There is this unspoken assumption

[Yak]

That Blyton herself would have been horrified and or distressed at changes to her books but do we know this for definite? I think that the majority of the changes that have been made are hugely unnecessary and the books should have been left as they are but do we know for SURE that she would not, in fact, have supported the removal of, for instance, racial stereotypes in her books? If she was as good and as kindly a person as she is popularly perceived as being, might it not be the case that she'd be distressed to think that there were passsages in her books that in the 21st century cause hurt and offence and might she not have wanted them to be removed?

Just speculating Did she ever say anything on the subject before her death .. had there even beeen any revisions at that point?

[Julie2owlsdene]

That's a good point you've made. But I don't think we'll ever know the answer to that particular question.

I don't think the text of her books should be changed. They were written in the 30's 40's 50's and early 60's. Times were different then. I'm sure that any reader is quite capable of looking to see when the book was first published and realize that times were different.

I wonder if they change the text to the books Shakespeare wrote? I've not read any so I wouldn't know.

[Kitty]

I wonder if they change the text to the books Shakespeare wrote? I've not read any so I wouldn't know.

Once at school our order of set text English Lit books didn't arrive until half-term. In the meantime we had 60s hardbacks dug up from a storeroom. They had edits, the staff made us write in the extra bits with extreme disapproval that anyone could be so crass as to edit Shakespeare on 'moral' grounds.

I think the Victorians made a habit of editing Shakespeare for children!

Sometimes I think that if the books aren't fit for public consumption as they are now, if they do cause widespread hurt and offense, then they ought to be allowed to die with dignity. I worry that they'll eventually be more of a philosopher's axe than anything else. I don't suppose it'll be long before Fatty becomes Freddie.

I had some abridged and updated books as a child - Dickens and Wilde. I was angry when I found out that they had been tampered with, and I don't think they'd have been bought for me if my parents had known.

[Yak]

They do not but then, Shakespeare was not writing for children

ETA I've never heard of Dickens being edited .. that would reallly annoy me.

[Aurélien]

Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is,
Why should Enid Blyton's children's books be 'edited' (ie hacked) when this mostly doesn't seem to happen to children's book of lasting value by other writers?

Can one imagine, for example:

• Stevenson's TREASURE ISLAND with Long John Silver's missing leg restored, allegedly in order to soothe the wounded feelings of amputees everywhere;
  Arthur Ransome's Lakeland adventures, with the children using motorboats, 'cos rowboats and sailing boats offend against someone's view of child labour laws;
  Barrie's PETER PAN with Peter and the lost children grounded 'cos they haven't got pilot's licences?

I could go on, and each of us can think of, er, 'lashings' of other utterly ridiculous changes that the pc brigade would probably like to make......

‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’, steam escaping from his ears and nostrils.

[Ming]

Just speculating Did she ever say anything on the subject before her death .. had there even beeen any revisions at that point?

I don't know whether she said anything, but Tony once posted a page from her workbook somewhere. Listed in Enid's handwriting was the stories for a certain book, and one of them had Golly in the title. Another scan showed the contents page of the published book. Golly became Teddy and Enid had marked question marks around it and underlined "Teddy".

Can't imagine what she might have thought!

[Moonraker]

there were passsages in her books that in the 21st century cause hurt and offence and might she not have wanted them to be removed?

Hmm, interesting. Is this fact that her writing has caused "hurt and offence"? It would be interesting to know the ages and races of the children who have been so harmed; also the numbers involved. I mean, is it isolated cases of chidren or whole races?

[Petermax]

I cannot imagine any passages in a Blyton book causing hurt and offence, save for those containing the 'N' word. This seldom occured fortunately. Also, can anyone explain the needless change from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal in post 1971 editions of the books?

[Tony Summerfield]

Also, can anyone explain the needless change from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal in post 1971 editions of the books?

I find the currency situation laughable and I have often mentioned it in interviews, but it is not a quote that ever gets used. In Adventures of the Wishing Chair, Peter and Molly go into an antique shop with 3 shillings to buy a birthday present for their mother. In 1937 this might have been a reasonable amount, but editors realised that it needed to be updated for the current editions and also inflation should be taken into account, so they raised it to (drum roll) - 35p! Mother will not get a very substantial present!

On the subject of causing offence, it seems to me that the people who normally kick up all the fuss, are doing so on behalf of others who they feel should be offended, and normally aren't! Enid Blyton enthusiasts who take strong exception to golliwogs are mostly white (or is that a racial word as well!).

[Rob Houghton]

I think it's impossible to say whether Enid would have supported the changes or not. After all, she died 40 years ago, and had she lived, then she would no doubt have changed with the times, at least a little. If she had been writing now, she wouldnt have been a Victorian-born author, and would probably have had different views. She would have been brought up and lived in a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, and so her views would have been coloured by this.

I don't think we can ever truly say what she would have thought, because she was a child of a different era. A lot of the changes being made in her books nowadays wouldnt even have occured to us when we read them in the fifties, sixties or seventies, because we, too, were living in a different era.

Enid as we know her wouldnt have been Enid as we know her if she had been born in any time other than that in which she was born, and her books would probably have been totally different then anyway

[Yak]

Enid Blyton enthusiasts who take strong exception to golliwogs are mostly white (or is that a racial word as well!).

I have talked with at least one black Blyton fan who was offended and hurt by some of the references... though she still did like Blyton and recognised that they occured in the context of a different era. Nonetheless this person felt that they references to such things as Gollies should not be there.

[Aurélien]

Apart from the irritation of being banned by the pc busybodies from a range of activities, possessions and (at my age) memories "for our own good", what old Aurélien finds most depressing about the sort of 'political correctness' at one remove that Tony and Moose/Yak both refer to above is that it is all done in such a po-faced manner.

I'm surely only one of many in thinking that when we lose (or are barred from) the ability to laugh at ourselves, our foibles and our follies, something of the savour goes out of life.

[Rob Houghton]

That hits it right on the head. PC folk usually seem to have a very serious outlook, and seem to want to impose it on others.

[Moonraker]

I think we owe our friend Moose/Yak a debt of gratitude for the publicity that she has given out old friend the golliwog. We seem to be promoting him in several threads at the moment!

[Julie2owlsdene]

I think we owe our friend Moose/Yak a debt of gratitude for the publicity that she has given out old friend the golliwog. We seem to be promoting him in several threads at the moment!

What great rhythm they've all got