Stinker Appreciation Society

[pete9012S]

Timmy 'savages' Stinker.

The level of feeling,love and concern for this poor mistreated little Doggie Tinker aka Stinker is overwhelming and extremely moving.

He's only mentioned in one book,but his mistreatment by his owners,Timmy and yes even the Famous Five themselves is unacceptable.


Sprayed mercilessly with pure,ice cold Kirrin water by the supposedly sensible Julian.

What shocked me the most is that my beloved Betty Maxey doesn't even bother to illustrate him!!
That surely is an oversight of mammoth proportions.


Even on Kirrin Island,no respite for poor Stinker.Savaged once again by the brutish Tim.

What fate befell this poor mistreated creature back in the days when this story was first written?
Who who take care of him? A local fisherman? Were there animal rescue centres back then?
Would you have given him a home and the tender love and care he surely deserved??


Along with the savaging from Timmy and merciless name calling from the Five he was pelted with heavy sods and clods of earth.

He rehabilitation would not have been easy.Savaged by the Sticks and then the Kirrins and Timmy would have left him frail,nervous and in need of cuddles and love.


It's all Tim,Tim,Tim as Betty Maxey focuses on Tim's attempted poisoning and completely ignores the plight of the badly mistreated Stinker.

[Daisy]

No respite for Tinker - Pa Stick kicks him when he whines in the dungeons, sensing the hidden presence of the Kirrins plus police.
And Mrs Stick lashing out seems not to care which dog she hits... "Mrs Stick appeared with a stick and lashed out, not seeming to mind which dog she hit."
And Julian aimed the hose at both dogs ... before turning it on Edgar!

[Poppy]

Remembering their treatment of poor Tinker, my estimations of the Julian, Dick George, Anne and Timmy have actually gone down. Rereading these pages yesterday, I was quite shocked at their un-provoked attitude towards the small dog. It reminded me of the opening Chapter of The Land of Far Beyond when the children stone a poor little dog, rescued by the Stranger. In this Passage Enid describes it like it is a shocking ordeal, describing the children involved as 'bad' and 'dreadful', wheras in Five Run Away Together, Tinker receives no sympathy, whatsoever. Neverthless, Mrs Stick always seemed quite protective over her dog - defending him, when Timmy attacks him; whether this is because she doesn't like the children, or because she genuinely wants to protect her dog, isn't clear, however. In one case, she is described to lash out at the dogs 'not seeming to mind which dog she hit'.

[Courtenay]

I'm sorry, but good old Pete's post has me in fits of laughter much more than waves of sympathy!

[Daisy]

I guess that may have been his intention Courtenay!

[Julie2owlsdene]

I'm afraid I'm one of these people who can't stand cruelty to defenceless animals. I try not to read acts of this sort and as mentioned I'm not a lover of this particular book.

I know Pete has his own dog and is a dog lover, and his posting is as mentioned intended to cause laughter. But I always think when reading such books as this one mentioned that some doggie out there is at this moment being treated badly, and world wid every minute of every day.

Cruelty is not funny in my eyes, even though this post is meant to be as such, and Tinker a ficticious dog! Enid was an animal lover we know, and yet sometimes she did write how some people are cruel etc, so I'm one of these people who think that Tinker was treated badly. An innocent little dog with horrid owners, and treated badly by the F.F.

[Moonraker]

Cruelty is not funny in my eyes, even though this post is meant to be as such, and Tinker a ficticious dog!

I was beginning to wonder if anyone realise that! I've never seen any harm in this, certainly not dreadful cruelty - treating it as simply a scene in a children's book. I wonder though, if any children were encouraged to treat their own pet dog in this way? I wouldn't have thought so.

The treatment of this wretched dog seems to be held in greater disgust by most of you than the treatment meted out to Jennifer Armstrong!

[Julie2owlsdene]

Cruelty extends to the poor child too, Nigel. Leaving a child locked up in a dungeon, lonely and frightened. Sadly I know the book is only a story, but it is a cruel story really.

I don't think children read it in that context though, maybe only an adult would. Who knows!

[Lenoir]

As a child it was just a great story and the Sticks and the dog were enemies of the Five. It's only later as an adult that I started to take Tinker's side more.
Leaving the Armstrong girl locked up alone in a dungeon was cruel, but it made for a good story that showed the Sticks meant business.

[Farwa]

I'm sorry, I disagree with Pete here. Edgar invited the Famous Five to treat him bad, and as for the dog, although I also support animal rights, in the story, a dog with such bad owners would be trained to be bad. And they weren't that bad to Edgar and the dog, after all!

[Ming]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone realise that! I've never seen any harm in this, certainly not dreadful cruelty - treating it as simply a scene in a children's book. I wonder though, if any children were encouraged to treat their own pet dog in this way? I wouldn't have thought so.

Just because it's a scene in a children's book doesn't make it any less cruel.

I do agree with others who have said that when I read it as a child I simply did not think of Tinker's side. His owners were the enemy, therefore, he was also the enemy. But as an adult I can see that it's not entirely Tinker's fault that his owners are the Sticks and he clashes with the Five. He too needs cuddles!

[Carlotta King]

I always felt very sorry for poor Tinker.
I think it seemed pretty obvious that his owners couldn't have cared less about him, or why would his coat have been patchy and motheaten? If they had cared about him they would have got him to the vets and done something about his health.
The Sticks were horrible and didn't care for either pets or people.

If Enid had described him as a normal small white dog (ie with a healthy coat), that might have shown that he was loved by his owners however bad they were, but she described him as a mangy motheaten small white dog, which suggests that his owners didn't give two hoots about him.

I think it's terrible and inexcusable to treat an animal badly or to not offer it kindness just because its owners are bad; its not the animal's fault after all.
Thank goodness not everyone thinks like that eh, or else every animal that had been owned by a bad person would never be shown any kindness!
Just because the owners are bad doesn't mean that the poor animal is bad, it'll be most likely cowering in fear of its horrible owners, rather than being as bad as they are.

[Courtenay]

I still find it a little baffling that a) so many people are wringing their hands in anguish over an entirely fictional dog, and b) so many seem to have missed the fact that Pete's original post carries a certain tone of irony (i.e. laughing up his sleeve at said anguish).

[Poppy]

Well, these scenes of mistreatment concerning Tinker don't exactly make pleasant reading, do they? And what sort of example is it setting? To encourage mistreatment on an innocent dog, unfortunate enough to have unpleasant owners? Honestly - of all the edits Enid's books are undergoing, I am amazed that several passages featuring Tinker have not been removed from recent editions of this book. Perhaps the scenes are more vivid to me, considering my experience, when our dog was attacked.

[Fiona1986]

I still find it a little baffling that a) so many people are wringing their hands in anguish over an entirely fictional dog, and b) so many seem to have missed the fact that Pete's original post carries a certain tone of irony (i.e. laughing up his sleeve at said anguish).

I very much agree. I'm not saying anyone in the books was right (or wrong for that matter) but it is fictional and people aren't always perfect - even those who we would like to be.