"The Way up to Heaven": A Feminist Reading

In “The Way up to Heaven,” Roald Dahl blatantly critiques the accepted societal roles of women in the mid-twentieth century while simultaneously critiquing the way the feminists went about achieving their aims.

The main character in “The Way up to Heaven” is a housewife by the name of Mrs. Foster. Mrs. Foster has an important character flaw. She has “an almost pathological fear of missing a train, a plane, a boat, or even a theatre curtain.” The fear would throw her into quite a state, so much so that her left eye would begin to twitch and the twitch “refused to disappear until an hour or so after the train or plane or whatever it was had been safely caught.” This nervous flaw is the instigator of the entire plot. Dahl sets up the story by introducing Mrs. Foster and her nervous tendency and then begins the next paragraph by saying, “It is really extraordinary how in certain people a simple apprehension about a thing like catching a train can grow into a serious obsession.” This is much like an outside commentator coming in—an example of authorial intrusion. The purpose of this intrusion is to preface the story with the message he wants to get across. That is, to point out the fact that people often take a small thing and turn it into an unnecessarily large thing. Within the context of the story, it is likely that Dahl is referring to feminism.

As Dahl moves into the story he paints a picture of both Mr. and Mrs. Foster and their relationship. Mr. Foster is given a position of power in the marriage as Dahl describes his reaction to his wife’s “foolishness.” Mr. Foster “must have been well aware of her state,” and “must have known—that she would never dare to call out and tell him to hurry. He had disciplined her too well for that.” The “discipline” that Dahl describes speaks of the power that men had over their wives. By describing Mr. Foster in this way, Dahl illustrates the power position customary in society in the mid-twentieth century.

As the protagonist of the story, Mrs. Foster is mentioned many times. However, Dahl never mentions her first name in the story; he always refers to her as Mrs. Foster. In contrast, he does mention her husband’s full name of “Mr. Eugene Foster.” By only allowing us to view the protagonist as Mrs. Foster, Dahl illustrates that women were given definition in society only through their husbands. Women had no role of their own. The seemingly small decision on Dahl’s part to exclude Mrs. Foster’s first name actually tells much about the society of his time.

In accordance with this lack of personhood, Mrs. Foster is described as an “unhappy lady,” and a “poor woman” who “had developed a great yearning to set eyes on her grandchildren.” Through this description, it is obvious that Mrs. Foster is not content with the life she leads. The adjectives “unhappy” and “poor” are skillfully used to lead the reader to feel sorry for Mrs. Foster. However miserable she may be, Dahl does not neglect to mention that, “Mrs. Foster was and always had been a good and loving wife” and had “served him (Mr. Foster) loyally and well.” The phrase “was and always” implies that Mrs. Foster perpetually and unwaveringly fulfilled her domestic duties. However, it does seem clear that she was not happy with the idea of remaining in the purely domestic realm for the rest of her existence. In fact, as the story opens, she is excited about her upcoming escape to Paris to go visit her beloved grandchildren.

On the morning she is to fly out, her husband keeps her waiting and as she waits her thoughts default into stream of consciousness. Two of her thoughts are particularly important as Dahl explains her relationship with her husband. The first is that she “did not really wish to live out her days in a place where she could not be near [her grandchildren],” but she “knew, of course, that it was wrong and in a way disloyal to have thought like these while her husband was still alive.” This last sentence foreshadows what happens in the rest of the story because Mrs. Foster knew it was “wrong” to have such thoughts “while her husband was still alive.” She realizes that her wishes and desires cannot be fulfilled while her husband is still in her life. This sentence also allows us insight into Mrs. Foster’s motivations as the story progresses. Her motivations at this point seem contradictory. Society has instilled in her a duty and a loyalty to her husband while sacrificing her own comfort, but at the same time she is feeling that she must do something to fulfill her duty to herself—a duty that has never been recognized, let alone fulfilled. Mrs. Foster knew that her needs were not being fulfilled and that that should be remedied, but she also could not immediately and completely “discard” her sense of duty towards her husband.

The second important thought is that “it had taken months to persuade her husband to allow her to go” and “he might easily decide she should cancel the whole thing.” The idea that Mrs. Foster did not have the free agency to go visit her daughter whenever she chose to again points out the immense power Mr. Foster has over his wife. In fact, she is almost like the child, begging to be “allowed” to go—allowed to be released from her duties as a housewife and escape, even if just for a while. “He might easily decide she should cancel” illustrates that if he made a decision, she was obligated to go along with that decision, though she may disagree. With all of the power in Mr. Foster’s hands, it is not surprising that Mrs. Foster has reached a critical point in her marriage.

Along with the decision-making power in his marriage, Mr. Foster also has the power to torment Mrs. Foster. He would keep her waiting “and his manner [was] so bland that it was hard to believe that he wasn’t purposely inflicting a nasty private little torture of his own on the unhappy lady.” The phrase “nasty private little torture” shows Mr. Foster’s true character. However, Mrs. Foster does not see that he is “purposely inflicting” pain upon her until they are getting into the car to go to the airport. Mr. Foster makes the car wait while he runs inside the house to look for a present he was going to send to his daughter. “At this point Mrs. Foster suddenly spotted a corner of something white wedged down in the crack of the seat where her husband had been sitting.” The knowledge that her husband had been tormenting her on purpose does not seem to immediately influence Mrs. Foster in the story. However, as we see, Mrs. Foster begins to embrace the feminist motto, “the personal is political.” One of the key elements of the feminist movement in the 1950s and 60s is the removal of the “personal.” It wasn’t about discarding personal family duties and responsibilities; it was about the “political” oppression that was taking place. The unreasonable assaults by her husband are no longer just things that Mrs. Foster can look past; the relationship, to her, has become “political.”

After the realization that her husband is intentionally cruel, she runs up to the house to get him. As she inserts her key into the lock, she “was about to turn it—and then she stopped…Yes—quite obviously she was listening…trying…to analyze these sounds that were coming so faintly from this place deep within the house.” Mrs. Foster apparently “analyzes” the noises and hurries to the car without her husband. Dahl describes “a peculiar hardness had settled itself upon her features. . . . She felt remarkably strong and, in a queer sort of way, wonderful.” This physical change to “her features” is a signal to the reader that something significant has occurred. Going to the airport without her husband is quite clearly against the nature of Mrs. Foster, though oddly, she felt “strong” and “wonderful.” In the story, Mrs. Foster stepped outside the boundaries of societal behavior and has made a decision on her own. However, it is left to the reader to “analyze” the sounds that Mrs. Foster heard and that caused her to act so drastically.

After this somewhat vague, yet important, pivotal moment, the story continues with Mrs. Foster going to Paris, spoiling her grandchildren, writing weekly letters to her husband, and then coming home. At this point Dahl gives readers two tidbits of seemingly unimportant information. First, Mrs. Foster wrote weekly letters to her husband containing things like, “Now be sure to take your meals regularly, dear, although this is something I’m afraid you may not be doing when I’m not with you.” Again, Dahl is foreshadowing the tragic ending by including the irony of letters concerning food. This also points out a bit of Mrs. Foster’s true character. Second, when Mrs. Foster was leaving Paris, “there was something in her manner and in the things she said that appeared to hint at the possibility of a return in the not to distant future.” These two fragments of information prove very important. Mrs. Foster is apparently playing the role of devoted housewife—concerned about her husband’s well being in her absence. However, as the story demonstrates, Mrs. Foster is struggling with the warring tensions of her own needs and her duties to her husband. Mrs. Foster had reached the explosive level, but Dahl explains that the “pressure was released in some . . . manner.” At this point in the story it is unclear to the reader how Mrs. Foster’s pressure was released, but the change in her is obvious.

When Mrs. Foster arrives in New York, there is no one to meet her at the airport. She takes this information in stride and takes a taxi home. Dahl’s creative brilliance is revealed when the reader discovers how Mrs. Foster had released her steam. Mrs. Foster arrives home, finds no one, goes into her husband’s study, and dials the telephone. After the call, “she replaced the receiver and sat there at her husband’s desk, patiently waiting for the man who would be coming soon to repair the elevator.” This concluding sentence sheds light on the entire story. Mrs. Foster “patiently” waited for the repairman to come and find her dead husband in the elevator. In the end, she won. Mrs. Foster escaped from her tyrannical husband, and is now free to go live near those grandchildren she loves so dearly. Dahl tells a powerful story about feminism that ends with the feminist winning. Or did he?

Roald Dahl is considered by many to be a master storyteller. In “The Way up to Heaven,” Dahl is clearly making a statement about the feminist movement and how oppressed women can and were being pushed too far. In this case, Mrs. Foster is presented as an oppressed and somewhat tortured wife. So, it’s clear that Dahl is making a statement about feminism, but what is that statement? On the surface it seems that he is arguing for women—after all, doesn’t Mrs. Foster gain the ultimate victory over her torturous husband? However, after examining Dahl’s other works and some biographical information, the answer may not be that clear. As one critic stated, “Womanhatred is at the core of Dahl’s writings.” While this may not prove entirely true, there is no doubt that Dahl harbored some “womanhatred” in his soul. In many of his works, both for adults and children, the antagonist is a woman who eventually gets beaten in some form or another. Take, for example, James’ two despicable aunts in James and the Giant Peach. After mistreating poor James for years, they are eventually squashed by the giant peach.

Reevaluating “The Way up to Heaven” from an anti-feminist point of view provides some insight into Dahl’s potential message. One signifier that may indicate an anti-feminist position on Dahl’s part concerns Mr. Foster’s tormenting of his wife. Dahl says things like, “assuming (though one cannot be sure) that the husband was guilty,” and “it is by no means certain that this is what he did [kept her waiting unnecessarily].” The fact that he makes the reader “assume,” while not being “certain” of the husbands actions, allows for the interpretation that it was all in Mrs. Foster’s head. After all, it is entirely possible that he didn’t keep her waiting unnecessarily; perhaps he just didn’t like to leave early. This, too, allows for an assertion against the feminist movement. As stated earlier, Dahl makes the point at the beginning of the story that, “It is really extraordinary how in certain people a simple apprehension about a thing like catching a train can grow into a serious obsession.” After a close reading of the text an interpretation of this statement could be, “It is really extraordinary how in certain women a simple apprehension about a thing like being a housewife can grow into a serious obsession.” While it is not clear that this is the interpretation Dahl would advocate, the story does not allow for it to be ruled out.

The other possible signifier of an anti-feminist undertone is the horrific ending. Mrs. Foster intentionally leaves her husband in a broken elevator before she goes on a six-week vacation to Paris. This ending seems to be doling out poetic justice, but it could also be read as a sadistic feminist getting her way at last—going from “personal” to “political” and taking the “political” into her own hands. This potential criticism of the feminist movement is relayed in an inconspicuous way. However, the critique is planted there for those who wish to see it.

In “The Way up to Heaven,” Dahl systematically lays out his story and beckons the reader to follow him through Mrs. Foster’s ordeal. In the end, it seems as though she has won her battle—the evil, oppressive husband is gone. However, Dahl also leaves the reader with the vague feeling that perhaps Mrs. Foster’s “victory” should not be viewed as a victory at all, but rather as an outlandish response to trivial issues.