The Enid Blyton Society

As a child I tended to whizz through the books on a first reading simply because I couldn't wait to find out what happened! However, I was very much a re-reader and would take things more slowly and savour all the little details on subsequent readings.

The only books I ever whizzed through were books we 'had' to read - school reading books, or later on, prescribed texts for 'O' Level and 'A' Level - stuff I considered chores! I guess we all read differently however.

I don't recall rereading many books as a child - except books like The Adventures of Binkle and Flip, the Faraway Tree and Wishing Chair books, and perhaps a few others like The Book of Brownies. Later books I rarely reread - except maybe The Mystery of Holly Lane and The Rilloby Fair Mystery - two of my childhood favourites - plus 'The Mystery of the Island' by Isobel Knight, which I read every year between the ages of 9 and 12.

I can relate to you on this one, Anita! I went about things pretty much the same way you did.

Rob Houghton wrote:

pete9012S wrote:
It seemed to be a personal challenge to read the books as fast as possible -

I often feel a little bit of a 'fraud' as I never whizzed through any book 'as fast as possible' and I sometimes wonder if this means I'm less of an Enid Blyton fan...or indeed, less of a reader...than others are.

My goal, even as a child, was to read and enjoy the journey - to make up accents as I read, and almost act it out in my head - to savour it. I could read very fast - at 10 I had the reading age of a 15 year-old -- but I chose to read slowly. While others were barely taking books in and reading one a week at school etc, I took my time.

I never read by torchlight under the covers, either!

I seriously think I missed out!

Snap!

I could read very fast, so fast that my teacher didn't believe me when I'd say I'd finished a book and wanted another, but I never wanted to 'get through it as fast as possible', and certainly not an EB book! You need time to immerse yourself in the story, to set the images in your mind and savour each part. If you're whizzing through it as fast as you can to move on to the next how can you take it in and enjoy it? And if you are enjoying something surely you want to slow down to make it last longer, not speed up so it's over with? At least that's my way of looking at it and it's how I've always done things.

That's exactly how I feel now. I can't believe how much I missed the first time round.
Now I savour the books,imbibing them at a leisurely snail's pace, soaking up every nuance and detail.

I had a very interesting discussion with my wife this morning about the conclusion of this particular story.

My wife is a conveyancer and is quiet familiar with contractual law. She felt that Mr Henning would have a good case to take the Phillpotts to court as they had a verbal agreement in place. The key issue would be if the two separate payments Mr Henning made constituted part of the same contract or if they were actually two separate agreements.

The interesting argument that she presented was that she felt that a court would see them as two separate agreements and Mr Henning still owed the Phillpotts the original £5k!

I've just read this for the first time in my life. Despite the interesting setting and scenario, it felt a bit claustrophobic at first with all the unpleasant, eccentric characters (even Great-Grandad comes across as a miserable old curmudgeon). But it did grow on me once the admittedly lightweight adventure eventually got underway. Would I be right in thinking this is the only Famous Five story not to feature any actual criminal activity?

I wouldn't want to accuse Enid Blyton of plagiarism, but I noticed a couple of similarities with one of my favourite childhood stories, 'The Gauntlet' by Ronald Welch, published in 1951. That's about a contemporary boy who appears to go back in time and find himself in a Medieval castle. So while not exactly Blytonian, it features a modern day ruin of a Medieval castle, and a buried dagger. The Gauntlet features brass rubbing, while Finniston Farm mentions horse brasses (I'm afraid I had to Google that, although I now think I've seen them before). So probably just a coincidence, but it's possible Enid might have borrowed a couple of ideas from it.

pete9012S wrote:

Even bribery suffers from inflation. My 1992 edition talks of a second cheque for £1000 coming soon!

I'm not sure whether 'no criminal activity' takes place in Finniston Farm...surely the fact that Mr Henning is prepared to search for and take away items unbeknown to the farm owners - and to buy other things from them at a greatly reduced rate - is sort of 'criminal activity'? Maybe not exactly illegal, but dishonest. Henning, if I remember correctly, plays down the value of the treasures and is taking advantage of the fact that the Finnistons need the money to get a good deal and con them out of possibly thousands of pounds. Well, that's my reading of it anyway!

Finniston Farm has always been one of my favourite Famous Five books. I love the location, the fact it was a real place, and the wistful atmosphere - almost an illustration of how things were beginning to change for smaller farms during the 1960's, when many were finding it hard to keep maintaining a living.

I say 'always' been one of my favourites, but I didn't actually read it until I was in my late 20's!

I think the Five definitely stop the Finniston family from being 'ripped off'. The money offered for digging rights and payable for any finds whilst attractive, would surely have not solved all their long time financial woes?

It's a book I have always liked. But then, only two books irked me when young: Trail - I couldn't understand the ending and Mystery Moor as I didn't like the way 'Henry' ingratiated herself on Ju and Dick.

I don't mind either book now.

It's funny, Mystery Moor was one of my faves and still is - although maybe that's because I only read Smuggler's Top and Mystery Moor when I was a youngster.

Secret Trail is in my opinion one of the weaker books - almost like a short story with padding!

I particularly like Eileen Soper's illustrations for Finniston Farm with the usual added colour, which makes them seem extra good. They seem more detailed than some of Soper's other illustrations for Five's books written around that time.

Daisy and me have just done one of our usual joint readings and we have come across and discussed a few bits on Finniston Farm.
Our verdict is rather mixed, it is one of those books that has all the ingredients of a great Five book, yet they are mixed, blended and cooked in a fashion that does rather leave the reader with the impression of a bland dish.

We have a beautiful scenery, some interesting child characters, nice feasts, a few lessons on what decent kids do and don't, and a scene of comic relief or two. We also have a dilema and some peculiar baddies.

What struck us odd, though, is how much EB pushed the point of the story being set in Dorset, which is quite unusual for her. Granted, she owned a farm, which she rarely if ever visited, and granted, she loved Dorset. Yet it is a bit like product placement, right?

As for the plot itself, that isn't too bad actually. However, when they start digging, find the treasure and find they are trapped, well, so much more could have been made of that. After all, it is just coincidence that the hole fell in, isn't it?
How much different would the story have been if one of the following scenarios had featured:
- Junior following them underground
- Mr Henning being so struck by gold fever that HE traps them there or lies in wait for him when they resurface?
Just two ideas which bring us to our next point - character development. Junior, like Richard, is a bit of a pest. Unlike with Richard, however, the Five do not really try to educate him to their ways. Richard gets it straight between the eyes on more occasion than one, surprisingly my alter ego is rather taking the back seat there, even though Dick suffered the most - or just because of that? Yet with Junior, we have one scene where George serves him his just deserts, pardon, breakfast. And that scene ends with serious threats, but it does not really include much in terms of 'you sure can do better than that'. It is as if the Five have decided that words are wasted there.

I rather liked this one. The only thing I didn't like is that the adventure is too light (it seems that they just take a walk and casually stumble upon the hidden treasure), but it made up for it by having a vivid atmosphere, and I found much to enjoy in the buildup and the setting.

What struck us odd, though, is how much EB pushed the point of the story being set in Dorset, which is quite unusual for her. Granted, she owned a farm, which she rarely if ever visited, and granted, she loved Dorset. Yet it is a bit like product placement, right?

Yeah, but it was part of what I liked. Great-grandpa was so passionate about it, and you could see how those people loved their land.

Just two ideas which bring us to our next point - character development. Junior, like Richard, is a bit of a pest. Unlike with Richard, however, the Five do not really try to educate him to their ways. Richard gets it straight between the eyes on more occasion than one, surprisingly my alter ego is rather taking the back seat there, even though Dick suffered the most - or just because of that? Yet with Junior, we have one scene where George serves him his just deserts, pardon, breakfast. And that scene ends with serious threats, but it does not really include much in terms of 'you sure can do better than that'. It is as if the Five have decided that words are wasted there.

Well, I didn't really think of Junior as the equivalent of Richard Kent. Yes, Richard is a bit of a pest, but Junior is much nastier and more irredeemable. For me, he is closer to Edgar Stick. I mean, he's a kid, and not evil the way an adult may be, but he needs more work than a few friendly pointers.

One thing that caught my attention about this book is how badly the Five were received (except by Mrs. Philpot), considering they are paying guests. I was OK with it because I understood the family's motivation to be ambivalent about guests, but one natural reaction from the Five would be to be unhappy about it and just want to leave and find a place where they are treated properly. Instead of it, they empathized with the Philpots and spend part of their vacations working to help them. That speaks well of the Five, but I can't help thinking that it's something of a plot device so the adventure can happen. Can you imagine the children in other adventures, when they want to explore and enjoy their holidays, instead working on a farm? Of course, as soon as the family saw that the Five were not snotty like the Hennings and were willing to lend a hand they started treating them well. Still, the implication that paying guests had some kind of duty to work kind of bothered me.

I must say I didn't get the impression that the Five were in any way coerced into helping out on the farm. In fact when they first offered, didn't Mrs Philpott say she couldn't expect that? The children saw the situation and were sorry for the way the Hennings made demands which were not easy for the poor lady to manage. The attitude of the twins, while not commendable, was kind of understandable once we get into the story - and of course they become friendly when they realize the Five are as sympathetic to their mother's situation as they turn out to be.

The title of the thread sums it up for me, really quite poor. I agree with Dick, more could have been made of the plot such as Junior becoming more involved underground. The book just wasn't up to the previous high standard of this series which is a shame because the potential is there. I dislike Junior intensely and agree he should have been dealt with more severely by the Five but perhaps they were becoming fed up of all the adventures by this stage.

Daisy wrote:I must say I didn't get the impression that the Five were in any way coerced into helping out on the farm. In fact when they first offered, didn't Mrs Philpott say she couldn't expect that? The children saw the situation and were sorry for the way the Hennings made demands which were not easy for the poor lady to manage. The attitude of the twins, while not commendable, was kind of understandable once we get into the story - and of course they become friendly when they realize the Five are as sympathetic to their mother's situation as they turn out to be.

They were not coerced, certainly. But, apart from Mrs Philpott, the rest of the family did not really start treating them well until they started helping. It's true that it was understandable, considering the situation of the family and the way the Hennings were acting. The Five understood that and were happy to help, instead of getting angry at being treated badly as paying guests.