I've been going back and reading a few of the mystery stories recently and the first 6 still hold up well overall in my opinion. Some genuinely good puzzlers and the interaction between the characters is always entertaining.
However, I will say that I think Pantomime Cat is terrible! Goon has suddenly become a genuinely evil character, the Find Outers think it is fun to waste police time, the depiction of Boysie is uncomfortable to read, the main clue in the mystery is blatantly obvious and the solution at the end involving an identical twin is atrocious. Discuss.
I fully agree! The culprit is obvious from the start and the solution is also obvious. Enid drew another huge clue out of the bag at the end of the story in Burnt Cottage as well. There was no mention of the Tempests flying overhead until the very end. How could you see that one coming?
I never liked the Pantomime Cat - it gave me the creeps. All that peering through windows at people who were not what they seemed to be - it was too close to Doctor Who, which I loved but watched with my hands over my face. As a child Boysie terrified me; as an adult, like Nicko, the description of him makes me uncomfortable.
I haven't read it for years, but I seem to remember this was actually one of my favourites. There was a big list of suspects, and the guilty person turned out to be the one they least expected due to alibis. The children laying false clues was an annoying aspect, but it's certainly not the only time they deliberately confused and messed around with the Law in the series. If anything, there's a bit of comeuppance when they guiltily realise the "Z" on the hankerchief could implicate an innocent person.
I agree that Goon was much more evil than his pompous oaf persona of others stories, but it gave the book a sort of adult and desperate feel. This flawed character was anxious to make an arrest, and he would bully a confession out of the one he suspected the most. The FFO had to solve the crime, not only to put the baddie away, but to prevent the goodies from being put away as well.
It was one of my favourites as a child too Stephen, though I must admit that I found Boysie very uncomfortable reading. I think I liked it because it was one of the first I read in the series. The same goes for Banshee Towers.
I have to agree, it's one of my favourites aswell. It is a mysterious book, with an interesting selection of new characters. I found Boysie a harmless man, who obviously had a few problems and consequently got picked on because of this. He has a warm heart and he loves a bit of fun - just like a child in an adults body, I think. The solution was clever, and satisfying - it might not have been the strongest point of the book, but it kept the reader hooked. Actually, I found the culprit hard to guess - at one point I thought it was the manager, and then I thought Boysie might have and then suddenly it hit me, that somebody could dress up in Boysie's cat suit. It was a puzzling read, and proved very entertaining. I'm sure the Find-Outers weren't intensionally wasting police time, just having a bit of fun - like in the school series, the girls playing tricks on the teachers. Mr Goon does seem a bit evil, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading about his new ways. PC Pippin made a nice change, and I actually thought we were getting rid of Goon for once - but no, he turned up again! It was an enjoyable read and I intend to read it again very soon.
Last edited by Poppy on 19 May 2013, 12:45, edited 1 time in total.
"Beware of young men with long hair - that's what dad says, isn't it?"
Pat, Holiday House
I quite like this one. It's one of the ones I had as a kid. I was aware the descriptions of Boysie were, well, old-fashioned and unpc, but the children were kind to him and didn't judge him cruelly.
"It's the ash! It's falling!" yelled Julian, almost startling Dick out of his wits...
"Listen to its terrible groans and creaks!" yelled Julian, almost beside himself with impatience.
The Mystery of the Pantomime Cat has always been one of my favourites of this superb series. I just love the theatrical setting with its quaint array of pantomime characters.
'Go down to the side-shows by the river this afternoon. I'll meet you somewhere in disguise. Bet you won't know me!' wrote Fatty.
I think the problems for me with Goon being so evil are partly down to it being out of character with the rest of the series. But also down to the fact that the children had to continue their rivalry with him in this book and the rest of the series. As he hits Buster with a poker (cut from modern editions of the book) and wants to have him destroyed (not cut) in this book, I can't imagine they would have been able to treat Goon with civility in reality.
I agree that generally they are kind to Boysie but Fatty's comment that the draft in the drink is, 'the sort of thing a mutt like Boysie would forget' is unfortunate in the extreme. Fatty's comment that, 'I suppose he got dropped when he was a baby' is painful and this has NOT been cut from modern editions! When you consider some of the innocuous things that they have changed, this is absurd to me.
I also think that even by this point it was getting a little old for Fatty to be disguising himself in every book. Although I do really like the series, it's a shame that it became so repetitive after the first few books.
Nicko, I liked your comments about which bits have and haven't been cut out of the book. I can't understand the logic behind the edits. Surely it's just as bad, if not worse to suggest someone with learning difficulties (hope I've used the correct term there) was dropped as a baby than for a dog to be hit with a poker. Let me clarify hastily before all dog lovers send me hate mail. I don't say that hitting a dog is more excusable than a generalisation about someone with special needs, however the point of Goon hitting Buster was to show a very nasty side of his character. If it had been left in it would help explain the feud between the children and Goon. Whilst I'm not a fan of cuts to the text, I could see why an old fashioned idea about someone's development would be cut, and surely Fatty's comment doesn't add much to the story line?
You've mentioned a few interesting comments, Nicko. It is strange to see what gets editted out of books nowadays, and what remains in the text. I agree it is rather is a rather alarming speech made by Fatty, however I would agree to Buster being hit with the poker more unexpected, in my point of view. We do not see a lot of physical violence in Blyton's books, we see quite a few extraordinary speeches which expresses how times change from when this book was written and now. You mention Mr Goon wanting to have Buster destroyed (This occurs in Holly Lane), this pays to much of a big part in this book to be editted out (though I don't see why it should be), I think, when there is a few chapters dedicated to Fatty's trick, and Mr Goon waiting for the chance to catch poor old Buster, also bargaining with Mrs Mickles' young boy [Bert?] Despite much slyness, and spite we see in this, no violence is heard of, which makes the whole idea very much suitable for children to read - so why bother editting it?
The poker aspect of your post has just made me think of William out of Goodnight Mr Tom. I believe he suffered from abuse from his mother and is scared at the sight of a poker. I'm sure he was either threatened with one, or was hit and is scared at the sight of Mr Tom's red hot one. Perhaps this has not been editted out because we do not hear of any direct violence using this weapon, in the book, or maybe it played to much of a bit part to be editted out...
Last edited by Poppy on 20 May 2013, 15:41, edited 1 time in total.
"Beware of young men with long hair - that's what dad says, isn't it?"
Pat, Holiday House
You cannot edit out scenes that are unacceptable. Murder is unacceptable, but you wouldn't edit out all deaths in Agatha Christie's books, would you? Dickens' Tiny Tim, in A Christmas Carol, was a cripple. That word still remains, although we wouldn't call a disabled child a cripple today. But it wasn't today - that is the difference.
....and who finds a certain thing unacceptable and who doesn't would make it hard to please everybody! Strangely perhaps I have no trouble with Fatty's comment about Boysie having perhaps been dropped on his head when a baby. Enid Blyton uses the same reasoning in "The Put-'Em-Rights" in explaining Will's liking for bright objects. I think it may have been just to give young readers a reason for someone having mental problems rather than leaving them perhaps puzzling about it.
'Tis loving and giving that makes life worth living.
I was more looking on the side of things unsuitable for children to read, written in children's books. I completely agree about the difference between now and today - but would you hit someone or an animal with a red hot poker today or back then? I'm not saying it's unaceptable to be put in the books today, all I am saying is that I find that more unaceptable than the other example Nicko gave, and for all the things pubishers edit nowadays, I would have thought they would have editted out that.
"Beware of young men with long hair - that's what dad says, isn't it?"
Pat, Holiday House
