There is this unspoken assumption

[Keith Robinson]

I meant to say also, in all seriousness, that the original point of this thread is a good one! Maybe Enid wouldn't have minded the updates in recent editions. I just wish the updates were done more carefully. Like Tony said, it's no good just translating three shillings to 35p; you have to take into account inflation and other factors to make it realistic.

And as I've always said, you can't update one thing and leave other bits "old-fashioned" without confusing poor kids!! Proof of this is when I used to collect the Famous Five books. These were earlier versions with few text changes, BUT they had the 70s TV show covers, so I naturally assumed they were modern books (I first read these around 1979 through the early 1980s). So it was incredibly strange to read about steam trains, and being collected from the station in Aunt Fanny's pony and trap, and numerous stories with colorful gypsy caravans (we had problems with gypsies around my way and they used modern white caravans pulled by gleaming Mercedes).

I don't think Enid Blyton would have approved of such a mish-mash of changes -- and whatever would Julian say??

[Rob Houghton]

-- and whatever would Julian say??

Probably "??!**£$%!!" if it was a modern version!!

[Yak]

LOL

I seem to have - possibly rather unfairly - managed to acquire a reputation on this site as someone who is hugely into changing Blyton books. I am not. More than 99% of the time I like them the way they are, illustrations, old money and all. But I really think that some small things do need to be changed. I don't want to see books in a store featuring a gollywog called 'Nigger'. Why does it have to be, to some people , all or nothing? Why not just change the most obviously hurtful bits and leave the rest?

[Stephen]

I meant to say also, in all seriousness, that the original point of this thread is a good one! Maybe Enid wouldn't have minded the updates in recent editions. I just wish the updates were done more carefully. Like Tony said, it's no good just translating three shillings to 35p; you have to take into account inflation and other factors to make it realistic.

And as I've always said, you can't update one thing and leave other bits "old-fashioned" without confusing poor kids!! Proof of this is when I used to collect the Famous Five books. These were earlier versions with few text changes, BUT they had the 70s TV show covers, so I naturally assumed they were modern books (I first read these around 1979 through the early 1980s). So it was incredibly strange to read about steam trains, and being collected from the station in Aunt Fanny's pony and trap, and numerous stories with colorful gypsy caravans (we had problems with gypsies around my way and they used modern white caravans pulled by gleaming Mercedes).

I don't think Enid Blyton would have approved of such a mish-mash of changes -- and whatever would Julian say??

How about this for a mixture of old and new? I had a children's illustrated Bible as a youngster, and while the general content is reverent and serious, some modern hints stick out like a sore thumb. For instance...

"One day God told Noah about His plan for him. 'I want you, Noah, to build a huge boat with three decks. Choose the best wood and make it 133 metres long, 22 metres wide and 13 metres high.'"

It's obvious what the publishers were trying to do ("Let's teach the kids metric!"), but it just sounds totally silly here from an adult point of view. And while the illustrations are very good, they look pretty bizarre. The backgrounds and clothes suggest Biblical times, but the facial expressions and hairstyles of some of the characters resemble those of everyday people you might see in the street. Jesus is short haired (have you ever seen that depicted before?) and looks uncannily like Eric Clapton!

[Rob Houghton]

I've always found it strange in a book when someone says 'It was a few metres high' or 'they stood just a few metres away' etc, to replace 'a few feet away', which to me sounds more descriptive. People surely still use 'a few yards down the road' as a pose to 'a few metres down the road', when using everyday conversation...at least, I do.

I also wouldnt describe someone as 'so many metres and so many cm tall: it's easier to say 'six feet tall'.. and nor would I say a village was 'so-and-so km away': I would say '2 miles' etc

[Keith Robinson]

To Stephen and Robert, yes, I agree! I was taught both imperial and metric at school, and in work found both equally useful. I used to draw floor plans for internal office moves and used metric measurements. All the desks were known as 1500's and cupboards were 800's and 1200's (all dimensions being millimeters) -- and the floor plans themselves were drawn at 1:50 or 1:100 scale, which is *almost* exactly 1-1/4" or 1-1/8" scale respectively (close enough for rough ideas but not close enough for final plans).

However, after producing such plans for the various bosses within the company, I had to give them square foot totals of their department areas. When "finding buildings" for new offices, the estate agent always worked in feet and inches. When building internal walls, plans show metric measurements, but builders ordered by the foot (and doors were 3 ft whereas door frames were often metric!).

I don't care if the UK "turns metric" but some things will never change. Can you imagine the cost and hassle of changing all the roadsigns to show kilometres instead of miles? Can you imagine changing the mindset of British people? It just wouldn't happen. Same with the height of people. I will never say someone is "nearly two metres tall" -- it sounds ridiculous and just isn't instantly recognizable in the way that 5' 8" might be.

Here in the U.S. you're hard pushed to find even a tape measure that shows metric down one side. I have an old one from the UK which always raises American eyebrows. Everything is feet and inches here.

The idea of Jesus depicted with short cropped hair is funny! It's possible, but.... BTW, I'm not sure how "facial expressions" can be described as modern! "Oh, Cleo, your smile is so... so... modern!"

[Fiona1986]

I absolutely hate metric. The NHS is totaly metricised (if thats even a word).
We weigh our patients in KG (and they always ask - whats that in stones? Especially in a neonatal ward, parents want to know the weight of their baby and to say 2.5kg means nothing to them.)
We measure their heights in metres (and they always ask what that is in feet.)
We measure all the medicines in mls based on the patients weight in kg......

Although feet and inches/ stones and pounds are a bit akward what with them being in 12s and 14s but at least we (as Keith points out) recognise what they mean.

[auscatherine]

Jesus is short haired (have you ever seen that depicted before?) and looks uncannily like Eric Clapton!

Have you ever tried reading the Good News bible? i think that was meant to be a hip, modern version in the 1970s and is cringingly dated now. Give me the King James any day!

[Moonraker]

Give me the King James any day!

Isn't it strange how when a modern edition first comes out, it really looks up to date. However, a few years down the line it looks incredibly old-fashioned - yet the original edition keeps its style. I remember when the 'new' Ford Anglia came out (1959?) it made the VW Beetle look archaic; however, a few years later it was the Anglia that seemed weird, and the Beetle still looked amazing!

[Petermax]

Give me the King James any day!

Well said, just what is the Church trying to achieve by dispensing with the glorious language used in the King James? Is it for fear that such language would not be easily understood, in much the same manner perhaps that some modern editions of Blyton books are needlessly revised?

I remember when the 'new' Ford Anglia came out (1959?) it made the VW Beetle look archaic; however, a few years later it was the Anglia that seemed weird, and the Beetle still looked amazing!

Ah yes the Ford Anglia. That car is somehow reminiscent of an old Aunt wearing horn-rimmed spectacles!

[Anita Bensoussane]

Ah yes the Ford Anglia. That car is somehow reminiscent of an old Aunt wearing horn-rimmed spectacles!

Love it! Sounds like something Snubby might say!

[Yak]

I really don't like metric. I can just about handle it when buying things like deli products ('I'll have a hundred grammes of crumbed ham please!") but when it relates to people I just can't get it. I especially hate it when European friends - and this happens to me more often than you would think - tell me the weight of their new offspring in metric form. I never know whether to ask if the kid is in a special care baby unit or to commiserate with the agony that must have been felt getting such a huge baby out.

[Fiona1986]

I especially hate it when European friends - and this happens to me more often than you would think - tell me the weight of their new offspring in metric form. I never know whether to ask if the kid is in a special care baby unit or to commiserate with the agony that must have been felt getting such a huge baby out.

Babies under 2500g or 2.5kg are classed as low birth weight (under 1500g is very low birth weight, under 1000g is extremely low birthweight and under 750g well thats just terrifying )
Generally babies of these weights will be in a neonatal unit after birth (usually but not always low brithweight babies are also premature). I don't know what weight a baby has to be in Kg before you need to comiserate though!

[auscatherine]

I must admit that I am not really religious so my preference for King James over Good News is purely aesthetic/literary.

I don't care if the UK "turns metric" but some things will never change. Can you imagine the cost and hassle of changing all the roadsigns to show kilometres instead of miles? Can you imagine changing the mindset of British people? It just wouldn't happen. Same with the height of people. I will never say someone is "nearly two metres tall" -- it sounds ridiculous and just isn't instantly recognizable in the way that 5' 8" might be.

Australia turned metric in 1966 and I think we have finally got to the point where most of the population thinks in metric although I do remember when I had my daughter in 1999 that members of the older generation, eg, my parents, were still having to convert her weight into pounds and ounces to tell their friends. Those of us who went to school in the 70s were kind of the pioneers of metric here, ie, we were taught metric at school but still had to know imperial outside school as that was how so many peopel still thought. When I was at high school and university (1980s), I occasionally worked on the fabric counter of a department store and probably had about half the customers placing their orders in metric and half in imperial. I got pretty good at converting then. I can't imagine living in an imperial measurement world though, ie, calculations would be so much harder, I think.

[nlgbbbblth]

Censorship of Blyton's books is unacceptable in any form.

That is why I refuse to purchase modern reprints as presents (or for myself) and insist on seeking out used copies of the editions I grew up with.