I agree. It's one thing for Tinker to be mistreated and neglected by his owners, but quite another for the main protagonists of the book (of whom Enid Blyton often makes a point of portraying as honourable and worthy (truthful, loyal, etc)) to be unkind to a defenceless animal.Poppy wrote:Well, I just find the descriptions disturbing - that's all. And I think it is unfitting that the Famous Five encourage such behavior.
Cruelty aside, treating an animal with contempt and unkindness just because one doesn't like its owners seems to me to be a particularly ignorant and stupid thing to do. If Timmy had been neglected and beaten by an unpleasant owner, would it automatically be ok to despise him, scorn him and treat him as a nuisance? I think not. And I think that therein lies an example of Enid's occasional naivety. She almost always humanised her animal characters to an unrealistic extent, and generally that works well. But the downside of that is that Tinker is tainted by association, and she simply allows that to run, because the Famous Five are the Goodies, and Tinker is one of the Baddies, so to speak. It seems a case of give a dog the name Stick and hang him.
If Tinker had been treated properly, he would have had bright eyes, an inquisitive nose and a tail always ready to wag. In other words, he would have been every bit as appealing (if not more so) than Timmy. Instead his coat is dirty, he apparently has mange, and he seems unsure of exactly where he fits in or what the rules are. Hardly his fault.
Yes, absolutely. But in this case, Enid writes in such a way as to silently condone the Five's behaviour towards Tinker.MJE wrote:fiction writers must be free to portray characters doing unpleasant things on occasion - even the protagonists, or characters the reader will most identify with.
Hear, hear! I heartily agree with this post, and with others that Poppy, Cathy and Anita have made.Julie2owlsdene wrote:I support what you are saying, Poppy. You are a caring person, who has a dog, like myself, and just loves him to pieces. As Anita has said, even when reading fiction, we can take people or certain mentioned animals to heart and want to protect them. Maybe that is the sign of a really good author as Blyton is.I know that Courtenay and a few others has mentioned they don't understand what we're on about as the dog is fictional. Yes, we all know that, but it's the principle of 'cruelty' that I am underlining. It is not a subject to be jovial about. It is a serious matter where animals and children are concerned, that is the point I am meaning.Cruelty goes on, all over the world, but it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make me laugh either!
Good for you, Pete!pete9012S wrote:Today I decided to donate a small sum of money to to two people who seem a little down on their luck in my area.
I don't think it's a cut - he looks like he has a runny eye, which some breeds are prone to (though pretty sure that's a mongrel.)Carlotta King wrote:That's not nice, poor dog, being used like that. I'm guessing that his 'friend' isn't too badly off for money because the dog does actually look very well-fed, although that big cut under his eye isn't good.
I hope that that homeless man treats Dollar kindly considering that Dollar is effectively earning him a good 'wage'.
Wouldn't this thread be better off merged with the other one? It doesn't make sense to have almost the same conversation happening in two different places. Besides, it's all relevant to the book.
