The Enid Blyton Society

Rob Houghton wrote:I agree about the money. I still smile when I read the Dean versions of the Naughtiest Girl and see they are expected to live on 20p a week!

Whilst 4/= was a lot of money for children in the 1940s and 1950s.

Rob Houghton wrote:I agree about the money. I still smile when I read the Dean versions of the Naughtiest Girl and see they are expected to live on 20p a week!

Exactly. Children today would think that was harsh but if the real amount of 4 shillings was printed they'd know it was a different system.

Having compared the Deans issues of the 80's up to around 1990 and the late 90's editions while there are some changes such as the money in them, I think they keep more of the feel of the story compared with recent editions so perhaps a rolling back to the text used then might be an acceptable compromise.
While 'nigger' might be a problem I think terms like 'gypsy' could be explained in a short preface explaining that when these stories were written, those were the terms that were used in everyday society. Indeed having dealt face to face with members of that community, I would say some do use it even now.

Sally H wrote:Could this be an opportunity for the Society to start a campaign for the text of the original books to be re-instated? Any thoughts Tony?

Yes, I do have thoughts, the original text will never be re-instated so it would be a fairly fruitless campaign.

Well, at least they have back-tracked somewhat and admitted they were wrong with the blatant re-writes. I completely agree, I can't imagine any modern-day editors tampering with the text of Edith Nesbit, Beatrix Potter, Frances Hodgson Burnett or any of the other classics, but it seems to have long been established that Enid Blyton is fair game for "updating" and "modernising" and "bringing more into line with today's standards". I really do believe, whatever the editors say — I know Anita and Tony met with them recently — and however sincerely they believe they're doing the right thing, at the base of it is the assumption (of which the editors themselves may not be fully conscious) that Enid's own text simply does not have the same intrinsic value as other classic authors and needs to be "fixed" in order to make her books continue to appeal to today's kids. I cannot agree with that.

Tony Summerfield wrote: Yes, I do have thoughts, the original text will never be re-instated...

Until Enid's copyright expires (in 2038, if I'm right — 70 years after her death?) and her books enter the public domain. Then we can finally have the original texts reprinted as they should be. Unless, of course, there's some clever plan in place to extend the current publishers' rights indefinitely so they can keep raking in the money without competition, which wouldn't surprise me...

Three cheers for at least a partial climbdown by the publishers. But I would tend to agree that it is very noticeable that Enid, as opposed to other classic children's authors,is considered 'fair game' for drastic rewriting. Removing or adding a few notes in the introduction about some potentially 'offensive' words that would sound odd to modern audiences ('eg 'gypsies') is OK , but the revised editions have gone way beyond that.

There seems to be a fussy attitude by some editorial overseers in favour of giving 1940s or 1950s children 'up to date' 2010s social attitudes as morally desirable, which would never be done for child characters in Victorian classics eg Lewis Carroll or Louisa M Alcott. Or even Arthur Ransome in the 1930s-40s; it is only the recent film that 'rewrites' him not the editions of his books. It is a tribute to Enid as she is clearly seen as an important author who could influence readers, but the interfering attitude behind it is the real problem - and the idea of editors having liberty to reinterpret an author's words once they are no longer alive to complain rather than trusting the readers to make their own minds up . This unfortunate attitude may catch on, though I think this retreat is a good sign of (partially) checking it as sense prevails.

Courtenay wrote:I can't imagine any modern-day editors tampering with the text of Edith Nesbit, Beatrix Potter, Frances Hodgson Burnett or any of the other classics, but it seems to have long been established that Enid Blyton is fair game for "updating" and "modernising" and "bringing more into line with today's standards". I really do believe, whatever the editors say — I know Anita and Tony met with them recently — and however sincerely they believe they're doing the right thing, at the base of it is the assumption (of which the editors themselves may not be fully conscious) that Enid's own text simply does not have the same intrinsic value as other classic authors and needs to be "fixed" in order to make her books continue to appeal to today's kids. I cannot agree with that.

Some other children's books have also been edited to alter words, references, events and attitudes which are dated or don't suit modern sensibilities - e.g. Anthony Buckeridge's "Jennings" series, the Ladybird books about Peter and Jane, Ruby Ferguson's "Jill" books, Helen Bannerman's Little Black Sambo, L. Frank Baum's "Oz" stories, Hugh Lofting's series about Doctor Dolittle and P. L. Travers' books about Mary Poppins. However, the changes haven't been anywhere near as extensive as the revisions made to Enid Blyton. She has been perennially popular with young readers while books by other authors have gone in and out of fashion or (in some cases) have been chosen largely by adults for children, rather than being chosen by children themselves. Therefore, I think publishers and copyright holders over the years have felt a particular responsibility to keep Enid Blyton appealing to each new generation and have sometimes been overzealous in trying to do so! I can see the point of refreshing the covers every so often (and the internal illustrations if applicable), providing that care is taken to ensure that the look of the book reflects the content and atmosphere. However, continual modernisation of the language - not to mention some story elements - is a step too far in my opinion. As well as spoiling the flow and rhythm of the narrative, it deprives children of the opportunity to expand their vocabulary and learn about how society changes over time.

Francis wrote:Charles Hamilton who wrote (amongst many others) the Greyfriars stories used 'japes' quite a lot in the earlier stories. This was sometime before Enid's main series started and it was out of fashion by then (as was "ripping" and other school slang words) .

Perhaps at some stage a journalist got their Famous Fives mixed up.

So is there a thread or list somewhere on here that tells us which editions contain Enid's original text and the editions when they started to be revised? Excuse me if this is elsewhere on the forum. I have looked but think I may have missed it...

I don't think there is a specific thread - but it's safe to say that any Famous Five editions printed from the 1970's onward had altered text to some degree (jeans instead of shorts etc).

It's odd they'd change shorts to jeans, given that children still use the term shorts.

I think they also changed a passage about a child being put over someone's knee as well?!

I could never understand the change about shorts to jeans either. As far as I know, children have worn shorts for decades. Styles and lengths may vary, but then so do jeans.

I always presumed the change to jeans was more to do with some of the autumn and winter adventures, where in the 1970's (and up to present day) it would have been unusual for the boys and George to wear shorts. Not sure why they still changed the reference in the summer books though!

Good point Rob. When I was a child in the 1970s, boys only usually wore shorts in the summer, whereas in my parents' day, boys didn't usually wear long trousers until they'd left school at the age of 15, or possibly only for the last year or two before they left school.

I have a feeling it wasn't considered "cool" for older children to wear shorts in the 1970s - they were mainly worn by younger ones. The publishers probably thought that bringing in jeans would make the characters more contemporary and more appealing to readers.