Which characters are best-balanced?

The books! Over seven hundred of them and still counting...
User avatar
MJE
Posts: 2534
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 12:24
Favourite book/series: Famous Five series
Favourite character: George; Julian; Barney
Location: Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by MJE »

     Gee, I don't know about Roger and Diana; from my point of view, I must say that neither of them ever left much impression on me. Perhaps it's been a while since I read one of the books properly. But just the other day I was looking through a couple of them, reading a few passages here or there, but not quite able to get into reading them fully; and I have to say it only backed up my impressions. Barney is quite distinctive, and I think one of my favourite Blyton characters, and Snubby is certainly memorable if not always in such a positive way (seems rather more irritatingly little-boyish now than I thought when I was younger) - but Roger and Diana just don't seem anything much, one way or the other. Is there something I'm missing about them?
     One thing is abundantly clear, though, even from a casual flick through the early pages of any novel: Mr. Lynton *hates* children! He obviously can't stand them being around, and always curses it when they come home for holidays, and can't wait to get back to his office. He should never have fathered children! He's the stereotypical grumpy, remote, intimidating father multiplied by a hundred.
     I guess contraceptives wouldn't have been so readily available then, so it seems most plausible that Roger and Diana were accidents, at least as far as he's concerned. Mrs. Lynton seems a lot nicer, though.
     Does anyone else have anything more positive to say about Mr. Lynton than I can think up? Worse than Uncle Quentin, I think.

Regards, Michael.
Society Member
User avatar
Moonraker
Posts: 22387
Joined: 31 Jan 2005, 19:15
Location: Wiltshire, England
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by Moonraker »

MJE wrote:     Gee, I don't know about Roger and Diana; from my point of view, I must say that neither of them ever left much impression on me.
Me neither! In fact, it is only Snubby and Barney that I can picture! Snubby was too irritating for words and Barney was ruined for me having that dreadful monkey in toe. The strongest character seems to be Miss Pepper. Having said that, I did/do enjoy reading the stories, but find the kids very bland.
Society Member
User avatar
MJE
Posts: 2534
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 12:24
Favourite book/series: Famous Five series
Favourite character: George; Julian; Barney
Location: Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by MJE »

Moonraker wrote:Me neither! In fact, it is only Snubby and Barney that I can picture! Snubby was too irritating for words and Barney was ruined for me having that dreadful monkey in toe. The strongest character seems to be Miss Pepper. Having said that, I did/do enjoy reading the stories, but find the kids very bland.
     I think I find Snubby less likeable now than I once might have. Perhaps with age comes intolerance, but all I seem to see in him now is a grubby, irresponsible, shallow-thinking kid without a brain in his head (even though he's at one point stated to be very intelligent). Yes, I sometimes laugh at his antics; but I can't say I *like* him a great deal. In fact, if I were to meet him in real life, I think my reaction to him might well be similar to Mr. Lynton's!
     That I find one of the main characters not all that likeable may perhaps detract from the series a little. It's good for a series to be based on memorable, distinct characters; but it helps if you also find them likeable. I have to say that I still find the Famous Five among the more likeable groups, despite their much-commented-upon faults. But maybe that's got more to do with all the layers of memories I have with those books than with any objective analysis of the character of the various groups of children in Blyton's series.

     What's your problem with Miranda, Nigel? Do you find her in particular dreadful, or do you think it would be any monkey? Can't say I ever had a problem with her (apart from the total implausibility of a monkey pet, which I found out a year or two when I researched this on various web sites), and (if you can ignore that implausibility) a monkey has capabilities that would make it a very useful pet to have in an adventure, which could enable her to play a real role in the adventure, as against some Blyton pets like Scamper which are little more than hangers-on.

     As for Miss Pepper, she is an example of a certain type of character that Blyton occasionally introduces whom I find quite positive and attractive in many ways. I am referring to people like Joanna (Famous Five), Dimmy (Secret series), or Miss Pepper (Barney series) who are essentially a cook or old governess or someone whom the family have known for many years, who sometimes step in and take care of the children. Enid Blyton makes these characters seem very attractive, almost like a favourite aunt or something of the sort, and they typically come back again and again, book after book, so the reader, as well as the children, develops a sense of warm familiarity with them.
     I know these characters are exactly the type those sour critics of Blyton's work like to pour scorn upon, saying how they are mere glorified servants the children patronize. But I seem to be completely blind to that, if it's there at all. I can only say that, with all these examples, the children are never less than very friendly and affectionate with these older women, who also seem to genuinely care for the children. Maybe I'm not P.C. enough; but I just don't see any problems with this at all.

Regards, Michael.
Society Member
User avatar
Moonraker
Posts: 22387
Joined: 31 Jan 2005, 19:15
Location: Wiltshire, England
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by Moonraker »

MJE wrote:      What's your problem with Miranda, Nigel?
She is an extreme irritant, adding nothing (imo) to the stories. She gets in the way, often gives the game away and should be in the jungle, not on a circus boy's shoulder!

I find most of Enid's 'pets' irritating. The exceptions are Tim (who at least looked after and protected the Kirrins), Buster, who nipped at Theo's ankles and to a lesser extent, Scamper. Kiki was a menace, although I did like her in spite of her constant irritation.
Society Member
User avatar
MJE
Posts: 2534
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 12:24
Favourite book/series: Famous Five series
Favourite character: George; Julian; Barney
Location: Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Pets.

Post by MJE »

Moonraker wrote:
MJE wrote:     What's your problem with Miranda, Nigel?
She is an extreme irritant, adding nothing (imo) to the stories. She gets in the way, often gives the game away and should be in the jungle, not on a circus boy's shoulder!
     I'd have to read the books properly again before commenting further on that. But a monkey could potentially add to a story: I don't know if they can sniff someone's trail like a dog can, but they have hands that can do things, and they can climb - and these could be very useful things in some adventure situations. (E.g.: children get locked in a room or cupboard or something; criminals don't notice the monkey, or, if they do, ignore it as inconsequential; monkey comes up to the door, turns the key, and frees the children; this gives them an enormous advantage over the criminals as long as the criminals are unaware the children have been freed.)
Moonraker wrote:I find most of Enid's 'pets' irritating.
     Tell me, Nigel - do you like animals generally? If not, perhaps you might not like them in fiction, either. Still, I'd wonder whether a person who doesn't like animals would find Enid Blyton's books irritating in many ways, considering how often she includes animals.
Moonraker wrote:The exceptions are Tim (who at least looked after and protected the Kirrins),
     Who couldn't love old Tim, even if they aren't dog lovers (as I'm not particularly)? And he really is useful in an adventure.
Moonraker wrote:Buster,
     Well, I guess he wouldn't be much use as a guard dog, like Tim. But he can at least follow a trail, sniff out clues, and the like.
Moonraker wrote:... who nipped at Theo's ankles
     They are very nippable, aren't they?
Moonraker wrote:... and to a lesser extent, Scamper.
     I never found he added much to most stories. Sometimes he growled at or nipped at a criminal, but they often repelled him with a well-aimed kick which sent him off howling.
Moonraker wrote:Kiki was a menace, although I did like her in spite of her constant irritation.
     Menace? That's a funny way of describing her. I suppose you're referring to the way she could swoop down on criminals and hold them off for a while.
     That I find quite convincing. Once I was with my family at a country hotel east of Melbourne, having lunch, and at one point I went outside for a few minutes' walk; and to the left of the hotel there was an empty field, with a canal or waterway on the opposite side; and as I went over towards the waterway I suddenly found this bird repeatedly dive-bombing me. I could tell from its sounds that it was a plover - I think those are the birds you can occasionally hear calling in the middle of the night, which is unusual for most birds.
     Let me tell you - plovers are extremely scary things! Especially when they are dive-bombing you like missiles. I got out of that area very quickly indeed, although that was a bit difficult due to the rough and unsteady ground. Don't ever mess with plovers! Or magpies, which do the same, although I haven't personally been dive-bombed by a magpie. But it's not for nothing that cyclists paint big eyeballs on the back of the helmets they are required by law in nanny-state Australia to wear, and tie cable-ties into the helmets so that they stick upwards like antennae - which is also supposed to deter magpies. The first time I saw this, I didn't know the reason, and thought the cyclists were off their rockers wearing such extremely silly gear!
     I've also been dive-bombed by a willy wagtail; but that's not in the least scary, and I thought it was inexplicably playing with me. It just ended up being cute, really - although I believe nesting willy wagtails can drive off a wedge-tailed eagle. However, it didn't seem the least bit threatening to me. But a plover or magpie is an entirely different matter, and a most formidable assailant. Don't mess with them if you can possibly help it!
     (Note for British readers: I believe Australian magpies are quite different from the British bird of the same name; and I think wagtails are different too.)
     So I can quite believe Kiki could scare off a criminal. And of course she sometimes misleads criminals to the children's advantage by her speech, and by convincing them (for long enough, at least) that Jack is somewhere other than where he really is. So she is useful in some of the stories.
     That matters to me. Without being able to play a role, a pet in such a story does seem a rather needless appendage added just for its cute appeal, not because the story really needs it. My feeling is that it may be a positive for a story to include a cute animal; but it should never be there solely *because* it's cute.
     (In my story, of course I've got to be careful not to copy any Blyton animal too closely - but Timmy will probably be the model I will most have in mind. I was originally going to include a monkey - but common-sense and a bit of factual research cured me of that idea, which would have taken a bit of doing, especially considering that none of my children are going to have a circus background or even a remotely plausible reason for owning a monkey. I don't know if Enid Blyton knew the truth about monkeys; but I think I feel more constrained by undeniable facts than Blyton did.)

Regards, Michael.
Society Member
User avatar
Moonraker
Posts: 22387
Joined: 31 Jan 2005, 19:15
Location: Wiltshire, England
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by Moonraker »

I believe Miranda did help (instead of her usual hindering) in one of the stories, The Rilloby Fair Mystery?

Yes, I do like animals (I find the word love too strong, unless it qualifies one of my pets). I just find the ones in Enid's stories to be a bit irritating! In the past I have had cats (including several Siamese), fish, budgies, a canary, a cockatiel (called Kiki), tortoises - even a dog! (Revive Julie, someone!)

I beat them all regularly (except the fish) to install discipline into them. They were never treated like humans. :wink:
Society Member
mynameisdumbnuts
Posts: 453
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 05:53
Favourite book/series: Malory Towers, Famous Five, Adventure series
Favourite character: George Kirrin, Darrell Rivers, Bets Hilton
Location: USA

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by mynameisdumbnuts »

I think Miranda and Kiki serve the same function: a bit of comic relief, a bit of help, and they make a change from all the dogs. I don't find either of them realistic, but I enjoy them the same.
"Lucy, you want more backbone -– you've got your wishbone where your backbone ought to be!" -- "House-at-the-Corner"
mynameisdumbnuts
Posts: 453
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 05:53
Favourite book/series: Malory Towers, Famous Five, Adventure series
Favourite character: George Kirrin, Darrell Rivers, Bets Hilton
Location: USA

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by mynameisdumbnuts »

Anita Bensoussane wrote:Interesting comments, Mynameisdumbnuts. It's notable that Diana is the only main girl character in the Barney/'R' Mysteries. Since the youngest (Snubby) is a boy, that means there's no place in that series for a younger "girly" girl who doesn't like adventures/constantly asks for explanations/clings to or hero-worships one of the older ones. If there's anyone who does come across as something of "a filler", it's Roger. He plays his part in the adventures all right, but I feel we don't get to know him as well as we know the others. In Rockingdown he's described as a nature lover and I think there may be a brief reference to that in Rilloby Fair as well, but there's no evidence of it elsewhere and by the time we get to Ragamuffin he's mocking Diana for harping on about the essay she has to write on 'Birds I Have Seen'. I think Diana changes as the series progresses too - though maybe she's just growing up. In the early books she's described as "harum-scarum" and impatient, but in the last two or three books she comes across as much more ladylike and, in Ragamuffin, she spends a lot of time keeping Miss Pepper company.
Very well put, Anita. If I had to pick one of them as filler, it's Roger -- maybe it's because she is the only girl that Diana stands out more. But I wouldn't classify him as filler the way I do, say, Daisy from the Five Find-Outers or Peggy from the Secret series. He very much participates in what's going on.

So many of Blyton's key characters are a certain type, across all series. Elizabeth Allen is the naughty one. Alicia Johns is the mischievous one. George Kirrin is the tomboy. Fatty's the one who's never wrong. Diana and Roger aren't a certain type, and I find that ordinariness (is that a word?) interesting. They come across as so ... regular, and in Diana's case, well-balanced.
"Lucy, you want more backbone -– you've got your wishbone where your backbone ought to be!" -- "House-at-the-Corner"
User avatar
MJE
Posts: 2534
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 12:24
Favourite book/series: Famous Five series
Favourite character: George; Julian; Barney
Location: Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by MJE »

mynameisdumbnuts wrote:Very well put, Anita. If I had to pick one of them as filler, it's Roger -- maybe it's because she is the only girl that Diana stands out more.
     Hmmm... that's not quite enough to me to make her stand out.
     And is it necessarily a bad thing for some characters to be fillers more than others? Might it even be a positive in some way? Or is it always a minus, and should all characters be roughly equal as to distinctiveness? (I'm talking about the group of main characters, not incidental characters who play a minor or passing role in a story?)
mynameisdumbnuts wrote:But I wouldn't classify him as filler the way I do, say, Daisy from the Five Find-Outers or Peggy from the Secret series.
     What about Mike and Nora? They never left much impression on me, either. Is there something I've missed about them, perhaps due to not having read those books all that recently? Jack and Paul seem to have given me the strongest impression as to distinctiveness; and even then, I don't think they are amongst Blyton's very strongest characters.
     If I thought about it, I could probably think up at least one main character from each series that is partly filler. In a few cases, I might even say most of them are.
mynameisdumbnuts wrote:He very much participates in what's going on.
     Oh - well, perhaps that's a slightly different matter to what I had in mind. A character might be filler with regard to the sense of their personality you do or don't get, but still be active enough in the adventure. I was talking mainly about the distinctiveness of their personality, though. With regard to writing my own fiction, I don't think this is one of my strong points, and at times I think it's such a bad flaw that I shouldn't try to write fiction at all. And I think that is holding me back in my latest attempt.
mynameisdumbnuts wrote:So many of Blyton's key characters are a certain type, across all series. Elizabeth Allen is the naughty one. Alicia Johns is the mischievous one. George Kirrin is the tomboy. Fatty's the one who's never wrong.
     Well, not only that, but the one who's really clever, the one who can do almost anything. A Blyton geek, in short, even though that term didn't exist then.
     Is basing a character on a type a good way of creating a character? It probably isn't if you just stick to the type and add nothing more at all; but is it a good basis on which to start designing a character? Or is it better to start with no type at all in mind? But then where do you begin? Is it true that all good fictional characters are based on a real person the author has known? Having recently started a story of my own, this is a matter I have been giving some thought to.
mynameisdumbnuts wrote:Diana and Roger aren't a certain type, and I find that ordinariness (is that a word?) interesting. They come across as so ... regular, and in Diana's case, well-balanced.
     It's true that they don't come across as a certain type; but I don't personally find all that much interest in their ordinariness. It may be a superficial way of creating characters to base them on an obvious type; but it can lend a certain level of interest, although characters based on a type may not be all that deeply portrayed. But in an adventure story, really deep or subtle characterization may not be necessary, though, or even appropriate.

Regards, Michael.
Society Member
stardust
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Oct 2008, 08:35

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by stardust »

Yak wrote:I confess to finding Dinah jolly irritating at times :) but then I also find Lucy Ann a bit drippy and worshipping. Of the two boys I probably like Philip the best but there's not much in it.
I can't stand Lucy-Ann, I always got annoyed at how Bill liked her better than Dinah when I was a kid. I found her drippy and worshipping indeed, I am so surprised that she's so popular on here.

As for well-balanced characters, definitely Andy from the Adventurous Four, he's smart, kind, sensible, but not dull. Jack from the Adventure series seemed like a really nice and smart person too.
Barney could also work, but I do agree that the treatment of Snubby in the Barney series was mean, I felt bad for him, he wasn't a bad kid and no one seemed to like him much.

PS - Is it ok to bump old threads like this?
User avatar
Anita Bensoussane
Forum Administrator
Posts: 26772
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 23:25
Favourite book/series: Adventure series, Six Cousins books, Six Bad Boys
Favourite character: Jack Trent, Fatty and Elizabeth Allen
Location: UK

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by Anita Bensoussane »

Yes, it's fine to revive old threads. :D It's always good to read a fresh point of view or additional information.
"Heyho for a starry night and a heathery bed!" - Jack, The Secret Island.

"There is no bond like the bond of having read and liked the same books."
- E. Nesbit, The Wonderful Garden.


Society Member
User avatar
Moonraker
Posts: 22387
Joined: 31 Jan 2005, 19:15
Location: Wiltshire, England
Contact:

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by Moonraker »

I agree. However, it would be useful to include the date of the quote so that we can find it in the context of other posts without having to hunt through pages to find it.

I can't say that Lucy-Ann ever irritated me. I am sure we have discussed this before - maybe on this thread - that Enid might have included the very young characters so that she could explain terms through them to help younger readers understand terms that they might not understand.
Society Member
User avatar
John Pickup
Posts: 4876
Joined: 30 Oct 2013, 21:29
Favourite book/series: Barney mysteries
Favourite character: Snubby
Location: Notts

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by John Pickup »

Lucy Ann never irritated me either. I always felt sorry for her, having no parents, and only having Jack, on whom she doted. She may have been irritating to Jack at times but I always saw her as a sweet, innocent child, loyal and trusting.
Society Member
User avatar
db105
Posts: 362
Joined: 14 Jan 2017, 18:35

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by db105 »

John Pickup wrote:Lucy Ann never irritated me either. I always felt sorry for her, having no parents, and only having Jack, on whom she doted. She may have been irritating to Jack at times but I always saw her as a sweet, innocent child, loyal and trusting.
I agree. It's true that this kind of character can seem out of place in an action/adventure story, though. Same for Anne in the Famous Five. But on the other hand, having different personalities is good for interesting group dynamics.
Last edited by db105 on 04 Feb 2017, 11:09, edited 1 time in total.
----------------------------------
“I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?”
― Stephen King, The Body
User avatar
db105
Posts: 362
Joined: 14 Jan 2017, 18:35

Re: Which characters are best-balanced?

Post by db105 »

OK, I'm intrigued by this too:
70s-child wrote:.
Lucky Star wrote:The Adventure kids are a nice and well balanced bunch. You've got a timid one, a fiery one, a strong one and a sensible one.
I got the first two, but the next two threw me off. Who among Philip and Jack would you say is strong, and which one is sensible? :D
Obviously timid=Lucy-Ann and fiery=Dinah. But what about strong and sensible? I think the sensible one is Jack, but I don't really see Philip as stronger than Jack. Both seem equally strong to me.
----------------------------------
“I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?”
― Stephen King, The Body
Post Reply