I must admit, I think Mrs I.C Newton was very critical of Anita's article (I.C, even! (icy)
). After all, Anita was simply writing about the merits and or otherwise of the Adventure Magazine and giving those of us who had never come across it a chance to read about what sort of stories they contained. To only write about Enid's original stories would, in my opinion, make for a pretty flat Journal. What makes our Journal so good, I think, is the vast variety of subjects and editions covered.
I don't quite understand what I.C Newton means about 'the foot of page 62 (of Journal 40)' when she says ,'I feel the whole subject is very disloyal to E Blyton...' but I take it she means that Anita should never have written the article in the first place?! I strongly disagree with this: Anita's articles are always relevant and well-written, and often about books or magazines (such as 'The Troublesome Three' article) which many fans of Blyton may not have come across. I certainly don't agree with I.C. Newton's statement that it is 'not I fear what true E Blyton fans want to read'.
I wonder what else ICY Newton wrote in her apparently long letter that Tony was too gentlemanly to publish: I'm sure she spouted quite a bit more acid that didnt make it to the final print. It's a pity instead that she didnt see fit to write her
own article about Enid Blyton or her writing and submit it for inclusion in the Journal.
I feel perhaps I am included when Jean Singleton mentions that 'articles are getting too long', although as she then goes on to only mention Norman and David, perhaps she doesn't even give my articles a second glance! But I just feel an article is the length it's meant to be. If you find stuff to say, you just let it find it's own length (within reason).
At the moment I've only really read these letters, and it's a pity they are pretty negative, particularly as none of the writers have ever contrubuted to The Journal.
Next, I'll get on to those LONG articles that (thankfully) fill the rest of this quality booklet of ours