"I can't believe that nobody has pointed out that the term snozzberries never appears in the book version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It was from the 70's movie version, which makes many a stupid change from the book and Roald Dahl HATED that movie. So when he wrote the porno-novel and mentioned snozzberries, he is making fun of the movie. BTW Dahl's family says he would have liked the Johnny Depp version had he lived to see it."
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was written in 1964, 15 years before My Uncle Oswald revealed that the wallpaper was made to taste like the head of a penis.
I would correct this and say snozzberries probably taste like the tip of a penis.
I don't actually see how that changes anything in this case. Sure, he never mentioned them in the first book, but the fact is Dahl acknowledged that snozzberries are dicks to make fun of the movie, which makes it true regardless (unless it's used as a euphemism as /u/starcom_magnate thinks). The article may have gone a step further by applying it to the original work but I didn't.
On the contrary, if the notions were preconceived, and our thoughts were indeed our own, then the facts we heard about things we thought were true wouldn't be true because truth laid in the underlying parenthesis of our minds.
It's like you know you're right so that you can know you're wrong..
Ronald Dahl wrote some absolutely fantastic short stories and novels that were in no way aimed at children. He was an incredibly creepy and fantastic writer.
Aside from the comment regarding the fact that snozzberry doesn't appear in the book, snozzberry could simply be a euphemism for a dick because of its shape. It still very well could be a fanciful fruit, and that the wallpaper would taste like the fruit, and not a dick.
2.2k
u/JCizle Feb 14 '14 edited Feb 14 '14
The kid got his golden ticket the only way he knew how.
Edit: NSFW?