. Wikipedia devotes an entire article to the concept and gives some history:

The word has gained its significance from its use in the French phrase la danse macabre describing the allegorical representation of the ever-present and universal power of death. This was known in German as Der Totentanz and later in English as The Dance of the Dead. The typical form which the allegory takes is that of a series of images in which Death appears, either as a dancing skeleton or as a shrunken shrouded corpse, to people representing every age and condition of life, and leads them all in a dance to the grave.

So it’s to do not just with death by itself, but with creating a heavy, spooky, oppressive atmosphere of death and all its trappings. The Wikipedia links off to another article about Body horror which goes a bit deeper:

Body horror, or biological horror, is a subgenre of science fiction that intentionally showcases grotesque or psychologically disturbing violations of the human body or to any other creature.

So it’s not about death on its own, by itself, which can, after all, be pretty boring (as my mother’s slow passing in an NHS hospital was surrounded by the run-of-the-mill administration of a terminal ward). It’s about concocting or dwelling on gruesome and horrific and uncanny and generally scary and maybe disgusting aspects of death, especially lurid and melodramatic ways to die.

This then links to the notion of the gruesome, namely ‘causing repulsion or horror; grisly’. So to take just the first two stories, a young man realises that he is being poisoned so that his landlady can kill him, that’s odd but essentially boring, but when we learn she’s doing this in order to stuff him to create a permanent mannequin – now that’s grotesque. And a man’s brain is preserved after his death with a view to having great philosophical thoughts, that’s sort of standard sci fi – but what it means is that, now he is completely at her mercy, his wife can take revenge on him for years of abuse and oppression, now that’s grotesque.

So it’s not about death as such, it’s about horrifying types of death and twisted, perverse, unnaturally cruel ramifications of death.

  1. The Landlady (November 1959)
  2. William and Mary
  3. The Way Up to Heaven (February 1954)
  4. Parson’s Pleasure
  5. Mrs. Bixby and the Colonel’s Coat (1959)
  6. Royal Jelly
  7. Georgy Porgy
  8. Genesis and Catastrophe: A True Story
  9. Edward the Conqueror (October 1953)
  10. Pig
  11. The Champion of the World

1. The Landlady (November 1959: 13 pages)

Bath. Billy Weaver is 17 and keen to make his way in the firm he works for. Head office send him to Bath where he’s to find somewhere to stay then report to regional office the next morning. At the station a porter recommends a pub, but en route to it Billy notices a sign in the window of one of those Regency terraced houses saying ‘bed and breakfast’. When he peers through the window he sees a dachshund dog and a parrot and thinks any place which has pets must be alright, mustn’t it? He knocks and the landlady lets him in and shows him round. She is extremely kind and solicitous. The whole point of the story is that only slowly does Billy realise something is wrong, which comes to a head when he recognises the names of the two previous guests, written in the Visitors Book, as men who were in the news for going missing. Then the landlady reveals that the two previous tenants have never left, they’re still here, ‘upstairs’. Then she reveals that the pets Billy saw are all stuffed. Then she reveals that she herself stuffed them, being a keen taxidermist.

All the while Billy has been drinking the nice cup of tea she made him although it has a flavour of bitter almonds which, as any fan of spy fiction knows, is what arsenic tastes of. So you’d have to be pretty dim not to realise that she has poisoned him, is going to kill and stuff him to join her other ‘young men.’ Super creepy.

2. William and Mary (35 pages)

Oxford. A very macabre story indeed. William Pearl was an unbearably controlling husband to resentful Mary. A lofty Professor of Philosophy at Oxford, he imposed strict rules on her – no smoking, no TV, no lipstick and so on. When they sat in silence in the living room, he reading some worthy tome, she darning his socks or buttons on his shirts, she could feel his cold disapproving eyes on her. He face has sagged, she’s lost her looks through years of joyless, bullied married life.

Then William got pancreatic cancer, wasted away and died but after his death his solicitor hands Mrs P a sealed letter which turns out to contain the most gruesome, macabre idea ever. It is that, on his deathbed Pearl was visited by a doctor/scientist colleague, Dr Landy, who tells him that they’ve been experimenting with animals and were now ready to keep a human brain alive after its body dies – and would he like to be the first human guinea pig for their procedure?

I think there’s the gruesome and macabre right there. It takes pages for the doctor to explain to Pearl the process (the brain will be kept in a vat and have fresh blood pumped through it by a machine) and a while for Pearl to overcome his distaste and all the obvious objections (he won’t have a body so won’t be able to hear or talk or move). The one thing they’ll give him is one eye, carefully extracted from his skull to ensure the optic nerve isn’t damaged. But in the end Pearl says yes to this gruesome experiment.

Back in the present Mrs Pearl reads the long explanation of all this which the letter contains and which ends by instructing her to phone Dr Landy to see how things turned out. He says come over so half an hour later she’s at his laboratory and is taken into the sealed room where her husband’s brain is being kept alive, attached to just one eye. Peering into the basin full of liquids and cables she’s sees something like a large walnut with a loop of spaghetti attached to a round eyeball fixed in position.

So far so much like a cheap and cranky science fiction story. What makes it Dahl, though, is the couple of pages which end the tale in which it slowly dawns on Mrs Pearl that now, after years of bullying, she can get her own back on her husband. He had forbidden her from wearing lipstick or smoking. But she had put on lipstick before coming to the lab and now, in front of the solitary eye, she lights up a cigarette, inhales deeply and blows the smoke out through her nose and – and this is the point – thinks she sees the pupil of the eye contract into a black dot of frustrated fury. Excellent! Suddenly she sees the appeal of the situation and tells the surprised Dr Landy that she wants to take ‘her husband’ home with her where, we get the strong impression, she will enjoy doing everything he ever banned her from doing, in full view of the eye, driving him mad with frustration.

Marital revenge. Revenge of the bullied woman.

3. The Way Up to Heaven (February 1954: 18 pages)

New York, a smart house at 9 East Sixty-Second Street. Elderly Mr Foster looks like Andrew Carnegie and dominates every aspect of his poor wife’s life. She has one particular weakness which is a morbid fear of being late for planes or trains. But more than that, her husband takes a quiet delight in always being late, taking too much time and then more to get ready, thus reducing his wife to a nervous wreck. Emotional sadism.

The story kicks off when Mrs Foster is preparing to fly to Paris to see her daughter who lives over there, is married with children. Mr Foster does everything he can to delay their departure from their house and then, as a thick fog comes in, spends the entire journey (in a chauffeur-driven car) telling her the flight will be cancelled. In the event it is and Mrs Foster a) waits all afternoon and evening hoping it will be reinstated then, when the airport announces all flights have been rescheduled for the next morning b) catches a cab back to their house where her husband says I told you so.

Next morning she is up bright and early and dressed and ready to take the (chauffeur-driven) car back to the airport when her husband once again deliberately delays their departure, coming out of his dressing room late and then continually remembering little extra things. He keeps this low-level torment up even after they’ve gotten into the car when he suddenly claims to remember a gift he wants to give to his wife to give to their daughter, in a little white box, but can’t find it in his coat or jacket and so, despite his wife’s desperate pleas, insists on going back into the house although they are, by now, perilously late.

Suddenly the wife sees the little white box stuffed down the side of the car seat and is overcome with fury. Finally she snaps and the worm turns. She gets out the car, storms up the steps to the apartment building and is poised with her key to open the door when she stops. She stops and listens. She can hear something. She stops altogether, frozen. Then she goes back down to the car, gets in and tells the driver to take her straight to the airport.

She has a lovely six weeks in Paris with her daughter then flies back to New York and takes a cab to the building. First thing she notices is all the mail piled up inside the door i.e. no-one’s been opening it. And the next thing is that the elevator is stuck between floors. The implication, though not made explicit, is that her husband is dead. The lift got caught between floors, he had no-one to help, so was trapped and died. She expresses no emotion or upset but calmly phones the lift repair people.

Marital revenge. Revenge of the bullied woman.

4. Parson’s Pleasure (33 pages)

Buckinghamshire. It’s another story about the clod-hopping yokel Claud Cubbin, linked to the four Claud stories in ‘Someone Like You’. We are introduced to Mr Boggis, an antiques expert who owns a high class antique shop in Chelsea, Eight years previously his car broke down, he stopped at a local farmhouse to ask for help and spotted a priceless antique in their kitchen which he proceeded to buy for a price which made the farmer happy, but then took back to London, polished up and sold for ten times the price.

Thus began Mr Boggis’s standard practice of spending every Sunday systematically scouring quadrants of the Home Counties which he has marked out on Ordnance Survey maps. s a result of trial and error, he’s discovered it’s best to pose as a vicar – the most harmless possible persona – and one claiming to work for an antiquarian society interested in identifying old antiques.

So the story opens on a particular Sunday as Mr Boggins sets about visiting a bunch of farm houses in north Buckinghamshire, the part of the country we know from previous stories is home to Claud Cubbins and crooked old Mr Rummins, with his idiot son Bert.

Long story short: in Mr Rummins’ kitchen Boggis discovers an extreme rarity, a perfectly preserved Chippendale dresser with all the original trimmings of vast value. It might fetch up to £10,000! Rummins has painted it white to fit his kitchen but the paint is easily removed. There follows a wealth of arcane knowledge about Chippendale furniture, along with loads of tricks which crooked antiques dealers to make their merchandise look either less or more valuable – similar in its thoroughness to the lore or ratcatching and especially how to fix dog racing, which featured in the other Claud stories.

Rummins, Bert and Claud are all witnesses to Boggis’s enthusiasm and they’re ignorant but not fools, they realise he’s interested in this old dresser and begin to sniff money. So Boggis makes the fateful decision to hoodwink them by saying it’s not really that valuable, going to the extent of walking away as if he’s not interested, only turning at the door and saying, well, the legs may be useful. He’s got a coffee table at home whose legs are going and maybe he’d buy the dresser for the legs alone; the rest, well it’s little more than firewood.

By dint of this extreme lie Boggis manages to haggle a very suspicious Boggis down to a price of just £20, agrees the sale and hands over the cash. He then sets off walking 600 yards back to the main road where he parked his van, his mind overflowing with images of vast riches not to mention the press coverage, for the press, and all his colleagues in the trade, will be riveted by the announcement of such a rare and precious find.

Unfortunately, Boggis’s long walk back to his van has disastrous consequences. It gives idiot Rummins and Claud time to ponder the fact that Boggis will never get a big dresser like that into the kind of little car vicars usually drive. What’s more he said he only really wanted the legs. So in the five minutes it takes Boggis to walk to his van, Rummins set about sawing the chunky legs off the dresser. Having done this, the pair further reflect that it’s still too big to get into a little car like a Morris Eight or Austin Seven (p.101) and so they do Mr Boggis a favour by chopping the dresser up into firewood. It’s hard work but they manage to completely destroy the priceless dresser just as Mr Boggis drives up with his van.

In a way this is the most shocking and traumatic of all the stories because people are ten-a-penny, and we’re making new ones all the time (the human race currently produces 385,000 new humans every day) whereas priceless old works of art, not so much.

5. Mrs. Bixby and the Colonel’s Coat (1959: 23 pages)

New York. Mrs Bixby is married to a mousy dentist, Cyril, but is having an affair with the Colonel. Every month she goes to stay with her ‘aunt Maude’ in Baltimore, in reality to have a wile time with the Colonel who is a big virile huntin’ and fishin’ man.

The story starts when, at the end of one of these frolics, she is driven to the station by the Colonel’s groom, Wilkins, who proceeds to give her a large flattish cardboard box as a present. When she opens it on the train she discovers that it contains a) an amazing dark mink coat, made from real wild Labrador mink, that must have cost thousands of dollars and b) a note from the Colonel ending the affair. Oh well, bit sad, but the coat!

Then she worries that it’ll look very odd, returning from a visit to her poor old aunt Maude with an amazing mink coat so, when she gets to New York, she asks a porter where she can find a pawn shop. Plenty on Sixth Avenue he says so she takes a cab there. Here she finds a suspicious pawn shop owner who is prepared to give her $50 for the coat.

When he goes to give her the pawn ticket he goes to write down her name and address and a description of the item, as per standard practice, but she tells him not to. Her plan requires it to be anonymous.

So then she returns back to her husband, there are the usual greetings, he makes her a nice welcome home martini, and in the middle of it all she takes out her hankie to blow her nose and out of it falls the pawn ticket. As if just remembering it she tells Cyril that she found this pawn ticket in the taxi home. The husband looks at it and points out that it has no name, address or description and therefore whatever item it refers to is now hers. Finders keepers. All it has is the address of the pawn shop.

Cyril tells her that he’ll go along to the pawn shop on Monday to pick up the item himself while Mrs Bixby pretends she has no idea what it might be and encourages her husband to speculate widely about its possible nature, all the while muddying the waters and putting him off any possible scent connecting her and the Colonel. When Cyril invites her to go accompany him she has to restrain her fervour and say no because, of course, the pawn broker will recognise her and give the game away.

Anyway, Cyril promises to pop into the pawnbrokers on Monday and Mrs Bixby, pretending to be mad with curiosity for what it is, makes an appointment to meet up with her husband at lunchtime. Monday comes, Cyril goes off to work and then Mrs Bixby catches a cab to his surgery. He confirms that he’s been to the pawn shop and reclaimed the item and he makes a big deal of saying it’s a wonderful thing, much lovelier than she imagined, and she expects any moment to be reunited with her wonderful mink coat. To ratchet up the tension Cyril/Dahl makes her close her eyes as he gets it ready for her, Dahl even teases us by having the dentist say ‘mink, it’s beautiful mink’ before Mrs Bixby opens her eyes and…is horrified to see her husband is holding a mink neckpiece the kind of narrow thing you wrap round your throat, made from the actual body of two minks, with the heads still attached! It is cheap and disgusting.

But Mrs Bixby has, of course, to conceal her horror and dismay and pretend to be thrilled, despite experiencing agonies of disappointment, but also realising that her husband is a liar and a thief. Luckily he interprets her blushes and hesitation as her being overwhelmed.

But worse is to come, for as she steps out into the corridor, dazed with this revelation of her husband’s sneakiness, she sees his secretary-assistant Miss Pulteney swan by wearing her priceless mink coat. Dahl leaves it there, not giving us Mrs Bixby’s thoughts which must be a mixture of rage that her husband has swindled her, dismay at discovering her husband is a sneaky liar, real shock at discovering that he must be having an affair with his assistant, and immense mortification that her cunning plan has backfired so spectacularly.

You can see how all this is better left unexpressed and left for the reader to supply. At which point you realise that it’s a technique and skill of Dahl’s to end his stories at just the right moment, just before the full implications have sunk in or become explicit. Leaving them pregnant with meaning. Less is more.

6. Royal Jelly (37 pages)

This is another horror story – several people I’ve spoken to say this is the Dahl story which most freaked them out when they read it and has most haunted them since.

A young couple, Albert and Mabel Taylor, have been trying for years to have a baby. Finally they succeed but the story starts just a few days later with the young mother, Mabel, desperately concerned that the baby is losing weight and seriously ill, driving herself to distraction, ‘half dead with exhaustion’ in her attempts to feed it. At six weeks old the baby is so poorly that she weighs two pounds less than she did when she was born.

Now the key and central fact in the story is that Albert is a beekeeper. Every since boyhood he’s had a special affinity with bees, they used to crawl all over him without stinging him and he could tend and clean beehives without wearing the elaborate protection normal beekeepers use. This boyhood hobby turned into a job and now, aged 29 (p.131), he owns six acres of land and 240 well-stocked hives and sells high quality honey.

Long story short, Albert, has a brainwave while reading one of his beekeeping magazines which features an article about the extraordinary nourishing quality of royal jelly, the special substance fed to queen bee larvae in a hive in order to make them grow super-big super fast.

So without telling Mabel he starts to mix royal jelly from his hives in with the baby’s milk and lo and behold, the baby starts to thrive, gulping down the new milk feed and bawling for more! Mabel is flooded with relief and gratitude to Albert until, that is, he fesses up to what he’s done.

Two points. Firstly, the story contains a heroic amount of factual information about bees and hives and how the different types of bees (drones and workers and queens) are hatched and fed, and the nature and abilities of queen bees and so on, even referencing particular articles by named experts in specific journals (e.g. the article about the work of Dr Frederick A. Banting in the American Bee Journal, p.151). It displays the same in-depth research as other rural stories such as Claud and the rat catcher or Claud and the greyhound scam.

Second point is that during this whole sequence of events, Dahl has been planting pretty obvious clues as to Albert’s own beelike qualities.

Looking at him now as he buzzed around in front of the bookcase with his bristly head and his hairy face and his plump pulpy body, she couldn’t help thinking that somehow, in some curious way, there was a touch of the bee about this man… (p.152)

Anyway, to get to the conclusion, two more pieces of jigsaw. First of all, over the next few days, not only does the baby put on weight phenomenally quickly, but, if Mabel’s eyes don’t deceive here, is starting to change shape! It body is plump as a barrel and its belly bulges high in the air, yet despite this, its arms and legs seem thin and twiggy, like sticks protruding from a ball of fat. Not only that but Albert points out the baby is starting to develop a nice bit of fuzz on her tummy ‘to keep her warm’, running his hand over the silky yellow-brown hairs that had suddenly appeared on the baby’s tummy. So even slow readers will be realising that their baby is developing beelike qualities.

But the twist (or sting) comes in the tail for on the very last page Albert reveals the secret he’s been keeping from Mabel these nine months which is – that the articles he’d read not only discussed the nutritive qualities of royal jelly but one of them revealed that when fed to rats, it made infertile rats fertile – and so this is why they were finally able to conceive after nine barren years of trying: because Albert has been dosing himself with royal jelly!

And now he’s said it she looks back down at the baby and suddenly sees it not as human but as a big fat white grub approaching the end of its larval stage, preparing to burst free and emerge to the world complete with mandibles and wings!

The story started so slowly and naturalistically and soberly that you barely notice yourself being slowly lured into this world of melodrama and horror. I can see why it still haunts the imaginations of friends who read it as impressionable teenagers.

7. Georgy Porgy (33 pages)

A hilarious rambling account told in the first person by a garrulous, timorous vicar named George. He is of unprepossessing appearance, five foot five tall, with protruding teeth and bright red hair, with a nervous rash and a habit of flicking his earlobe. This dweeb is convinced that all the spinster women in his parish are ‘after’ him, telling stories of them suddenly grabbing his hand or slipping their arms into his.

Dahl gives this character a backstory designed to explain his simultaneous fear of and attraction towards women, stemming as it does from a mother with whom he had an unusually close and intimate bond and yet who terrified the life out of him before meeting an untimely death when run over on a busy highway near their house, when the boy George was just ten.

George the timorous vicar is so worried that it might be him to blame and his lascivious thoughts which seem to attract all the spinsters, that he carries out a gruesome experiment. He takes a pack of rats he’s confiscated from one of his choirboys (!) and separates the males and females for weeks and weeks, enough to render them randy with sexual frustration. Then he sets 6 male rats and 6 female rats in a cage dividing them by a wire carrying a household current of 240 volts. To make it all the more grotesque and/or humorous, he names all six rats after prominent spinsters in his parish – and is then very gratified when one by one all the female rats hurl themselves at the males, trying to duck under the wire or hump over it, but all of them being electrocuted to death. From this gruesome experiment he makes the mad conclusion that the women are to blame.

Women are like that. Nothing stimulates them quite so much as a display of modesty or shyness in a man. (p.179)

In the final part of the story George goes mad, has a complete mental breakdown. He is invited to Lady Birdwell’s tennis party and makes an impression by being unusually rude and forthright. Then the gaggle of spinsters serve him up a sweet drink full of fruit which he wolfs down under the impression it is alcohol-free but there are strong hints that it is the powerful gin-based liqueur, Pimms.

Two glasses of this and he becomes very light-headed, an experience he describes with great vividness as being lifted off the ground by balloons. In this drunken state he allows himself to be taken for a walk by Miss Roach towards the garden’s summer house where, as far as we can tell from his drunken account, she holds his hand, then puts her arms round him, then asks him to kiss her.

This is where the insanity comes in. Early in the story he shared with us the very traumatic story of his mother’s death. This came about because one day, when he was ten, she took him into the garage to witness their pet rabbit, Josephine giving birth. However, to his complete horror, after licking clean the first of the little baby rabbits to pop out, the mother rabbit proceeded to eat it. Not only that but George’s mother then leaned over the little boy to see why he was suddenly gasping and crying and, in his hysterical state, her mouth seemed to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger as if she was going to eat him just like the mummy rabbit. At which point he set off screaming and running down the drive and down the road towards the local main road and it was in pursuing him out onto this very busy road that his mother was run over and killed.

All this explains why, in his drunken state, as Miss Roach leans closer and closer and closer to kiss him, mad George can only see her face and her enormous red mouth opening wide to swallow him. And then the madness takes over. In a vivid, mad delusion he thinks he is being sucked into Miss Roach’s giant mouth. He clings onto her teeth, lying athwart her tongue while avoiding her tonsils and epiglottis before he eventually is sucked free and swallowed down into her stomach and then on through loops and chambers deeper into her guts.

We have a brief vision of the ‘real’ world, in which he appears to have punched out or somehow extracted some of Miss Roach’s teeth (!) before we plunge back into the mad maelstrom of his mind, through whose delusions we eventually make out that he is now residing in a lunatic asylum, in a space he thinks of as the primary section of Miss Roach’s duodenal loop but which is quite plainly a padded cell, in and out of which men with white coats periodically come, along with other lunatics who cater to or try to contradict his delusions.

This obviously strikes the same note as the two earlier stories which plunge us deep into the minds of very disturbed/mad individuals, ‘The Wish’ and ‘The Soldiers’ in Someone Like You.

8. Genesis and Catastrophe: A True Story (10 pages)

Vivid description of the birth of Adolf Hitler, seen from the point of view of his long-suffering mother who’s seen three of her children die already and pleads with God to spare this baby, with bit parts for the doctor who tries to reassure her and Adolf’s drunken father, Alois, who chooses the baby’s name. If you’re going to write a short story about Hitler it better be original and this one sort of is but still feels, in the end, a bit cheap and exploitative i.e. its impact ultimately rides entirely on the charge and power of Hitler’s monstrous crimes, rather than on the power of the ‘story’, such as it it.

9. Edward the Conqueror (October 1953: 27 pages)

Third person story about a middle-aged, middle-class couple, Edward and Louisa, living in a big house without kids. He’s gardening and has made a big fire when she goes out into the garden, calls him to lunch and spots a funny-looking cat by the fire. The cat follows them indoors and she gives it a bowl of milk. After lunch Louisa sits down to play some piano. She’s a fair pianist and goes through classical numbers by Schubert and the like but notices that when she plays a piece by famous Hungarian composer Franz Liszt (1811 to 1886), the cat suddenly sits up and becomes attentive. Slowly, carefully, Dahl describes a number of further incidents or details which convince Louisa that the cat is the reincarnation of Franz Liszt. It sounds bonkers writing it down in black and white which is precisely why you have to read the story and enter into the mindset of Louisa as she plays different pieces and notes the cat’s responses in ever-greater detail. She even pops out to the local library to borrow a book about reincarnation, some of which the story summarises (‘Recurring Earth-Lives: How and Why’ by F. Milton Willis).

Anyway, by the time her husband comes in from an arduous afternoon’s gardening, Louisa has convinced herself that the cat is the reincarnation of Franz Liszt and proceeds to tell her husband that she is going to invite the world’s leading composers to come and meet him! Obviously he thinks she’s gone mad, as she goes on to explain that she hasn’t made him, her husband, any tea yet because she needs to go and cook the cat a special dish appropriate for such a genius and goes into the kitchen to make the cat her best soufflé.

When she returns to the living room the cat has gone and her husband is just coming back in from the garden, sweating a bit and acting suspiciously. When she looks closely she notices a raw scratch across his hand. He tries to persuade her that it was one of the beastly brambles he’s been clearing, but she, and the reader, know better. Without being told we know he’s done away with the wonder-cat!

10. Pig (29 pages)

Gruesome beyond belief. None of the stories are really for adults. Most of them are for impressionable teenagers. This one starts off as if it’s actively for children, what with its cartoon action and silly characters, but it builds to an unexpected and grotesque ending.

We are in New York (again), itself a kind of cartoon version of the Big Bad City as it has been for the past century or so. Lexington is born to two wonderful parents who, on the twelfth day of his existence, decide to hire a nanny and paint the town red. Unfortunately when they get home the nanny is fast asleep and husband has forgotten his keys, so in a drunken larkey way he smashes the ground floor window and is half way through helping his drunk wife up and through it when a carful of cops draws up and shoots them both dead. We know we are in the presence of cartoon satire when the narrative tells us the three homicidal cops were all awarded citations for this murderous action.

Thus just a few days old baby Lexington finds himself an orphan. Next Dahl satirises all the relatives who come along to the funeral and see the lawyer and make umpteen excuses for not being able to take in the hapless infant. Secretly it’s because they all know that Lexington’s family were broke and had mortgaged the house i.e. there’s no money in it for them.

But the problem is solved when in storms Great Aunt Glosspan like a character from a children’s story, aged 70 and still going strong, scoops up the infant and carries off to her remote farm in Virginia. She buys a book about rearing infants at the station and has finished it by the end of the journey, merrily chucking it out the window.

Aunt Glosspann proceeds to raise Lexington very well and he grows into a fine handsome little boy. Aunt Glosspan is a vegetarian and feeds him a wide diet of veggie food. At the age of six she decides to home school him, teaching him reading, writing, geography but above all cooking. She teaches him all her tasty veggie recipes and together they experiment with more.

By the age of ten Lexington is a gifted cook and embarks on writing a big book titled ‘Eat Good and Healthy’. By the age of 17 he has recorded over 9,000 recipes. Then Aunt Glosspan dies. (There is a strong suspicion it’s because of some poisoned mushroom burgers Lexington served her.)

The Aunt leaves a letter instructing him to go down the mountain to the local town and register her death with a doctor, then travel to New York to see her lawyer, Mr Samuel Zuckerman. Lexington is such a newbie that he walks to New York, feeding himself on berries and roots.

The interview with Zuckerman is another very broad satire. There is a hint of antisemitism in it because Dahl paints Zuckerman as an absolute crook who reveals to the startled Lexington that his mother left him $500,000! but then proceeds to announce he’ll have to take 1 50% cut, then there’s the costs of the funeral, then the cost of bribing the right officials because he, Lexington, didn’t fill in the right death certificate or bury Aunt Glosspan appropriately etc etc. In the end he should consider himself lucky to receive $15,000. But Lexington the naive, does consider himself lucky, pockets the money (which Zuckerman gets his clerk to give him out of petty cash) and sets off into the mean streets of New York.

He goes into a diner and Dahl satirises the tired jaded stupidity of the waiter and then the disgusting chef, who has a rash down his neck which he regularly scratches while preparing food. Anyway, through a series of misunderstandings, Lexington gets served roast pork and greens. The point is that after a lifetime of vegetarian food, it’s the first time he’s tasted meat and the tastiest meal he’s ever eaten.

First Lexington asks what it is and when they explain ‘pig’ it takes a while for Lexington to understand that it’s dead pig which has been slaughtered in the city. In a ghoulish aside the chef confides that sometimes they get human meat but you never can tell because it’s difficult to tell them apart. Lexington is wildly waving his money around, foolishly tipping the waiter $100, so he and the chef willingly give him the address of the slaughterhouse where the pork comes from, and off Lexington heads in a taxi.

Here the narrative crosses a line from a kind of satirical child’s story into horror. For the ‘packing-house’ appears a reputable establishment with a big sign reading Guided Tours Here and a number of smart young men and women come into the waiting room to join Lexington, some being taken off before he and his group.

They are shown the enclosure where the pigs are kept, then onto the place where the pigs are corralled and watch an employee slip a chain round a pig’s rear leg, the chain being attached to a moving pulley which pulls the terrified pig backwards then, as the conveyor chain turns upwards and disappears through a hole in the ceiling taking the pig hanging upside down squealing with it.

So far, so gruesome, but nothing prepares you for what happens next, for one of the pig handlers sneaks up behind Lexington and slips a chain round his leg. Before he knows it, he is being pulled backwards by the conveyor belt, then is swung off his feet and lifted up through the hole in the ceiling, shouting ‘Stop, stop, there’s been a mistake.’

Shortly the conveyor chain bends back to the horizontal and drags him along towards a man with a wonderful serene expression sitting by a square hole in another wall, like St Peter waiting at the gates of heaven and, as Lexington comes close, the man leans over and slashes Lexington’s jugular vein!

As he bleeds out the last thing Lexington sees is the series of dying pigs being lowered into a great smoking cauldron of water, although he thinks one had gloves on its hands. In other words the place slaughters pigs and humans indiscriminately. It’s worth quoting the final sentence because it gives the flavour of bitter satire which underpins the whole thing.

Suddenly our hero started to feel sleepy, but it wasn’t until his good strong heart had pumped the last drop of blood from his body that he passed on out of this, the best of all possible worlds, into the next. (p.265)

What comes over is Dahl’s nihilistic anger at a whole range of aspects of the modern world.

11. The Champion of the World (37 pages)

Another story about the character Claud Cubbin who we first met in the four stories about him in ‘Someone Like You’ and again in ‘Parson’s Pleasure’ in this collection, making six Claud stories in all.

Claud is the ox-faced mate of Gordon, who owns and runs a village petrol station and the pair of them are always cooking up crooked schemes, or hanging with vivid lowlifes, as in my favourite Dahl story, about the rat catcher. (In this story we learn, for the first time, that Claud lives in a caravan parked behind the filling station, p.268, and that Gordon’s last name is Hawes, p.288).

Claud’s always been an expert poacher but this year Gordon’s noticed a new vigour about his activities, almost as if they’re a vendetta against the local landowner, self-made brewer and social climber, Victor Hazel who every morning cruises past in his chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce, too hoity-toity to mingle with the ordinary folk of the village.

In a great scene Claud shares with Gordon the Three Methods for Poaching Pheasants which were invented by his father, one of the greatest poachers of all time (pages 274 to 275).

Method 1 is soak raisins till they’re juicy and stick a horsehair through each one till an eighth of an inch of hair is sticking out either side then strew them on the ground. When a pheasant eats one it starts choking and hacking to try and clear its throat and doesn’t move so you can walk up and just pick it up.

Method 2 is you get a fishing rod, bait a hook with a plump raisin, wait till the pheasant bites, and then reel it in like a fish. Trouble is the pheasant kicks up a fuss and every gamekeeper comes running.

Method 3 is you dig a little hole then put into it a piece of strong paper cut and curved into the shape of a cone, cover it in lime, chuck in a few juicy raisins, then the pheasant comes along, sticks its head in the cone to peck the raisins but when it straightens up the cone is stuck to its head so it cannot see and it stands stock still. Once again you just walk up to it and pick it up, easy-peasy. So respect to Claud’s dad, the great inventor and innovator of Poaching.

Having listened to all this Gordon now comes up with a fourth method, which is to soak the raisins, then carefully slit them open, then pour into each one the contents of one of Gordon’s sleeping pills, a nice dose of seconal, then carefully sew them up again. Pheasant eats a raisin or two, flies up to a branch at sunset, starts to feel drowsy, falls down onto the ground, Gordon and Claud come along and collect them.

The thing is, Claud has a grand plan. He doesn’t want to pick up one or five or even ten pheasants. Because of his hatred of domineering show-off Mr Victor Hazel Claud wants to ruin the Grand First Day of Hazel’s annual shoot. Every October the fat red-faced man invites all the gentry of the county, the lords and ladies and even the Lord Lieutenant, to the best day’s shooting in the county. He carefully rears upwards of 200 pheasants to lay on a grand day’s entertainment for the nobs, and Claud wants to ruin it.

All this is by way of backstory leading up to where we are now which is that Claud and Gordon have completed the arduous task of soaking some 200 raisins and then inserting the little doses of seconal into each one before sewing them all up, and have packed them into a sack, and are now very cautiously and quietly climbing the side of the hill into the woods and Victor Hazel’s property. Comedy is added because Gordon is scared of being caught so Claud goes out of his way to tell him horror stories about what landowners used to do to poachers in the olden days. Particularly striking is his claim that they used to shoot poachers on sight and many’d the night, when he was a boy, that Claud would find his dad bent over the kitchen table while his mum picked the shotgun pellets out of his buttocks with a knife. Eventually, his bum was so covered in little white scars ‘that it looked like it was snowing’. Locals used to call it Poacher’s Arse (p.282).

So they sneak up the clearing where the pheasants have lived since Hazel’s people reared them and where they prefer to stay. There is one gamekeeper on duty, silent and motionless but Claud sees him. He chucks some raisins off into the distance to distract him and when the keeper looks off in the wrong direction takes all the other doped raisins in his hand and scatters them with one throw across the clearing. The keeper hears it and then notices the pheasants all ducking and pecking and thinks about investigating but decides to stay still and see if anything else suspicious happens. Nothing does so he relaxes and, after a while, Claud makes Gordon crawl away with him, face close to the earth, for a hundred yards or so before it’s safe to get up and run.

Finally they emerge off Hazel’s land and back into a lane which is a public thoroughfare. They’re just sitting on the bank having a fag when the head gamekeeper, Rabbitts, comes along with a labrador dog and shotgun under his arm. Rabbitts is a hard man, identifies them by name, says he’s got his eye on them and tells them to hop it. This Claud does with the measured insubordinate slowness of the criminal youth. In fact he only takes Gordon a few hundred yards down the lane, which is becoming impenetrably black as night falls, before climbing over a gate and hiding in a field. They watch as Rabbitts walks by on his way home for tea.

Once it’s completely dark they make their way back to the woods and on to the clearing and are just wondering whether the whole scam will work when they hear the thump of a pheasant falling out of a tree. Then another one. Then another one. Soon they’re falling like raindrops. Claud runs round in a whirl of ecstasy, ‘like a child who has just discovered that the whole world is made of chocolate’ (p.293). He finds all the pheasants and brings them back into a pile. Soon it’s as big as a bonfire, living but doped pheasants. Eventually the thumping stops and Claud excitedly counts the bodies. Two hundred! A world record! You can see how this is, essentially, a child’s story in adult clothing. No surprise that Dahl expanded it to become the popular children’s book ‘Danny, The Champion of the World’.

Gordon and Claud quickly chuck the doped pheasants into the sacks Claud has brought but Gordon finds his is far too heavy to carry. It’s now that Claud now reveals that he has a partner in crime, toothless old Charlie Kinch who drives a ramshackle old taxi. It’s waiting in the lane. All they have to do is drag the sacks that far. Which they proceed to do, whisper ‘Charlie’ and the toothless face appears in the moonlight, they heave the sacks into the back of the cab and set off slowly and quietly down the lane towards the village.

And only now does he reveal another secret of his trade which is he never goes home with that night’s booty, he always drops it off with Bessie Organ to safekeep for a day or two. Gordon is flabbergasted because Bessie Organ is the vicar’s wife. So Charlie drives them to the vicarage, then round the back where Claud and Gordon stealthily drag their sacks into the coal shed, shake hands with Charlie who drives off, then walk calm and law-abiding back to the filling station.

The scene then cuts to the next morning, when Claud points out to Gordon the figure of Bessie Organ pushing a pram in which lies little baby Christopher Organ and underneath him, a whole bunch of doped pheasants packed tight.

Claud gave me a sly look.
‘There’s only one safe way of delivering game,’ he announced, ‘and that’s under a baby.’
‘Yes,’ I murmured, ‘yes, of course.’ (p.298)

Only problem is the seconal is wearing off and they can see Bessie walking agitatedly and then break into a run and then – horror of horrors – a pheasant flies up out of the pram! Then a second, then a third, fourth fifth. All the time the traffic on the road and passersby are watching. As she comes into the filling station forecourt she grabs her baby in fright and that releases all the other pheasants who fly out of the pram and fill the air above the petrol pumps. Except they’re too dopey to go far and settle all over the garage, atop the pumps, along the roof and concrete canopy and clinging to the sill of the office window. Cars are stopping and people are getting out to get a better look. Worst of all, any minute Victor Hazel’s chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce will drive past on his daily commute and he will see all his stolen pheasants and put 2 and 2 together. Quick, Gordon shouts, lock up the pumps and put the ‘Closed for the day’ sign up. Then they’d better scarper.

Thoughts

The stories are more macabre, gruesome and cruel than the ones in the previous collections, a grotesqueness told with undisguised relish.

Related to this is the way that, although supposedly written for adults, they all have an unmistakable boyish gleefulness. Dahl delights in the twisted sadistic physical and psychological torment he inflicts on his characters.

Also related to this heightened gruesomeness, there’s 1) a greater emphasis on the physical appearance of many of the characters and 2) these appearances are becoming more and more freakish. In the real world most people are boringly samey but in these Dahl stories the characters are vividly individualised, and the physical portraits have become increasingly grotesque.

He was a small fat-legged man with a belly. The face was round and rosy, quite perfect for the part, and the two large brown eyes that bulged out at you from this rosy face gave an impression of gentle imbecility. (Mr Boggis, p.77)

He looked round and saw the three men standing absolutely still, watching him suspiciously, three pairs of eyes, all different but equally mistrusting, small pig-eyes for Rummins, large slow eyes for Claud, and two odd eyes for Bert, one of them very queer and boiled and misty pale, with a little black dot in the centre, like a fish eye on a plate. (p.88)

His was a long bony countenance with a narrow nose and a slightly prognathous jaw (Cyril Bixby, p.115)

He was not a tall man; he had a thick plump pulpy-looking body that was built close to the ground on abbreviated legs. The legs were slightly bowed. The head was huge and round, covered with bristly, short-cut hair and the greater part of the face – now that he had given up shaving altogether – was hidden by a brownish yellow fuzz about an inch long. In one way or another he was rather grotesque to look at… (Albert Taylor, p.152)

He was a small spongy man with livid jowls and a huge magenta nose, and when he smiled bits of gold flashed at you marvellously from lots of different places inside his mouth. (p.250)

Note how many of these trolls are short. Dahl was, himself, notoriously tall, at six foot six. I suppose from his lofty vantage point, more or less everyone looked like dwarves.

Note also how many times Dahl compares people’s appearance with animals.

He had a peculiar way of cocking the head and then moving it in a series of small, rapid jerks. Because of this and because he was clasping his hands up high in front of him, hear the chest, he was somehow like a squirrel standing there – a quick clever old squirrel from the Park. (Mr Foster, p.55)

She turned and faced him, her eyes blazing, and she looked suddenly like some kind of little fighting bird with her neck arched over towards him as though she were about to fly at his face and peck his eyes out. (p.161)

I could watch [women] for hours on end with the same peculiar fascination that you yourself might experience in watching a creature you couldn’t bear to touch – an octopus, for example, or a long poisonous snake. (p.179)

He turned his head, fixing me with pale eyes. The eyes were large and wet and ox-like… (p.272)

Comparing people with animals is self-evidently a dehumanising tactic, emphasising the process of making his characters seem strange and alien. In the hands of a different writer these tendencies might have developed into a fully adult, disorientating strategy, something like the thorough-going psychological alienation cultivated by a writer like Kafka – but instead Dahl a) steers it towards the merely grotesque and, more importantly b) contains it.

These animal comparisons tend to be grotesque moments in otherwise extremely polite and well-mannered prose. OK most of the stories have grotesque outcomes but the very power of this derives from how they are, generally, for the majority of their length, describing civilised people with good manners speaking in clear Standard English. Part of the power comes precisely from the abrupt irruption into civilised middle-class lives of savage or brutal or cruel events.

Anyway, back to the theme of freakish-looking people, the conception of many of them as gargoyles means they’re well on the way to becoming the cartoon caricatures which populate the children’s books.

You can also see this tendency in some of the more florid names: Mr Boggis, Claud Cubbin, Mr Rummins, Nanny McPottle, Great Aunt Glosspan, Bessie Organ. Even fairly sensible names, when they come within Dahl’s sphere of influence, begin to sound faintly ridiculous, such as the regiment of spinsters in ‘Georgie Porgie’: Miss Elphinstone, Miss Roach, Lady Birdwell.

Lastly, a small point, but Dahl had, by this stage, developed a particular style mannerism which is, in his descriptions of characters’ appearances, to drop the personal pronoun (his or her) and replacing it with ‘the’. In the description of Albert Taylor he writes the legs and the head, rather than the more usual ‘his’. He does this throughout and it compounds the sense of detached, forensic examination of alien species. It turns the characters from people into specimens being coldly examined.

The wide frog-mouth widened a fraction further into a crafty grin, showing the stubs of several broke teeth. (p.84)

‘The’ instead of the more natural ‘his’. Or:

A peculiar hardness had settled itself upon the features. The little mouth, usually so flabby, was now tight and thin, the eyes were bright and the voice, when she spoke, carried a new note of authority. (Mrs Foster, p.65)

The use of ‘the’ not ‘her’ creates a distance, a forensic gap. Or take this description of Mabel Taylor’s baby after feeding:

There was no protest from the baby, no sound at all. It lay peacefully on the mother’s lap, the eyes glazed with contentment, the mouth half-open, the lips smeared with milk. (p.158)

Not ‘its’ or ‘her’, just the cold detached ‘the’. In Dahl’s hands, we are all specimens.


Credit

Kiss Kiss by Roald Dahl was published by Michael Joseph in 1960. References are to the 2011 Penguin paperback edition.

Related links

Roald Dahl reviews

Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos (1988)

Our innate desire for meaning and pattern can lead us astray… (p.81)

Giving due weight to the fortuitous nature of the world is, I think, a mark of maturity and balance. (p.133)

John Allen Paulos is an American professor of mathematics who won fame beyond his academic milieu with the publication of this short (134-page) but devastating book thirty years ago, the first of a series of books popularising mathematics in a range of spheres from playing the stock market to humour.

As Paulos explains in the introduction, the world is full of humanities graduates who blow a fuse if you misuse ‘infer’ and ‘imply’, or end a sentence with a dangling participle, but are quite happy to believe and repeat the most hair-raising errors in maths, statistics and probability.

The aim of this book was:

  • to lay out examples of classic maths howlers and correct them
  • to teach readers to be more alert when maths, stats and data need to be used
  • and to provide basic rules in order to understand when innumerate journalists, politicians, tax advisors and other crooks are trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or are just plain wrong

There are five chapters:

  1. Examples and principles
  2. Probability and coincidence
  3. Pseudoscience
  4. Whence innumeracy
  5. Statistics, trade-offs and society

Many common themes emerge:

Don’t personalise, numeratise

One contention of this book is that innumerate people characteristically have a strong tendency to personalise – to be misled by their own experiences, or by the media’s focus on individuals and drama… (p.1)

Powers

The first chapter uses lots of staggering statistics to get the reader used to very big and very small numbers, and how to compute them.

1 million seconds is 11 and a half days. 1 billion seconds is 32 years.

He suggests you come up with personal examples of numbers for each power up to 12 or 13 i.e. meaningful embodiments of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and so on to help you remember and contextualise them in a hurry.

A snail moves at 0.005 miles an hour, Concorde at 2,000 miles per hour. Escape velocity from earth is about 7 miles per second, or 25,000 miles per hour. The mass of the Earth is 5.98 x 1024 kg

Early on he tells us to get used to the nomenclature of ‘powers’ – using 10 to the power 3 or 10³ instead of 1,000, or 10 to negative powers to express numbers below 1. (In fact, right at this early stage I found myself stumbling because one thousand means more to me that 10³ and a thousandth means more than more 10-3 but if you keep at it, it is a trick you can acquire quite quickly.)

The additive principle

He introduces us to basic ideas like the additive principle (aka the rule of sum), which states that if some choice can be made in M different ways and some subsequent choice can be made in N different ways, then there are M x N different ways these choices can be made in succession – which can be applied to combinations of multiple items of clothes, combinations of dishes on a menu, and so on.

Thus the number of results you get from rolling a die is 6. If you roll two dice, you can now get 6 x 6 = 36 possible numbers. Three numbers = 216. If you want to exclude the number you get on the first dice from the second one, the chances of rolling two different numbers on two dice is 6 x 5, of rolling different numbers on three dice is 6 x 5 x 4, and so on.

Thus: Baskin Robbins advertises 31 different flavours of ice cream. Say you want a triple scoop cone. If you’re happy to have any combination of flavours, including where any 2 or 3 flavours are the same – that’s 31 x 31 x 31 = 29,791. But if you ask how many combinations of flavours there are, without a repetition of the same flavour in any of the cones – that is 31 x 30 x 29 = 26,970 ways of combining.

Probability

I struggled with even the basics of probability. I understand a 1 in five chance of something happening, reasonably understand a 20% chance of something happening, but struggled when probability was expressed as a decimal number e.g. 0.2 as a way of writing a 20 percent or 1 in 5 chance.

With the result that he lost me on page 16 on or about the place where he explained the following example.

Apparently a noted 17th century gambler asked the famous mathematician Pascal which is more likely to occur: obtaining at least one 6 in four rolls of a single die, or obtaining at least one 12 in twenty four rolls of a pair of dice. Here’s the solution:

Since 5/6 is the probability of not rolling a 6 on a single roll of a die, (5/6)is the probability of not rolling a 6 in four rolls of the die. Subtracting this number from 1 gives us the probability that this latter event (no 6s) doesn’t occur; in other words, of there being at least one 6 rolled in four tries: 1 – (5/6)= .52. Likewise, the probability of rolling at least one 12 in twenty-four rolls of a pair of dice is seen to be 1 – (35/36)24 = .49.

a) He loses me in the second sentence which I’ve read half a dozen times and still don’t understand – it’s where he says the chances that this latter event doesn’t occur: something about the phrasing there, about the double negative, loses me completely, with the result that b) I have no idea whether .52 is more likely or less likely than .49.

He goes on to give another example: if 20% of drinks dispensed by a vending machine overflow their cups, what is the probability that exactly three of the next ten will overflow?

The probability that the first three drinks overflow and the next seven do not is (.2)x (.8)7. But there are many different ways for exactly three of the ten cups to overflow, each way having probability (.2)x (.8)7. It may be that only the last three cups overflow, or only the fourth, fifth and ninth cups, and so on. Thus, since there are altogether (10 x 9 x 8) / (3 x 2 x 1) = 120 ways for us to pick three out of the ten cups, the probability of some collection of exactly three cups overflowing is 120 x (.2)x (.8)7.

I didn’t understand the need for the (10 x 9 x 8) / (3 x 2 x 1) equation – I didn’t understand what it was doing, and so didn’t understand what it was measuring, and so didn’t understand the final equation. I didn’t really have a clue what was going on.

In fact, by page 20, he’d done such a good job of bamboozling me with examples like this that I sadly concluded that I must be innumerate.

More than that, I appear to have ‘maths anxiety’ because I began to feel physically unwell as I read that problem paragraph again and again and again and didn’t understand it. I began to feel a tightening of my chest and a choking sensation in my throat. Rereading it now is making it feel like someone is trying to strangle me.

Maybe people don’t like maths because being forced to confront something you don’t understand, but which everyone around you is saying is easy-peasy, makes you feel ill.

2. Probability and coincidence

Having more or less given up on trying to understand Paulos’s maths demonstrations in the first twenty pages, I can at least latch on to his verbal explanations of what he’s driving at, in sentences like these:

A tendency to drastically underestimate the frequency of coincidences is a prime characteristic of innumerates, who generally accord great significance to correspondences of all sorts while attributing too little significance to quite conclusive but less flashy statistical evidence. (p.22)

It would be very unlikely for unlikely events not to occur. (p.24)

There is a strong general tendency to filter out the bad and the failed and to focus on the good and the successful. (p.29)

Belief in the… significance of coincidences is a psychological remnant of our past. It constitutes a kind of psychological illusion to which innumerate people are particularly prone. (p.82)

Slot machines light up and make a racket when people win, there is unnoticed silence for all the failures. Big winners on the lottery are widely publicised, whereas every one of the tens of millions of failures is not.

One result is ‘Golden Age’ thinking when people denigrate today’s sports or arts or political figures, by comparison with one or two super-notable figures from the vast past, Churchill or Shakespeare or Michelangelo, obviously neglecting the fact that there were millions of also-rans and losers in their time as well as ours.

The Expected value of a quality is the average of its values weighted according to their probabilities. I understood these words but I didn’t understand any of the five examples he gave.

The likelihood of probability In many situations, improbability is to be expected. The probability of being dealt a particular hand of 13 cards in bridge is less than 1 in 600 billion. And yet it happens every time someone is dealt a hand in bridge. The improbable can happen. In fact it happens all the time.

The gambler’s fallacy The belief that, because a tossed coin has come up tails for a number of tosses in a row, it becomes steadily more likely that the next toss will be a head.

3. Pseudoscience

Paulos rips into Freudianism and Marxism for the way they can explain away any result counter to their ‘theories’. The patient gets better due to therapy: therapy works. The patient doesn’t get better during therapy, well the patient was resisting, projecting their neuroses on the therapist, any of hundreds of excuses.

But this is just warming up before he rips into a real bugbear of  his, the wrong-headedness of Parapsychology, the Paranormal, Predictive dreams, Astrology, UFOs, Pseudoscience and so on.

As with predictive dreams, winning the lottery or miracle cures, many of these practices continue to flourish because it’s the handful of successes which stand out and grab our attention and not the thousands of negatives.

Probability

As Paulos steams on with examples from tossing coins, rolling dice, playing roulette, or poker, or blackjack, I realise all of them are to do with probability or conditional probability, none of which I understand.

This is why I have never gambled on anything, and can’t play poker. When he explains precisely how accumulating probabilities can help you win at blackjack in a casino, I switch off. I’ve never been to a casino. I don’t play blackjack. I have no intention of ever playing blackjack.

When he says that probability theory began with gambling problems in the seventeenth century, I think, well since I don’t gamble at all, on anything, maybe that’s why so much of this book is gibberish to me.

Medical testing and screening

Apart from gambling the two most ‘real world’ areas where probability is important appear to be medicine and risk and safety assessment. Here’s an extended example he gives of how even doctors make mistakes in the odds.

Assume there is a test for cancer which is 98% accurate i.e. if someone has cancer, the test will be positive 98 percent of the time, and if one doesn’t have it, the test will be negative 98 percent of the time. Assume further that .5 percent – one out of two hundred people – actually have cancer. Now imagine that you’ve taken the test and that your doctor sombrely informs you that you have tested positive. How depressed should you be? The surprising answer is that you should be cautiously optimistic. To find out why, let’s look at the conditional probability of your having cancer, given that you’ve tested positive.

Imagine that 10,000 tests for cancer are administered. Of these, how many are positive? On the average, 50 of these 10,000 people (.5 percent of 10,000) will have cancer, and, so, since 98 percent of them will test positive, we will have 49 positive tests. Of the 9,950 cancerless people, 2 percent of them will test positive, for a total of 199 positive tests (.02 x 9,950 = 199). Thus, of the total of 248 positive tests (199 + 49 = 248), most (199) are false positives, and so the conditional probability of having cancer given that one tests positive is only 49/248, or about 20 percent! (p.64)

I struggled to understand this explanation. I read it four or five times, controlling my sense of panic and did, eventually, I think, follow the argumen.

However, worse in a way, when I think I did finally understand it, I realised I just didn’t care. It’s not just that the examples he gives are hard to follow. It’s that they’re hard to care about.

Whereas his descriptions of human psychology and cognitive errors in human thinking are crystal clear and easy to assimilate:

If we have no direct evidence of theoretical support for a story, we find that detail and vividness vary inversely with likelihood; the more vivid details there are to a story, the less likely the story is to be true. (p.84)

4. Whence innumeracy?

It came as a vast relief when Paulos stopped trying to explain probability and switched to a long chapter puzzling over why innumeracy is so widespread in society, which kicks off by criticising the poor level of teaching of maths in school and university.

This was like the kind of hand-wringing newspaper article you can read any day of the week in a newspaper or online, and so felt reassuringly familiar and easy to assimilate. I stopped feeling so panic-stricken.

This puzzling over the disappointing level of innumeracy goes on for quite a while. Eventually it ends with a digression about what appears to be a pet idea of his: the notion of introducing a safety index for activities and illnesses.

Paulos’s suggestion is that his safety index would be on a logarithmic scale, like the Richter Scale – so straightaway he has to explain what a logarithm is: The logarithm for 100 is 2 because 100 is 102, the logarithm for 1,000 is 3 because 1,000 is 103. I’m with him so far, as he goes on to explain that the logarithm of 700 i.e. between 2 (100) and 3 (1,000) is 2.8. Since 1 in 5,300 Americans die in a car crash each year, the safety index for driving would be 3.7, the logarithm of 5,300. And so on with numerous more examples, whose relative risks or dangers he reduces to figures like 4.3 and 7.1.

I did understand his aim and the maths of this. I just thought it was bonkers:

1. What is the point of introducing a universal index which you would have to explain every time anyone wanted to use it? Either it is designed to be usable by the widest possible number of citizens; or it is a neat exercise on maths to please other mathematicians and statisticians.

2. And here’s the bigger objection – What Paulos, like most of the university-educated, white, liberal intellectuals I read in papers, magazines and books, fails to take into account is that a large proportion of the population is thick.

Up to a fifth of the adult population of the UK is functionally innumerate, that means they don’t know what a ‘25% off’ sign means on a shop window. For me an actual social catastrophe being brought about by this attitude is the introduction of Universal Credit by the Conservative government which, from top to bottom, is designed by middle-class, highly educated people who’ve all got internet accounts and countless apps on their smartphones, and who have shown a breath-taking ignorance about what life is like for the poor, sick, disabled, illiterate and innumerate people who are precisely the people the system is targeted at.

Same with Paulos’s scheme. Smoking is one of the most dangerous and stupid things which any human can do. Packs of cigarettes have for years, now, carried pictures of disgusting cancerous growths and the words SMOKING KILLS. And yet despite this, about a fifth of adults, getting on for 10 million people, still smoke. 🙂

Do you really think that introducing a system using ornate logarithms will get people to make rational assessments of the risks of common activities and habits?

Paulos then goes on to complicate the idea by suggesting that, since the media is always more interested in danger than safety, maybe it would be more effective, instead of creating a safety index, to create a danger index.

You would do this by

  1. working out the risk of an activity (i.e. number of deaths or accidents per person doing the activity)
  2. converting that into a logarithmic value (just to make sure than nobody understands it) and then
  3. subtracting the logarithmic value of the safety index from 10, in order to create a danger index

He goes on to say that driving a car and smoking would have ‘danger indices’ of 3.7 and 2.9, respectively. The trouble was that by this point I had completely ceased to understand what he’s saying. I felt like I’ve stepped off the edge of a tall building into thin air. I began to have that familiar choking sensation, as if someone was squeezing my chest. Maths anxiety.

Under this system being kidnapped would have a safety index of 6.7. Playing Russian roulette once a year would have a safety index of 0.8.

It is symptomatic of the uselessness of the whole idea that Paulos has to remind you what the values mean (‘Remember that the bigger the number, the smaller the risk.’ Really? You expect people to run with this idea?)

Having completed the danger index idea, Paulos returns to his extended lament on why people don’t like maths. He gives a long list of reasons why he thinks people are so innumerate a condition which is, for him, a puzzling mystery.

For me this lament is a classic example of what you could call intellectual out-of-touchness. He is genuinely puzzled why so many of his fellow citizens are innumerate, can’t calculate simple odds and fall for all sorts of paranormal, astrology, snake-oil blether.

He proposes typically academic, university-level explanations for this phenomenon – such as that people find maths too cold and analytical and worry that it prevents them thinking about the big philosophical questions in life. He worries that maths has an image problem.

In other words, he fails to consider the much more obvious explanation that maths, probability and numeracy in general might be a combination of fanciful, irrelevant and deeply, deeply boring.

I use the word ‘fanciful’ deliberately. When he writes that the probability of drawing two aces in succession from a pack of cards is not (4/52 x 4/52) but (4/52 x 3/51) I do actually understand the distinction he’s making (having drawn one ace there are only 3 left and only 52 cards left) – I just couldn’t care less. I really couldn’t care less.

Or take this paragraph:

Several years ago Pete Rose set a National League record by hitting safely in forty-four consecutive games. If we assume for the sake of simplicity that he batted .300 (30 percent of the time he got a hit, 70 percent of the time he didn’t) and that he came to bat four times a game, the chances of his not getting a hit in any given game were, assuming independence, (.7)4 – .24… [at this point Paulos has to explain what ‘independence’ means in a baseball context: I couldn’t care less]… So the probability he would get at least one hit in any game was 1-.24 = .76. Thus, the chances of him getting a hit in any given sequence of forty-four consecutive games were (.76)44 = .0000057, a tiny probability indeed. (p.44)

I did, in fact, understand the maths and the working out in this example. I just don’t care about the problem or the result.

For me this is a – maybe the – major flaw of this book. This is that in the blurbs on the front and back, in the introduction and all the way through the text, Paulos goes on and on about how we as a society need to be mathematically numerate because maths (and particularly probability) impinges on so many areas of our life.

But when he tries to show this – when he gets the opportunity to show us what all these areas of our lives actually are – he completely fails.

Almost all of the examples in the book are not taken from everyday life, they are remote and abstruse problems of gambling or sports statistics.

  • which is more likely: obtaining at least one 6 in four rolls of a single die, or obtaining at least one 12 in twenty four rolls of a pair of dice?
  • if 20% of drinks dispensed by a vending machine overflow their cups, what is the probability that exactly three of the next ten will overflow?
  • Assume there is a test for cancer which is 98% accurate i.e. if someone has cancer, the test will be positive 98 percent of the time, and if one doesn’t have it, the test will be negative 98 percent of the time. Assume further that .5 percent – one out of two hundred people – actually have cancer. Now imagine that you’ve taken the test and that your doctor sombrely informs you that you have tested positive. How depressed should you be?
  • What are the odds on Pete Rose getting a hit in a sequence of forty-four games?

Are these the kinds of problems you are going to encounter today? Or tomorrow? Or ever?

No. The longer the book went on, the more I realised just how little a role maths plays in my everyday life. In fact more or less the only role maths plays in my life is looking at the prices in supermarkets, where I am attracted to goods which have a temporary reduction on them. But I do that because they’re labels are coloured red, not because I calculate the savings. Being aware of the time, so I know when to do household chores or be somewhere punctually. Those are the only times I used numbers today.

5. Statistics, trade-offs and society

This feeling that the abstruseness of the examples utterly contradicts the bold claims that reading the book will help us with everyday experiences was confirmed in the final chapter, which begins with the following example.

Imagine four dice, A, B, C and D, strangely numbered as follows: A has 4 on four faces and 0 on two faces; B has 3s on all six faces; C has four faces with 2 and two faces with 6; and D has 5 on three faces and 1 on three faces…

I struggled to the end of this sentence and just thought: ‘No, no more, I don’t have to make myself feel sick and unhappy any more’ – and skipped the couple of pages detailing the fascinating and unexpected results you can get from rolling such a collection of dice.

This chapter goes on to a passage about the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a well-known problem in logic, which I have read about and instantly forgotten scores of times over the years.

Paulos gives us three or four variations on the idea, including:

  • Imagine you are locked up in prison by a philanthropist with 20 other people.

Or:

  • Imagine you are locked in a dungeon by a sadist with 20 other people.

Or:

  • Imagine you are one of two drug traffickers making a quick transaction on a street corner and forced to make a quick decision.

Or:

  • Imagine you are locked in a prison cell, and another prisoner is locked in an identical cell down the corridor.

Well, I’m not any of these things, I’m never likely to be, and I am not really interested in these fanciful speculations.

Moreover, I am well into middle age, have travelled round the world, had all sorts of jobs in companies small, large and enormous – and I am not aware of having ever been in any situation which remotely resembled any variation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma I’ve ever heard of.

In other words, to me, it is another one of the endless pile of games and puzzles which logicians and mathematicians love to spend all day playing but which have absolutely no impact whatsoever on any aspect of my life.

Pretty much all of his examples conclusively prove how remote mathematical problems and probabilistic calculation is from the everyday lives you and I lead. When he asks:

How many people would there have to be in a group in order for the probability to be half that at least two people in it have the same birthday? (p.23)

Imagine a factory which produces small batteries for toys, and assume the factory is run by a sadistic engineer… (p.117)

It dawns on me that my problem might not be that I’m innumerate, so much as I’m just uninterested in trivial or frivolous mental exercises.

Someone offers you a choice of two envelopes and tells you one has twice as much money in it as the other. (p.127)

Flip a coin continuously until a tail appears for the first time. If this doesn’t happen until the twentieth (or later) flip, you win $1 billion. If the first tail occurs before the twentieth flip, you pay $100. Would you play? (p.128)

No. I’d go and read an interesting book.

Thoughts

If Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences is meant to make its readers more numerate, it failed with me.

This is for a number of reasons:

  1. crucially – because he doesn’t explain maths very well; or, the way he explained probability had lost me by about page 16 – in other words, if this is meant to be a primer for innumerate people it’s a fail
  2. because the longer it goes on, the more convinced I became that I rarely use maths, arithmetic and probability in my day today life: whole days go by when I don’t do a single sum, and so lost all motivation to submit myself to the brain-hurting ordeal of trying to understand his examples

3. Also because the structure and presentation of the book is a mess. The book meanders through a fog of jokes, anecdotes and maths trivia, baseball stories and gossip about American politicians – before suddenly unleashing a fundamental aspect of probability theory on the unwary reader.

I’d have preferred the book to have had a clear, didactic structure, with an introduction and chapter headings explaining just what he was going to do, an explanation, say, of how he was going to take us through some basic concepts of probability one step at a time.

And then for the concepts to have been laid out very clearly and explained very clearly, from a number of angles, giving a variety of different examples until he and we were absolutely confident we’d got it – before we moved on to the next level of complexity.

The book is nothing like this. Instead it sacrifices any attempt at logical sequencing or clarity for anecdotes about Elvis Presley or UFOs, for digressions about Biblical numerology, the silliness of astrology, the long and bewildering digression about introducing a safety index for activities (summarised above), or prolonged analyses of baseball or basketball statistics. Oh, and a steady drizzle of terrible jokes.

Which two sports have face-offs?
Ice hockey and leper boxing.

Half way through the book, Paulos tells us that he struggles to write long texts (‘I have a difficult time writing at extended length about anything’, p.88), and I think it really shows.

It certainly explains why:

  • the blizzard of problems in coin tossing and dice rolling stopped without any warning, as he switched tone copletely, giving us first a long chapter about all the crazy irrational beliefs people hold, and then another chapter listing all the reasons why society is innumerate
  • the last ten pages of the book give up the attempt of trying to be a coherent narrative and disintegrate into a bunch of miscellaneous odds and ends he couldn’t find a place for in the main body of the text

Also, I found that the book was not about numeracy in the broadest sense, but mostly about probability. Again and again he reverted to examples of tossing coins and rolling dice. One enduring effect of reading this book is going to be that, the next time I read a description of someone tossing a coin or rolling a die, I’m just going to skip right over the passage, knowing that if I read it I’ll either be bored to death (if I understand it) or have an unpleasant panic attack (if I don’t).

In fact in the coda at the end of the book Paulos explicitly says it has mostly been about probability – God, I wish he’d explained that at the beginning.

Right at the very, very end he briefly lists key aspects of probability theory which he claims to have explained in the book – but he hasn’t, some of them are only briefly referred to with no explanation at all, including: statistical tests and confidence intervals, cause and correlation, conditional probability, independence, the multiplication principle, the notion of expected value and of probability distribution.

These are now names I have at least read about, but they are all concepts I am nowhere near understanding, and light years away from being able to use in practical life.

Innumeracy – or illogicality?

Also there was an odd disconnect between the broadly psychological and philosophical prose explanations of what makes people so irrational, and the incredibly narrow scope of the coin-tossing, baseball-scoring examples.

What I’m driving at is that, in the long central chapter on Pseudoscience, when he stopped to explain what makes people so credulous, so gullible, he didn’t really use any mathematical examples to disprove Freudianism or astrology or so on: he had to appeal to broad principles of psychology, such as:

  • people are drawn to notable exceptions, instead of considering the entire field of entities i.e.
  • people filter out the bad and the failed and focus on the good and the successful
  • people seize hold of the first available explanation, instead of considering every single possible permutation
  • people humanise and personalise events (‘bloody weather, bloody buses’)
  • people over-value coincidences

My point is that there is a fundamental conceptual confusion in the book which is revealed in the long chapter about pseudoscience which is that his complaint is not, deep down, right at bottom, that people are innumerate; it is that people are hopelessly irrational and illogical.

Now this subject – the fundamental ways in which people are irrational and illogical – is dealt with much better, at much greater length, in a much more thorough, structured and comprehensible way in Stuart Sutherland’s great book, Irrationality, which I’ll be reviewing and summarising later this week.

Innumeracy amounts to random scratches on the surface of the vast iceberg which is the deep human inability to think logically.

Conclusion

In summary, for me at any rate, this was not a good book – badly structured, meandering in direction, unable to explain even basic concepts but packed with digressions, hobby horses and cul-de-sacs, unsure of its real purpose, stopping for a long rant against pseudosciences and an even longer lament on why maths is taught so badly  – it’s a weird curate’s egg of a text.

Its one positive effect was to make me want to track down and read a good book about probability.


Related links

Reviews of other science books

Chemistry

Cosmology

The Environment

Genetics and life

Human evolution

Maths

Particle physics

Psychology