Five Go Off to Camp (Famous Five #7)
** spoiler alert **
Blurb (I'll use the brief summary by Poppy Hutchinson in
http://www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, since the book blurb seems rather uninformative): When the Famous Five go camping, in the company of Julian and Dick's eccentric school-teacher: Mr Luffy, surely they can't fall into adventure, in the quiet and lonely moorland that surrounds them? But, of course, somehow, they manage too, and find themselves on the trail of Spook Trains that appear, out of nowhere, in the dead of the night! Accompanied by their new friend, from a local farm: Jock, they venture out into the night, to investigate the extraordinary appearance of these peculiar trains, only to expose themselves to some of the most dangerous criminals they have faced, yet...
Random thoughts:
The book starts with the children planning their camping holiday during the summer. The beginning reminds me somewhat of Five Go Off in a Caravan, only a bit worse, because in Caravan that start seemed filled with more wonder and opportunity. In that book the children are lying on the grass, daydreaming about the fun they are going to have, while here they are in a room with a map, making plans in a more matter-of-fact way. Well, I guess it's normal; they are more experienced now, after all. Also, this time they are going to have an adult chaperone, Mr. Luffy, which is sure to cramp their style. At least that's what I thought, before meeting Mr. Luffy.
OK, so as the story got moving I thought this might be like Caravan, only not as good, but happily I found out that this book has pleasures of its own. One of them is Mr. Luffy. What a great character! He's one of those absent-minded professors EB likes creating, but how unlike Uncle Quentin he is. Good-natured, kind, with a sense of humor and none of Quentin's fierceness, he is surprisingly good with children. He gives the Five all the freedom they want, but not just because he is so absent-minded and obsessed with hunting for interesting insects, but also because he has an unusual ability to understand when to give them space. Oh, and he also can wiggle one of his ears! In the beginning he is thinking that he'll teach the children all about insects, but luckily for them he never seems to act on that. As a guardian he is not ideal from an adult point of view, though. He is forgetful, after all, and irresponsible in some ways, like the way he drove too fast, forgetting all the time that they were towing a trailer.
A couple of unimportant camping nitpicks: In the moors they use streams as a source of drinking water, without bothering to boil it or anything. However, considering that there are sheep and other animals around, that seems strange to me. Also, Blyton makes it sound as if sleeping on the ground in sleeping bags is more comfortable than it really is.
Mr. Luffy lets them camp away from him, so as not to spoil the children's fun. At some point one of the boys joke that they don't need to fear that Mr. Luffy will come running to check whether they have brushed their teeth of are wearing a warm jersey. Maybe he should have checked the teeth-brushing, though, as shown when the children go to sleep and eat chocolate in their sleeping bags.
I had to laugh at Anne's reaction to the "volcano", although I had to admit I was mystified until Mr. Luffy explained about the trains and underground tunnels. Quite cool of Mr. Luffy to keep the secret about Anne's scared reaction but occasionally teasing her gently about it.
One problem reading (or listening) these books as an adult is how obvious the bad guys are. Normally we know as soon as we meet them. Here we are immediately suspicious when we are told how surprisingly wealthy the farm was, and when we meet the nasty Mr. Andrews we know he is up to something. His stepson Jock and Mrs. Andrews are nice, though. I felt kind of sorry for them when we first met them, thinking that their lifestyle was going to be spoiled once the Five uncovered whatever criminal activities Mr. Andrews was involved it, which would get rid of the source of the money he poured on the farm. On the other hand, once I saw more of him, I knew they would be better off without him anyway.
Jock is a standard friend/ally of the children. Nice and eager enough, but not such as memorable a character as Mr. Luffy.
There was a very funny scene when Dick is in his sleeping bag and Mr. Luffy arrives and Dick, thinking it's Timmy, starts telling him to go away and not jump on him and put his paws on him when he is trying to sleep. Reading it nowadays in this less innocent time, it can even have a double meaning that Blyton clearly had not meant. I wonder if it's edited out in the "modern" revised edition.
The setting is really atmospheric. I found myself enjoying the pre-adventure part a lot. The adventure part is also quite good, but there were a few things that spoiled part of my enjoyment:
First, we have Jock and the Five's meanness to Cecil Dearlove. It's just an incident, and yes, I understand that Cecil is unlikable: a tattle-teller, cowardly, just-not-fun-at-all boy. But what did he do exactly to deserve being bullied just for being unlikable? This would have not bothered me much as a boy, I admit, because children often have less empathy in these situations. Let's not exaggerate, nothing really bad was done to Cecil, but they were rather mean to him. Not something to be proud about regarding the Five, who are so likable in many other ways. I have listened to the first seven books in the series now, and this is the second time I have had reservations about something the children do. The first time was in Five Run Away Together, when they were mean to (S)Tinker the Sticks' dog. They were also mean to Edgar Stick, but I don't count that against them, since Edgar clearly started it and was a nasty piece of work. Anyway, the children are not perfect, and that's OK with me, but what seems a bit off-putting is that Blyton seems to think that behavior is fine, or at least that's my perception of how she treats the incident.
OK, so that's one thing. As I said, that would not have bothered me as a boy, and as Enid Blyton herself said, she is not concerned about the opinion of critics over 12 years old. There's a large tradition in children's literature of minor lack of empathy against unpleasant children, after all. However, what would have bothered me as a boy is how the others treat George at some points here. Anne doesn't want to go look for the "spook trains" in the tunnels, so George is kept away from the adventure because someone needs to stay with Anne. What? Anne is a bit out of character there because, although she is scared, she does want to be included in the adventures, even if she likes them better when they are over. But even accepting she wants to sit this one out, is it really unacceptable to leave her alone for a while at camp, even if it's during the night? Can't another solution be found, possibly involving Mr. Luffy, who is quite understanding of the children's escapades? The boys were kind of nasty about this: they not only try to leave George out of the night expeditions, they also "punish" her for getting in one of her moods about it. After George asked whether they'll let her come next time Julian says "Certainly not. This is my adventure and Dick's—and perhaps Jock's. Not yours or Anne's." Way to be a jerk there, Julian. In his defense, George had been kind of nasty too, calling Anne coward.
Again, what bothers me is not that the children have a row. That happens sometimes in childhood friendships. What bothers me is how the author seems to assume that George is automatically in the wrong here. Dick and Anne side with Julian without question, and George herself assumes it's her fault for being silly and moody and eventually apologizes. But really, she's not being silly. Are they or are they not friends? Do friends act like that, knowing very well how much George is going to hate it? I'm trying to be fair here and avoid judging this our current values, when this was written and is set in the 40s. I accept society gave boys and girls different roles then, and that the values of the time held that girls needed to be looked after. Anne likes being looked after and I'm perfectly OK with that. But not George. Just treat him like a boy already, idiots. Or if you sometimes can't, if your social conditioning pushes you to protect the girls in certain situations, at least don't be jerks about it. The row here goes beyond other let's-protect-George-because-she's-a-girl incidents in the series, and I would like to see it addressed instead of instantly forgotten. I know that's not going to happen, though. It's a pity, because I find this stuff regarding the dynamics of the characters' relationships very interesting (that's one of the reasons I loved Go Adventuring Again even though it was adventure-light), and dealing with that a bit more would have made the books better.
Oh, well... at least George got to shine, looking for the trains on her own and later rescuing the boys, who had been taken prisoner. Even Anne showed that when it was necessary she could master her fears and show courage.
One more problem with the story: like in Smuggler's Top, the bad guys' plan here made little sense. Why on Earth did they need such a complex operation involving trains and abandoned train tracks and tunnels? This is something that I find easy to forgive because I'm trying to enjoy these as a child, while savoring the details and the atmosphere as an adult, and this would have bothered me little as a boy. I would just have accepted it as the nefarious plot of the bad guys, and just enjoyed the spooky atmosphere and thrilling danger, without needing a clear reason for the bad guys to act that way.
OK, so I guess that's it. I have spent a lot of time talking about the problems with the story, but actually I found it quite enjoyable to read. There was just a slightly bittersweet taste left for me, mainly for the treatment of George. The other flaws I care less about.
Next up: Five Get Into Trouble (Famous Five, #8)
That sounds fun!
