Journal 60

[Courtenay]

Yes, I remember when I was still in primary school we had a children's book at home about computers, robots and telecommunications — how they were invented and had developed over the years and where these technologies might take us next. (It was probably written in the late 1980s or early '90s.) I remember quite clearly that the book rather confidently concluded at one point that as these technological marvels took over jobs that were too difficult, boring or dangerous for humans to do, we would be able to devote so much more time to our own development as a society and "we could perhaps become super-humans, finding ways to bring peace and plenty to the world of tomorrow" (or words to that effect).

Twenty-five or thirty years later, I'm thinking that might have been a tad bit optimistic...

[MJE]

From memory I think it was the 14th book, Look Out Secret Seven, that caused particular trouble. I seem to recall that Gillian Baverstock had to change the part about the Secret Seven being out in the woods overnight because it was considered too long for characters that age to be out by themselves.

     That is ridiculous! Please tell me that this only appeared in fairly recent paperbacks, because then it means the original version is the only one I've read.
     But that night outing in the woods defines the entire climactic scene of that novel - one of the most exciting of all Secret Seven climaxes, I think. So how did the edits change this? Was a lot of the action removed, so the scene could be shorter? Or was it shifted to an entirely different setting?
     Also, carrying this further: there are lots of night-time escapades in this series - so is the scene in the old house in "The Secret Seven", where they finally discover who the prisoner is, too long, and did it have to be curtailed? How about the night-time expedition to Torling Castle in "Good Old Secret Seven"? How about delving deep into the cellars where stolen dogs seemed to be disappearing in "Go Ahead, Secret Seven"? Out to the railway yards near the end of "Secret Seven on the Trail" (not only at night, but in a thick fog - very dangerous for little children!)?
     And I'm sure there are more, too - how mind-numbingly ridiculous - I fumble to find words to express my contempt for this nonsense. Dangerous, exciting night-time escapades are a big part of the magic of Enid Blyton, and dumbing them down just sucks the very spirit out of her work.
     The more I read about things of this sort, the more I really believe that Enid Blyton's works, in their original form, are in serious danger of being lost for ever. (And it is sad to learn that "The Secret Mountain" has already been officially liquidated, treated as if it had never existed. I guess political correctness will ensure it never sees the light of day again.)

Regards, Michael.

[MJE]

It's the same with 'The Adventure of the Strange Ruby' - where Enid has the children staying away from home for a week or so, but in Gillian's version the time was curtailed to just a couple of days.

     Whaat?! I haven't read the book for years (will do so again if I find it, as I've recently found half my Find-Outers series in a place where I didn't think they were) - but didn't Tessa and Pat (or whatever they've been renamed in the new version) go to Swanage with their mother? That would make it okay, wouldn't it?
     And plenty of other Blyton characters go away from home for days at a time: look at "Five Get into Trouble", "Five Go Off in a Caravan", "Five Go to Demon's Rocks", "FIve on a Hike Together", just to name a few - off by themselves for days, with no adults at all around.
     So what's the issue? As I remember it, there was an adult when the "Strange Ruby" pair go off to Swanage, so I can't see any issues that Gillian had to correct or "update".
     Or was there something about it that I've forgotten, which violated P.C. concerns? (One despairs!)

Regards, Michael.


P.S.:
     I visited Swanage when I was in Britain two years ago with my mother - and one of the reasons I was interested to see it was that I remembered reading about it in "Adventure of the Strange Ruby", and feeling how that book seemed to depict it as a sunny, balmy, broad, expansive seaside place. But when I saw it, it was very different from how the book had prompted me to visualize it.

[MJE]

The reality is that now instead some people are working 7 days a week! Of course, its so the fat cats at the top can get richer at our expense, I guess. :evil:

     Bring on the revolution! Revolt against the machine!
     I vaguely recall reading a rather chilling quasi-science-fiction story by J. G. Ballard that was a parable on this idea. I think it was called "The Garden of Time", but I am not totally sure I recall that correctly.

     [ MInutes later: yes, it was that - you can read it here:
  https://englishteachers.wikispaces.com/ ... F+TIME.pdf ]

Regards, Michael.

[MJE]

     And, by the way, I've remembered the other thing from the Journal I wanted to ask, although it's little more than an observation - or perhaps a vague question, if any thoughts on my observation be invited.
     It concerns the short story by Enid Blyton called "The Child Who Was Chosen", which is a simple story about a couple who adopt one child, then another, and how they explain this to the first child when he is old enough to understand, and it basically focuses on the thought that this child was chosen for his special qualities, unlike most natural-born children. The parents are never shown actually telling their adopted child, John, that he was specially chosen, but the feeling is given that this is how his adoption was explained to him, and underlined at the end when the time comes to adopt a second child, and John is specifically invited to help choose the right child.
     My thought was just that this story leaves some central issues about adoption unaddressed, and I wonder how any adopted children who are given this story to read might deal with them.
     For instance, it gives no hint of why John's parents had to go and choose children - is the child reader to believe that this is how *all* children come into families? - that you go to Mrs. Johnson (or a similar person handling adoptions) and arrange to get a child - but you only choose a particular baby if you are sure it is the *right* one? Or, if the child reader is not meant to believe this is the norm, then it leaves unexplained why this family's situation departs from the norm.
     And also, more obviously - although really just another aspect of the same issue - it leaves entirely unanswered why the chosen child was not kept by his or her original parents. Would children wonder about this, and wonder why the story didn't deal with it? Or might they just believe that Mrs. Johnson somehow manufactures babies, and that going to her is just the way you get children? (That idea reminds me a bit of the Baby Hatcheries in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".)
     Maybe I'm approaching it from too adult and analytical point of view (as is my wont) - but I am wondering if the story is actually rather deficient because of this. Did Enid Blyton write other stories that do deal with this aspect of why some families don't keep children who are born to them?
     I just thought I'd ask for any thoughts on this, if anyone has any. Thanks.

Regards, Michael.

[Rob Houghton]

It's the same with 'The Adventure of the Strange Ruby' - where Enid has the children staying away from home for a week or so, but in Gillian's version the time was curtailed to just a couple of days.

     Whaat?! I haven't read the book for years (will do so again if I find it, as I've recently found half my Find-Outers series in a place where I didn't think they were) - but didn't Tessa and Pat (or whatever they've been renamed in the new version) go to Swanage with their mother? That would make it okay, wouldn't it?
     And plenty of other Blyton characters go away from home for days at a time: look at "Five Get into Trouble", "Five Go Off in a Caravan", "Five Go to Demon's Rocks", "FIve on a Hike Together", just to name a few - off by themsevles for days, with no adults at all around.
     So what's the issue? As I remember it, there was an adult when the "Strange Ruby" pair go off to Swanage, so I can't see any issues that Gillian had to correct or "update".
     Or was there something about it that I've forgotten, which violated P.C. concerns? (One despairs!)

Regards, Michael.

Personally, I don't see what the issue is, either - but clearly Gillian did! That's why it's such a shame that all the books in this new 'series' (the Riddle series) are no longer available in their original state. The children, Pat and Tessa, do indeed go to Swanage with their mother, but then she gets called away and they go camping on their own (with mother's agreement). however, in the modern version they have to agree to all sorts of modern conventions, such as phoning each night, letting the neighbour know where they are, etc - so Gillian realised that in modern times children couldn't just disappear for a week without police helicopters and TV news reports etc.

The other stories used in the Riddle series - The Boy Next Door, Hollow Tree House, Holiday House, The Mystery That Never Was and The Treasure Hunters - have all been modernised and are sadly no longer available in their original versions.

[MJE]

Personally, I don't see what the issue is, either - but clearly Gillian did!

     Do you think she, personally, really saw an issue here? Or do you think she just reluctantly agreed to fulfil a commission by a publisher who saw an issue, and preferred at least to do it herself rather than have someone else do a worse job of it instead?

That's why it's such a shame that all the books in this new 'series' (the Riddle series) are no longer available in their original state. :-(

     Worse and worse! Bad enough if some alternative version does this unjustified tampering - but it's just all the worse if the original version disappears, so that this alternative version *becomes* main version.
     I really regard this as cultural vandalism on a large scale. The Thought Police have really savaged Enid Blyton's innocent, harmless fun to almost unrecognizable shreds.

The children, Pat and Tessa, do indeed go to Swanage with their mother, but then she gets called away and they go camping on their own (with mother's agreement). however, in the modern version they have to agree to all sorts of modern conventions, such as phoning each night, letting the neighbour know where they are, etc

     I dare say that, in the next revision, they will have to contact their parents each night by Skype or Facebook, and will be warned to make sure their iPhone batteries are charged each night - Aaarrgghhh! The thought makes me feel like giving the dratted iPhone a jolly thorough acid bath! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-G4TZzVeZ0 - amongst others.)
     So has this vandalism been perpetrated also on books like "Five Get into Trouble" or "Five Go Off in a Caravan", where the children are away from all adults for maybe a week or more? If not, then why was "Adventure of the Strange Ruby" particularly an issue? None of it makes the least bit of sense!

- so Gillian realised that in modern times children couldn't just disappear for a week without police helicopters and TV news reports etc.

     Not even if the parents consented? My goodness me - in that case, childhood is even more of a prison now than I thought.

The other stories used in the Riddle series - The Boy Next Door, Hollow Tree House, Holiday House, The Mystery That Never Was and The Treasure Hunters - have all been modernised and are sadly no longer available in their original versions. :-(

     In that case, I'd better get to work and sort out if I need to get copies of any of these, and get them before they become too hard or too expensive to get.

Regards, Michael.

[Chrissie777]

Have you ever read Momo by Michael Ende, Chrissie? Wonderful fable on just that theme — how an obsession with "saving time" drains away everything meaningful in life.

I haven't read the book, Courtenay, but watched the movie many years ago. Must admit that I barely remember it.

[Anita Bensoussane]

From memory I think it was the 14th book, Look Out Secret Seven, that caused particular trouble. I seem to recall that Gillian Baverstock had to change the part about the Secret Seven being out in the woods overnight because it was considered too long for characters that age to be out by themselves.

     But that night outing in the woods defines the entire climactic scene of that novel - one of the most exciting of all Secret Seven climaxes, I think. So how did the edits change this? Was a lot of the action removed, so the scene could be shorter? Or was it shifted to an entirely different setting?

Sorry I can't give any details but I'm afraid I can't remember where I read about Gillian's editing of the Secret Seven books, and I haven't seen the modern versions for myself.

[Poppy]

Aw, I absolutely loved that scene in 'Look Out Secret Seven' and it was my favourite book in the SS series, purely on the basis of that exciting midnight adventure! I can't believe that it has been edited in more modern editions.

[Rob Houghton]

I must be the only one who finds that scene a bit strained and unrealistic. Not my favourite scene, but I still don't like the idea of it being removed!

[Moonraker]

If you took all that was unrealistic out of the books, there would be no series!

[Courtenay]

True. Besides, who wants to read books that are nothing but "realistic"? When I was little (and even now), I always most wanted to read stories about magic and adventure and other sorts of things that wouldn't happen in real life — that's just what made books like Enid Blyton's so appealing!

[Rob Houghton]

Hmmm...I think you take my comments too seriously, lol...I just meant it seems a bit weak compared to the excitements of other books...maybe the word 'unrealistic' wasn't the right one to use.

[Daisy]

I think the appeal of the books is that while what we read is not very likely to happen to most of us, it isn't completely beyond the bounds of possibility... at least not to a child reader, which is of course the intended readership.