How much of Enid's work is 'out of print'?

[db105]

The audiobook also had Anne's surprise at the TV edited out. It's a wonder they don't just go ahead and give them mobile phones.

[Rob Houghton]

Well...it would be a bit weird for a child to be so shocked and awed by a TV programme from the 1970'sonwards, so I can sort of understand it!!

[John Pickup]

Yes, I can understand the downplaying of the television. It doesn't spoil the overall plot of the book.
But I still prefer to read the original text which is why I collect the earliest hardback editions I can find.

[Rob Houghton]

Me too!

I hate the updates personally, but I must admit, to anyone under 40, or even under 50, Anne's reaction would seem rather strange!

Its annoying to see just how much has been taken out, though - why even bother to mention that they watched TV at all?

[stardust]

I understand why people might find it funny or strange but there's still no need to take it out, now it doesn't feel genuine, it was better before. Also people are aware that these books aren't written in 2001..and other "old-time" references do remain. Ugh, it bothers me, I want the originals, but I just have a few hardbacks (mainly the maroon ones, though one so old it's more yellow/grey.. others are all paperbacks, probably altered )

[Rob Houghton]

We've talked about this before - but I actually don't think publishers do want these books to be viewed as being written in another era - they are meant to be read as if they are set in 1977 or 1991 or 2017 - or whenever the child was reading them - so this is the justification for taking out historical references/references to Kings or TV's or wirelesses. The children who read them are meant to be fooled into thinking they are set in modern-day settings.

This is the big mistake publishers made back in the 1970's when they began altering words like 'shorts' and turning them into 'jeans'. The updates immediately make the books less modern instead of more modern - because updates need to be constantly updated! For example, Elizabeth Allen and her friends being expected to live on 20p a week (as in some Dean versions)and managing to buy a birthday card, a present and a birthday cake all for 20p!! If they'd kept the amount at 2 shillings, as in the original books, it would have made much more sense, and children need only to ask what 'shillings' were if they don't know.

[Courtenay]

Anne's reaction to the telly certainly wasn't in the copy of Five on Kirrin Island Again that I read years ago, as it was a 1970s paperback. On one hand, I can understand why an editor would change it on the grounds of it sounding strange now, but on the other... why not leave it in, as long as readers understand that these books were first published in the 1940s when television was still a new and unusual thing? It gives an insight into just how exciting it would have been for a young person to see something on television for the first time, which is really quite sweet in a way.

(Mind you, it strikes me that moving pictures on a screen could hardly have been a new experience for children back then, as cinema had been around for some decades. But I suppose the novelty must have been to have the shows appear on the box in one's own home, rather than in a theatre, whenever one switched it on. As I think I mentioned somewhere else recently, my dad was 10 years old when television first came to Australia, and I remember him telling us it really was exciting — for a while, at least. )

[Rob Houghton]

I still think people are missing the point with these updates, lol -- publishers are setting the books in modern day and NOT in the time they were written! They made this decision a long time ago (the 1970's) and now it would be much more difficult to suddenly re-set them in the 1950's. That's why certain things have been removed.

As far as the publishers are concerned, I'm sure they think they've done a brilliant seamless job of updating the books!



Earlier on in the book, there are other references to television - page 64 of the original edition - Martin's father says -
"Come and see us as soon as you can...I've a fine television set that Martin here would like to show you. Any afternoon you like!"

to which Enid says' George had never seen television'. This would have to be removed, of course!!

[db105]

I still think people are missing the point with these updates, lol -- publishers are setting the books in modern day and NOT in the time they were written! They made this decision a long time ago (the 1970's) and now it would be much more difficult to suddenly re-set them in the 1950's. That's why certain things have been removed.

Yes, but nowadays that strategy has been completely thwarted. The books can no longer seem to be set in modern day because the children don't have access to mobile phones, computers, internet, etc, and there's no way to insert that because some stories would no longer make sense.

[Rob Houghton]

I agree - I'd much rather the books were set in the time they were written - which is part of the reason I haven't read a paperback version for around 20 years. It does seem that the publishers are trying to pass these books off as modern day stories, but I think they are going to have to change their tune soon, due to the lack of mobile phones, computers, etc, as you say.

[Aurélien]

I suppose that if we want EB's books to be read by the sophisticated, technically savvy youngsters of today - and to stay in print - some 'modernizing' of her texts is inevitable. This still contributes to the sad situation that the world of my childhood has largely disappeared.

Also, if there are heavily 'modernised' editions of, say, Arthur Ransome's books I haven't yet come across them.

'Aurélien Arkadiusz'

[Rob Houghton]

The difference is that Arthur Ransome's books are looked upon as literary classics, whereas Enid's are looked on as literary trash.

[Aurélien]

I fear that such an oh-so-superior attitude is what underlies much of the revision decision-making, Rob.

'Aurélien Arkadiusz'

[Rob Houghton]

For the record - I can't really get into Arthur Ransome's books - so I've only ever read half a one - I find them very slow and musty compared to Enid Blyton - but I know that's just me, lol! I'm just a literary Pleb!!

[db105]

Then again, Arthur Ransome is not really read by children nowadays (unfortunately), while Enid Blyton is (fortunately). I really dislike how literary snobs place value only on the use of language but not on good storytelling. One thing about Enid Blyton's no-frills storytelling, though: it does not go out-of-fashion.