Hachette Reverting to Classic Text for the Famous Five!

[Rob Houghton]

After the age of eight, I wore long trousers all year round: black or grey trousers for school; jeans at home. I'd have refused to wear grey school shorts after that. That was for the likes of Winker Watson or BBC kids dramas set in wartime, not real life. Turning up to my comprehensive in shorts would've been as unthinkable as wearing a tutu or grass skirt.

Shows how fashions can come and go and then come again.

I was exactly the same! I don't recall anyone of my age-group, after the age of 7 or 8 ever wearing shorts except when we did PE. If it was hot, we just suffered! It certainly wasn't acceptable to wear shorts in secondary school. We wouldn't have been seen dead in them, even in the holidays.

[Courtenay]

Now that reminds me... In Year 9 English, we studied a book called All the Green Year, which was the story of a boy growing up in late 1920s Australia, based on the author's own reminiscences. I'm just remembering now that at the start of the book he describes how up until now he'd always worn shorts but his birthday present that year (I think he's just turned 13) was "a pair of long 'uns", with the implied expectation that he was now grown up. I recall our teacher at the time, a quite elderly bloke, corroborated that — there was a time when shorts were only for young boys and once they were past a certain age they were expected to wear trousers. It's certainly not so now — the boys at high school wore shorts all the time in summer as part of school uniform, let alone out of school. My dad still happily wears them as an adult, as did my late grandpa! So any idea of shorts being "uncool" for grown-ups definitely wore off a long time ago in Australia. Our climate probably has something to do with it, mind you.

[RiverTam]

This immediately becomes apparent when one compares the original text of the opening paragraphs of 'Five On A Treasure Island' with the 2010 edition. I think we've compared these before elsewhere. The 2010 version took all of Blyton's poetry and natural rhythm and style out and replaced it instead with bland prose that anyone could have written.

For example -

original -

"Mother, have you heard about our summer holidays yet?" asked Julian, at the breakfast table. "Can we go to Polseath as usual?"

"I'm afraid not," said his mother. "They are quite full up this year."

The three children at the breakfast table looked at one another in great disappointment. They did so love the house at Polseath. The beach was so lovely there too, and the bathing was fine'

Note the last paragraph, which has a certain lilt to it. In the 2010 version this 'poetic lilt' was removed to make the dialogue more bland and to the point.

"Mum, have you decided about our summer holidays yet?" said Julian, at the breakfast table. "Can we go to Polseath as usual?"

"I'm afraid not," said his mother. "They're full up this year."

The three children at the breakfast table looked at one another in great disappointment. They loved the house at Polseath, and the beach was perfect for swimming.'

Later on, the 2010 revision made some curious changes...such as turning Anne's dolls into 'soft toys' -

original version -

"Don't you simply hate being a girl?" asked George.

"No, of course not," said Anne. "You see - I do like pretty frocks - and I love my dolls - and you can't do that if you're a boy."

"Pooh! Fancy bothering about pretty frocks," said George, in a scornful voice. "And dolls! Well, you are a baby, that's all I can say."

2010 -

"Don't you hate being a girl?" asked George.

"No, of course not," said Anne. "You see - I like pretty dresses - and I love my soft toys."

"Who cares about pretty dresses?" said George, in a scornful voice. "And toys! Well, you are a baby, that's all I can say!"

and so on...

Thank goodness they've now been consigned to the dustbins of time!

The audiobooks seem to have the original text. At least the opening paragraph is the same as I have only just started listening.