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.