Actually, Eddie, if you scroll all the way down the essay and pop Pip's peppermint, then scroll all the way back to the top, you could start reading and sucking at the same time. What a multi-layered pleasure that would be! Trouble is, you'd need a whole packet of Pip's peppermints to keep you sucking all the way through the read, and that's just not on offer so many decades after their best before date.
Pete, pop one of Pip's peppermints in your gob and you'll feel pepped up (younger and wiser) all day long.
'Those Dreadful Children' was not published until a few years later (1949), but it also has the scenario of a new family moving into the house next door, contrasting family lifestyles, and the children going through a gap in/ climbing over the hedge to interact with the new neighbours with unexpected results. In this case the Taggertys are not the social 'equals' of the nicely-brought-up Carltons, so the plot is different. But what Duncan has discovered about the situation next door to Green Hedges makes me wonder if getting to know the new neighbours gave Enid's imagination the idea of what might happen if the two families were totally unlike; did she make a note of this and return to the idea when she had some free time to explore it?
The three books are very different, variations on a theme if you like. In fact they all have a scene involving the children playing 'red indians', but the game is treated completely differently each time, to achieve different ends.
I am intrigued though that what I assume to be the first of these neighbouring garden books precedes the big event that Imogen talks about in A Childhood at Green Hedges, the coming of the Biggs family. I wonder if Imogen got her date wrong by a year, but she shouldn't have given that it was October 1943 Enid married Kenneth, so he would have been around for the appearance of the Biggs family. And Imogen does say that her parents, meaning Kenneth and Enid, socialised with the Biggs right from the start.
I recently procured an old edition of this book and didn't realise the extent of Mr Tupping's nastiness. He grabbed poor old Luke by the ear several times, grabbed Buster by the scruff of the neck and there were lots of references to hidings for poor old Luke. And he was even worse than I thought with Bets by scaring her and telling her she might go to prison for taking the strawberry runners. So glad that he was the baddie !! Although Fatty is normally the brains of the Five Find outers the real star in this mystery is Bets. Not only does she suggest finding the source of the smell (the Turps) but also suggests going into the cage with Fatty to detect its location. Poor old Luke is described several times as being rather slow and/or simple and for once I am glad to see that these descriptions have been changed in later editions. Miss Harmer is called the Kennel girl - several times - a title that we would now find somewhat demeaning and also described as plump ! Both of these descriptions have been removed, for right or for wrong. The illustrations are great, especially the one where Mr Tupping picks up Buster by the scruff of the neck. I note that Fatty is scared of Mr Tupping whereas in later stories he would have developed more courage to tackle him more directly I am sure. All in all, a very satisfying read.
You'll never wear your own brains out, Mr. Goon - you don't use them enough !
I've only read this book a couple of times, but seem to recall it was a good plot.
I thought Mr Tupping's reaction to the strawberry runners was particularly well written - a Blyton villain at their best!
I'm curious as to why being called a Kennel girl would be classed as demeaning though - I don't think I've read a revised version, so am wondering what would be a more acceptable title?
You may well be right Katharine that kennel girl is not demeaning but it has been removed so I assume it is. Not into cats or dogs so I am not an expert on kennels !
You'll never wear your own brains out, Mr. Goon - you don't use them enough !
Irene Malory Towers wrote: ↑22 Dec 2021, 11:31
You may well be right Katharine that kennel girl is not demeaning but it has been removed so I assume it is. Not into cats or dogs so I am not an expert on kennels !
No, nor me. Maybe it was considered sexist? Maybe the word girl was the offending one?
Kennel girl doesn’t seem demeaning to me either. Perhaps it’s considered that it implies she was a servant or something. I’ve given up trying to work out what people are offended by these days.
Mr Tupping is a well written but extremely nasty character. That scene with Bets and the strawberry plants never fails to make my blood boil. Overall though it’s not one of my favourite FFO books.
"What a lot of trouble one avoids if one refuses to have anything to do with the common herd. To have no job, to devote ones life to literature, is the most wonderful thing in the world. - Cicero
The reference to Miss Harmer being a'kennel girl' is not at all demeaning I think-- Its her job and each job has its own respect.Anyway I like it just as it is originally written by Blyton
Yes, Tupping is really nasty, illtreating poor old Luke-- in fact taking advantage of his simplicity-- and even being bold enough to tell tales about Luke to mr. Goon.Fatty was rather a small boy in this mystery.-- they grow up in later books-- but its my greatest wist that they dont grow up into adults-- I would always like to think of them as happy , carefree, friendly, helpful children-- with Fatty as the head always.
.
