The Famous Five Illustrators Compared

[Rob Houghton]

That's a good example, Pete! The only thing I'm really not keen on with Maxey is her dogs. She wasn't really good at animals!

[Anita Bensoussane]

I think Betty Maxey was good at animals when she took her time over them. It's just that many of her pictures seem to have been left (presumably deliberately) at the sketchy stage. I like the animals in these illustrations, for example:

[Rob Houghton]

I agree, Anita - perhaps I should have differentiated between the covers and internals. I think Timmy is often portrayed rather badly in the internals - but on the cover he and other animals are portrayed in a much better way. In fact I often find it hard to believe that the covers and internals are by the same artist! her strength really was colour work.

I've always been a big fan of Betty Maxey's covers, right from a child, when I would gaze longingly at my sisters Famous Fives. I found them exciting and grown-up -- to such an extent that I never read them, as I thought they were teenage books!!

[sixret]

I have always suspected that Betty’s internal illustrations are at the sketchy stage complete with all the unnecessary lines(or the lack of them!) Her talent and quality of drawing is better judged by the covers.

[number 6]

Well spotted Rob. I must check out Betty's handiwork now!

For some reason, I always liked this drawn version of George. She looks like a boy. Maybe it's because I grew up reading the F5 books with these illustrations. A bit of favouritism, perhaps?

[Fatty]

I suppose I'm in that tiny minority that considers Betty Maxey's Famous Five to be superior to that of Eileen Soper's. I understand Soper's illustrations are closer to Blyton's descriptions, but I had not seen them when I first read the books in the late 70s and early 80s. Not till the late 90s, in fact. I never twigged that there was a mismatch in the first place.

So it's Maxey's illustrations that will forever remain the definitive Famous Five for me. While I'm not too fond of 1970s fashion, or particularly happy with Uncle Quentin looking like Lionel Ritchie, my preference is unlikely to change. I bought an early set of Knight paperbacks with the Soper illustrations, but alas, they haven't grown on me. They have their merit, but the characters still look 'wrong', especially Timmy.

For the same reason I will not knock the modern cartoonish depictions. Those who grow up with these 'abominations' (as some of you put it) may well consider them THE Famous Five. It's more a generational thing.

[Rob Houghton]

For the same reason I will not knock the modern cartoonish depictions. Those who grow up with these 'abominations' (as some of you put it) may well consider them THE Famous Five. It's more a generational thing.

I can see where you're coming from - I only read two Famous Fives as a child and they were both 'Famous Five Annuals' - so for me the excellent depictions of The Five in those books - Smuggler's Top and Mystery Moor - were my definitive depictions for many years and it took me ages to get used to Soper's depictions when I first discovered them in the early 2000's.

However, my beef with the very recent depictions is that the children really ARE drawn like cartoons, with no human proportions. If they were just modern depictions in modern clothes, then I could accept your theory - but surely children shouldn't be imagining that the Famous Five are weird sub-human characters...?!

[pete9012S]

We can now compare a similar scene from the 1983 colour annual with the 1978 black and white Look-In version:

[Rob Houghton]

This is very much how I used to view the Famous Five - as my only real influence at the time were the annuals. I always believed The Five were 1970's characters and that Timmy was a border collie. I was a bit shocked when I first saw the Eileen Soper versions years later!

[Courtenay]

Although they're not in line with the era in which the books were written, those 1970s illustrations are realistic and beautifully done and full of drama and feeling. As I think we've discussed before, many of Enid's books, including the Fives, could easily have been set in the '70s or any time before computers / mobile phones etc. became an indispensable part of kids' lives, so "modernising" the illustrations in that way wasn't such a problem until recently. But turning them into cartoony caricatures suggests, to me, that the stories aren't meant to be taken seriously — that they're either for very young children or are meant to be humorous, wacky, fantastical stories like Roald Dahl's. Which is fine for books that fit either of those genres, but the Famous Five don't!!

I really wonder why, just in the last several years, it's been decided that the Famous Five should be illustrated that way, when they had realistic cover designs (as shared on the other thread) less than 10 years ago. I can't believe kids' tastes have changed so drastically in such a short time, so it must be some kind of marketing decision by the publishers, but I honestly don't understand it.

[Rob Houghton]

Yes - my feelings exactly! I might joke about these covers and say how awful they are - but if they were illustrating The Wishing Chair or The Faraway Tree - or better yet Mr Meddle etc, then I would just shrug them off, because they suit the wacky fantasy genre perfectly - even though Id still prefer realistic illustrations personally - but to turn the Famous Five into grinning caricatures seems a bit odd when they have previously always been depicted as real human beings up until 2010 or so.

My worst feeling about this is that they are unlikely to ever revert to realistic depictions. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I can't see it happening.

I'm trying to imagine a serious children's book - like The Northern Lights etc being illustrated in the same way...I'm sure it wouldn't be!

[Courtenay]

My worst feeling about this is that they are unlikely to ever revert to realistic depictions. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I can't see it happening.

I hope you're wrong too. I'm more optimistic — it's quite possible that in another 10 years or so there'll be different editors making different decisions about what's appropriate. Maybe some of them will actually read the Famous Five and realise that not only do the current covers not suit the tone of the stories at all, but several of them actually depict scenes that have nothing to do with the actual plot. I'm talking about Five Go Adventuring Again having a cover depicting the Five in a springtime bluebell wood — this is the one where they're at Kirrin for Christmas and get snowed in — and Five Go Down to the Sea with them merrily building sandcastles, in the adventure where they're on the rugged Cornish coast discovering the ancient "Wreckers' Way" and busting a drug smuggler!!

I'm trying to imagine a serious children's book - like The Northern Lights etc being illustrated in the same way...I'm sure it wouldn't be!

Think again, Rob...



Mind you, while it's not a "realistic" illustration, at least it's dramatic and edgy and intriguing — I can't say how well it suits the tone of the story, as I've never read the book, but it doesn't have a "dumbed-down" feel, which the current FF covers definitely do.

[Fiona1986]

I like that cover for The Northern Lights. It's very stylised but it's not childish or cartoony. The merging of a snowy mountain and Iorek Byrnison is very clever and there are a lot of details like the hot air balloon and the alethiometer worked in, too.

It reminds me of the Harry Potter covers for the audiobooks I have where each has two images within one;
https://io9.gizmodo.com/these-elegant-n ... 1747577496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Courtenay]

They're brilliant — the Harry Potter covers, I mean! Now why can't Enid get a cover illustrator as good as she deserves, these days?