Domestic Abuse

[Boatbuilder]

It is perhaps interesting to note that Mark Twain’s works seem unaltered, despite the fact that some of the terms are unacceptable today. It seems that somehow the fact that they are older and in a different context makes them acceptable.

That shouldn't make a difference, Jake. If that was the case, why are statues like Colston's being torn down today? That was a different era. They aren't destroying books that don't fit in with today's values - yet!

[Stephen]

The incident that always disturbed me as a child was in Five Go Down To The Sea when Mrs Penruthlan, a sweet little old lady suddenly leapt up and boxed Julian's ear for suggesting that her husband was in with the Wreckers. It was mainly because it was set in Cornwall where my grandparents lived, and the thought of my grandmother doing something like that was upsetting!

There's a Mister Meddle story (I think it's the one where he mistakes glue for treacle pudding, and him and AJ get their teeth stuck together) where Aunt Jemima "smacks him hard". Always struck me as a bit odd, because I'd always visualised Meddle as an adult. So one grown-up administering corporal punishment to another was a bit peculiar.

I certainly never got "the slipper" for my childhood misdemeanours, so the Beano and the Beezer were quite educational on the subject. Dennis the Menace trying (and frequently failing) to avoid the slipper was all part of the fun! Never thought of it as bad.

However, something I have found quite jarring compared with today was an old episode of Grange Hill from about 1981. Mr Hopwood catches Alan Humphries secretly smoking in the classroom, gives him a sharp clip round the ear, and says he will inform him father. The next day, Alan comes to school sporting a black eye. And apart from his mates having a little chuckle with him about it, that's that. I can imagine it would upset a lot of people if it was shown today!

[gavin70]

I wonder why Enid's books come in for so much editing?

I'm currently watching the Harry Potter films, and I wondered why J K Rowling's (excellent) books aren't criticized.

They start with an orphaned boy being made to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs by his aunt and uncle. He wears glasses that are broken and hand me down clothes which don't fit whereas his cousin gets everything new. Apart from the physical and mental cruelty here, why didn't the school or social services step in? Surely someone would have noticed?

Then there is Professor Snape who constantly picks on Harry during lessons, deducting house points at the slightest excuse.

Possibly the worst villain is Dolores Umbridge, who is not only a teacher, but is also working for the wizarding world's government. Her method of getting is children to write lines is barbaric, and she's not above trying to use forbidden curses on the pupils in order to extract information.

Obviously I wouldn't want the Harry Potter books to be altered - I think they are very well written, but equally I fail to understand why Dame Slap is no longer allowed to administer corporal punishment, and yet Harry Potter can have bars on his window and be locked in his bedroom?

I suspect the difference is the era in which they were written. The bullying in Harry Potter is clearly identifiable as bullying and it is treated as unacceptable. Whereas the bullying and corporal punishment in Blyton is more often presented as just the way things are. It isn't condemned. It's treated as normal, acceptable behaviour.

[Debbie]

The bullying in Harry Potter is clearly identifiable as bullying and it is treated as unacceptable. Whereas the bullying and corporal punishment in Blyton is more often presented as just the way things are. It isn't condemned. It's treated as normal, acceptable behaviour.

I disagree with this.
The person who is seen to do the worst bullying-Snape, is then presented as a hero with Harry revering him at the end. No sign that the bullying was considered wrong, it was completely whitewashed.
To me that's worse than having it as "normal" behaviour when at the time historically it would have been "normal".

[Courtenay]

Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about Snape!

As for the bullying and corporal punishment in Blyton being presented as "just the way things are" and as "normal, acceptable behaviour"... I grew up in the 1980s when corporal punishment was banned in schools (at least in Australia) and bullying was — well, not a thing of the past (I certainly endured plenty of it at school), but there was a much broader sense that it was unacceptable and should never be condoned. And I read unexpurgated Blytons — Dame Slap (not "Snap") actually slapping her students, Ern Goon being beaten by his uncle — and other stories that involved children or younger characters being physically punished by adults. (The highly detailed caning scene in Roald Dahl's Danny the Champion of the World springs to mind, or indeed Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Benjamin Bunny, which ends with Benjamin and Peter being whipped by Benjamin's father.) And guess what... none of that harmed me in any way, or gave me the impression that corporal punishment should be considered normal and acceptable. Because those things clearly WEREN'T acceptable in the society I grew up in, and because I had parents who read these stories to me or with me and who were able to explain that yes, when they were little, teachers did give students the cane or the belt as punishment, but that isn't allowed any more and good riddance. So I completely understood that these stories were set in another time and talking about standards of another time, and I learned something from them — including how lucky I was to be growing up in an era where these things weren't seen as OK any more!

This is what always bugs me about editing (or outright censorship) of Enid Blyton's books, or any others from the past, in order to make them conform with today's standards of what's acceptable. Children aren't stupid — well, most of them aren't. They CAN understand that a story can be set in a different era and/or culture and that it may portray behaviours and attitudes that we DON'T want to emulate in today's world. I'd say by all means, put a disclaimer in the front of the book explaining that this book is a product of its time and may reflect attitudes that were once widespread but that we now know to be unfair, etc. etc., if that seems necessary. But there's no point in pretending those attitudes never existed.

Again, back when I was little and indulging in Enid Blyton books, I always baulked at the parts where the boys go off and have exciting adventures while the girls stay home and do the cooking and cleaning. And again, my parents informed me that that really was the way many people thought back then. That taught me, from an early age, not to take for granted the fact that I was growing up in a family and society where I was always assured that as a girl, I could do anything I liked, be anything I liked, and no-one had the right to tell me "girls can't do that, that's only for boys" and so on. It made me realise that things hadn't always been this way and that I should be grateful for those who had pushed, and were still pushing, for women's equality. I don't think I would have understood the significance of that nearly as quickly if the only books I'd read were ones that had all the politically incorrect parts purged out...

[Debbie]

Courtenay,

Totally agree with you.
My children (all born after 2000) were just bemused by Dame "Snap" because she didn't seem that bad that everyone was so scared of her. They far preferred the original Dame Slap.
The same children were also silenced for a good few minutes in horror when I mentioned that I remembered (just) corporal punishment being used at school.

Children are clever. They understand things aren't the same-and also it's a different world when they go in the Wishing Chair or up the Faraway Tree. They know that when Finch threatens flogging to the Weasley Twins in Harry Potter that is a different world and rules are different there. So why not in Enid Blyton?

As a girly-girl who totally agreed with Anne that the best bit about Five Run Away Together was making the home in the cave, I found it upsetting that things I liked were dismissed as not worth liking.
Yes, I liked, pink, dresses, sewing, dolls-all the girl things. That was because I liked them, not because of any stereotyping (my sister otoh hated all and liked trousers, football etc) but because that was what I liked doing. It felt like my preferences were considered second rate because they weren't boy things-which surely is not the idea?
I also have a maths degree and can sort out the mechanics of the car far better than my husband, so I never felt I had to go the girl route because that was the only one open to me.

[Boodi 2]

I fully agree with Debbie and Courtenay, especially about Snape in the Harry Potter books. I'm not suggesting that the latter should be censored in any way, but if JK Rowling is allowed to present such elements in what were extremely successful books, then I really fail to understand the need to "censor" such elements in Blyton books!

[Katharine]

As a girly-girl who totally agreed with Anne that the best bit about Five Run Away Together was making the home in the cave, I found it upsetting that things I liked were dismissed as not worth liking.
Yes, I liked, pink, dresses, sewing, dolls-all the girl things. That was because I liked them, not because of any stereotyping (my sister otoh hated all and liked trousers, football etc) but because that was what I liked doing. It felt like my preferences were considered second rate because they weren't boy things-which surely is not the idea?

I totally agree with your comments. For me, the making the home in a cave was the best part of that story. That doesn't mean that the rest of the book wasn't any good, just that different aspects obviously appeal to different people.

[timv]

The main storyline in Run Away Together , with the Sticks abusing their positions as temporary housekeepers at Kirrin Cottage and bullying / threatening the children, can be cited as one of the more 'serious' FF plots with an underlying darkness to it - the insecurity of a seemingly happy and stable home that can be taken away at any moment by circumstances, in this case Aunt Fanny's illness and Uncle Quentin's apparent incompetence in selecting the new staff. (Mind you, I expect the Sticks had good references, ie forged ones, as needed to make sure they got the job so they could help the kidnappers by being on hand to put the kidnapped Jenny in the island cave and then keep an eye on her there. And UQ had other priorities and was never much good at domestic matters!) Behind the way that Julian stands up to Mrs Stick and cheers the others up, especially Anne, there is an unpleasant atmosphere at the cottage with threats of bread and water diet and attempts to poison Timmy, and George is driven to run away to the island to keep him safe despite needing to be on hand to receive phone messages . Edgar is a nasty bit of work too though clearly his parents have brought him up the wrong way and Julian saying that he needs a 'hard lesson'' and so do his parents by locking him in the cave was a normal response for tackling bad behaviour in the 1940s. As is made clear, the Stick parents have little concern for Jenny locked up in the cave - she is just a way for them to earn more cash.

The usual critics' indignation at the 'snobbish' children , and Enid as the author, having Julian comment on Mr Stick's lack of smart dress (or bothering to shave) and the way the Sticks talk , ie in working-class Cockney idiom, is a distraction from the real sense of unease at the crisis and the children's potential powerlessness, and though their way of escape is reminiscent of the plot in Secret Island it is no less 'real' and gripping. When I first read the book, aged eight, my father had recently been in hospital in a totally unexpected medical episode that had left me somewhat insecure at how fragile life was, and the book seemed 'real' and relevant on that count. Enid here tackles the problems of real life as well as staging a typical FF mystery, and the book is all the stronger for that - though I felt a bit sorry for Stinker the dog!

[Viv of Ginger Pop]

Some excellent comments here.

Thank-you

Viv

[Boodi 2]

Run Away Together is one of my favourite FF books and apart from feeling a bit sorry for (S)Tinker the domestic abuse never bothered me unduly, either as a child or now. On the contrary, although not usually a 'fan of Julian I loved how he handled the most unpleasant Pa Stick!

[Viv of Ginger Pop]

I'm posting here with a comment about outdated attitudes.

I've just watched a hour-long programme on Channel 5 about the BBC sitcom Are you being served, which they billed as the rudest comedy on tv.

It was shown in the 1970s and set in a department store. As a school-girl, I was amused to hear about the antics of Mrs Slocombe's feline companion - but apparently adults found much amusing innuendo about this particular pussy cat...

So, the programme starts, with the obligatory warning that it will contain material that modern viewers may find offensive.

but then

it ends with a help-line for those who have been so traumatised by the content they need to seek help.

words now fail me

Viv

[Boatbuilder]

I understand what you are getting at, Viv. There seems to be so many programs on TV now where they give these 'warnings' at the start - AND after every commercial break during the program. Although I didn't watch it, that program on Saturday night was after the so-called '9-pm watershed' which is supposed to protect children. Now, it seems, we are trying to protect our 'adult-selves' with these so-called 'warnings'. Maybe they should just give all programs a classification like the BBFC do for films and show them at the start. Some of the scenes depicted on the early evening soaps leave a lot to be desired and are shown too early, when children are likely to be present and they don't give warnings out for many of them.

[Courtenay]

Maybe they should just give all programs a classification like the BBFC do for films and show them at the start. Some of the scenes depicted on the early evening soaps leave a lot to be desired and are shown too early, when children are likely to be present and they don't give warnings out for many of them.

Do they not give ordinary TV shows ratings here like they do to films?? (You can see I don't watch much television!) In Australia, we have the same ratings for TV as for films, and anything higher than a PG (parental guidance recommended) gets the obligatory warning at the start that it's "rated M for mature audiences" and contains... [violence / sex scenes / drug use / offensive language etc.] And usually, that's all, or at least it was back when I lived in Australia.

[Barnard]

Coronation Street is sometimes prefaced with the words, ‘contains upsetting scenes’.