Like many others, I remember the Roald Dahl books that I read, or had read to me, during my childhood fondly, including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, and especially, Matilda. Perhaps because I expected to have the same childhood reading adventure as I had with those books, I liked, but did not love, The BFG. I think that Dahl's idea for the story is a creative one, but little things, such as the puns on the names of countries when the BFG describes the taste of "human beans" in those countries, or what I think were stereotypical remarks at the end of the novel. For instance, when Dahl describes thankful world leaders bestowing gifts upon Sophie and the BFG for saving their people from man-eating giants, he writes that "The Rule of India sent the BFG a magnificent elephant...The King of Arabia sent them a camel each. The Lama of Tibet sent them a llama each" (pp. 204-5). However, to me, the worst line was when the Queen of England called the Sultan, "next best thing" to a Lord Mayor to ask him whether any of his subjects had mysteriously disappeared recently, and he responds, "Every night unpleasant things are happening in Baghdad...We are chopping off people's heads like you are chopping parsley" (p. 174).
To be fair, the novel was copyrighted in 1982, and probably written before such things were widely considered inappropriate, and the book is widely engaging and creative. Some would also say that these things are "just jokes," that they were silliness written for the amusement of children. In spite of the fact that the novel was written over two decades ago, I do not think that children should just absorb these lines, because they are most likely reading this book at the suggestion of an adult who is, in their mind, only supposed to give them "good" books. The children would most likely read these lines and the stereotypes exoticizing non-Western countries would persist.
Another niggling doubt about the book was the resolution with the giants being imprisoned in a giant pit, doomed to eat disgusting snozzcumbers for the rest of their lives. I think that Dahl was well-intentioned in including the conversation between the BFG and Sophie about how humans make their own rules, and giants make their own rules and that the rules don't coincide. When I got to this conversation, which included the the BFG basically telling Sophie that it was somewhat judgmental or short-sighted of her to immediately think of the other giants as bad, because humans, unlike giants, kill their own kind all the time, I thought that the story was incredibly promising. However, the story ended as they typically do, especially in "children's" literature, with the "bad" guys getting captured and the "good" guys living happily ever after without the moral ambiguity that Dahl touched upon in that one particular conversation between Sophie and the BFG. I think that it might have been more interesting if it was ever brought up that perhaps giants just eat humans just as humans eat bacon, sausage, and eggs, just as Sophie, the BFG, and the Queen did at the end of the story, and that perhaps the solution would be to respect all life, just as the BFG always had (before uncharacteristically eating all that bacon and sausage at the end of the novel) because he could hear the world's suffering. Instead, as I mentioned, the story has a more typical ending, and it is emotionally acceptable that the human-eating giants are imprisoned with disgusting food for the rest of their lives (and the Queen is humane for imprisoning them rather than killing them, to boot) only because Dahl portrays the giants as disgusting throughout the entire novel. Although the giants are portrayed as mean in the scene during which they toss around the BFG, emphasis is continuously on how the giants are "half-naked and disgusting" in their appearance and smell. Thus, emphasis is placed on their physical, rather than moral disgustingness, and to me, this is too reminiscent of the way that we vilify those who are different than us to justify our inhuman treatment of them.
In closing, although I enjoyed this book because of Dahl's creativity in coming up with a BFG and a dreamblower, etc, I don't think that it should hold such a coveted place in children's literature because it is somewhat outdated in its attitude, and there are many, many wonderful children's adventure novels out there with which to replace it. I think that it would be a good novel to discuss with kids, but I don't think that parents/teachers should just give it to kids an example of a "good book" because remember loving it during their childhood.
P.S. It's a little frustrating that people just think I'm being "oversensitive" or that I'm just another crazy person who wants everything to be PC. I don't think that my reaction to this book was knee-jerk (for instance those people who refuse to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and/or think it has no merit because of the use of the n-word). I've said many good things about this book. Heck, I even liked it. I just pointed out that I don't think that it's perfect, my reasons for not thinking that it's perfect, and that there are plenty of great books out there for kids to read, so people should at least think a millisecond about what they recommend to kids (about the content, child's maturity, and child's personal preferences) instead of just pushing their own childhood favorites on them.