Carlson on the Roof | A Review
Hello everyone, I am the reasonably elevated G.E.M.Simov, a fellow who only rarely goes up to the roof, here to tell you about Astrid Lindgren’s nasty gremlin “Carlson on the Roof”, as found in the compendium “Three Novelettes about Carlson”.
Simple review details - I rank books on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.
Disclaimer - I read a translated version, rather than the original. That could play a role in my conclusions.
Content
Carlson (as I will henceforth refer to the book/novelettes) is for children. At the same time it is terribly improper for children, in the eyes of yours truly, because the character Carlson is a horrendous gremlin who barely has any redeeming qualities and is, without fail, a problem.
That's related to the fact that he is some kind of Fae, some funky folklore-born, but not explicitly so, entity that waltzes about and does mischief. The unfortunate truth of my unawareness of Swedish folk tales leaves me more inclined to say that he is, indeed, some kind of goblin/gremlin/gnome/elf/Fae, who goes about and does mischievous things if people do not appease him.
Now, if that was all there was to it, I would be inclined to give Carlson a pass, but that is not all there is to it, no, not at all. See, Carlson is portrayed as a selfish, gluttonous, most often downright nasty individual who is interesting and entertaining purely based on his eccentricity and novelty. He has a rotor blade on his back and can fly with it, he lives on the roof in a little house, he's an adult in the springtime of his youth, and he's cruel.
There are instances of him tormenting people in the books, and those moments of inflicted torment are played for laughs, even though the human character who goes along with Carlson considers, for a moment, that the folks who are suffering the terrible psychological damage Carlson is inflicting upon them are not, actually, that bad.
Unfortunately, this does not really get brought up. It is simply there - Carlson rarely does something good for the human characters, aside from having fun and his way of having fun winding up allowing fun to be had together with him, and then that's that. There are also many times when Carlson has fun at the expense of the human characters - he blows up their expensive toys and brings on a great threat for the entirety of the building he is in, as it could catch on fire. Alternatively, he eats all the candy, or he pretends to be sick so that he can get all the candy and leave none for the others, or he steals from people, and so on.
Ultimately, Carlson fits into the description of being some weird goblin, who would be better suited for teaching kids what not to do. Instead, Carlson is put up on a pedestal as the best thing in the whole wide world, who brings incredible joy in the life of the main character - the Little One.
That could be interpreted as commentary on life in the industrialized city, wherein children are forced to live according to rigid timetables similar to those of their parents, where they need permission to go outside and play with their friends, and even then they do not have as much freedom as they would in the countryside.
Perhaps Carlson is an indication, though bad and discernibly not totally good, even in the eyes of the Little One, that children need excitement and the ability to do mischief. If they are not given it, then they will, perhaps, not grow up right. So then Carlson, even though largely unsavory, could have some good things in him, though merely in the quality of a messenger.
Out of the novelettes, however, I struggle to discern any great life lessons. Sure, there are a few tidbits here and there, but the main thing is that Carlson is an asshole. He is horrible, he is unpleasant, and reading past a certain point just bothered me immensely - this is not a good-natured trickster, like Emil of Lönneberga, this is a downright malicious, selfish entity that enjoys tormenting people, as previously stated. There is room for interpretation, but no young reader will be able to grasp it, and may simply remain enamored by the freedom and carelessness of Carlson.
There's also this manipulative, gaslighting streak in him, which appears more harmful than good, even if the reader recognizes that he is being nasty. After all, he is a bit of a role model, and he is this whimsical, magical thing - in a sense, does he not invite the reader (at least the younger one) to be like him? To gaslight and bemoan fate if things do not go his way, to shift the blame and pout like a child?
There were a few other, slightly better things, but they were tempered by equally unpleasant other elements. As an example, Carlson breaks things and disregards it, claims it is vane and nothing too major, which could be a good point to make, the attachment to material possessions folks have and how deterministic they wind up being for the personhood of their owners, but at the same time Carlson is also fiercely greedy and envious, in a sense. He is protective of his own possessions, greatly so, which leaves this oddly unpleasant contradiction, leading into him just being an asshole.
There is also an attempt to introduce the concept of forgiving and forgetting, while not emphasizing on the forgetting, but it is quite difficult, considering the way everything else swirls about itself in the stories.
No, this was definitely one of the least pleasant offerings that Astrid Lindgren has presented. It was neat to decipher that Carlson is some kind of Fae creature, and to try and find some interpretation regarding what could his existence mean, but aside from that, the novelettes are really lacking.
1/3
Richness of Expression
It’s good. The author has what it takes to go for it, and even the translated version that I read was decent.
3/3
Story
Now, abstracting oneself from the horrid mongrel that Carlson is, the stories told in this book are rather entertaining. However, he is absolutely gruesome, and every interaction involving him leaves such profound repulsion in the reader, that it is actually rather difficult to find any enjoyment in the stories.
When Carlson is introduced (in that particular story) he is interesting, but then he shows off how callous he is by destroying a toy and not being at all apologetic. When he interacts with other characters, Carlson is just unpleasant, that’s all there is to it. He cares about himself exclusively and about what brings him pleasure, and that is shown off in how he treats the old lady Rog (whom he almost gives a heart attack to, on purpose, because she was stern), or how he terrifies a pair of thieves to a terrible extent. Granted, the thieves are thieves, they’re not nice people, and so his acts are somewhat heroic, but then when it comes to the old lady Rog…
He’s just mean to her. He is just mean to her for no reason at all, and he subjects her to tremendous public humiliation on TV!
These stories that one might find in this book, the novelettes, are not rich in teachable moments, because Carlson, even if he is very childish, is an entity that does not really want to change, and so he’s just this brick wall that the other main character, the Little One, must contend with, must slam his morals and taught etiquette against. If Carlson were a decent entity that was not that selfish, this could be a very interesting critique of societal norms and behaviours, how they are rationalized by children and their educators, but Carlson is a villain, more than anything, and so he does not work as a good juxtaposition for the Little One.
As stated, the stories can be considered neat and even fun, if the reader is a child with still-developing empathy (because the novelettes including grandma Rog are heart wrenching and I feel so bad for this old woman that I can barely keep reading out of disdain for Carlson and an astonishment at how this is ‘fun’), or an adult who read them once and has retained an underdeveloped sense of empathy.
1/3
Legendary Point
Does this book get the Legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time? NO, Carlson is horrible!
Reading this in my adult years, I was absolutely flabbergasted by it. This character is so insidious and vile, and the books themselves are so reminiscent of how a bully in school interacts with his/her victims, and not in an individual sense, in this targeted, group-based harassment effort that less social kids wind up being the victims of, that it makes the stomach turn. It’s downright cruel, that’s what it is, and as a children’s book it fails spectacularly! (unless, of course, if the goal was to teach kids empathy by showing them someone being mean to others, but that someone is regarded as a beloved children’s story character, not the wretched little monster he is, so it has failed in that regard too!) 0/1
Conclusion
5/10. This score is too high, but it is such because the author is an exceptionally competent author. How come she is the same person who wrote the Brothers Lionheart? I can’t believe it.
Carlson on the Roof is a character/book that I recommend to no one, especially not children, because the effect it might have on them, in normalising cruelty to others for the sake of pleasure, could be harrowing, especially when one considers that cruelty to others for the sake of pleasure is still rather common.
On the wall of shame, even if its score merits a bag of mediocrity, I hang it and hope to never find its ilk again!