That's interesting Anita, I certainly didn't know what "Duw" meant or "lucky dab" either. I grew up in an area where mothers were called 'mum', and for years thought only American's used 'mom'. I think I was probably an adult before I realised that parts of the UK used different versions too, including 'mam'.
Fourpence could possibly be misread as '4p', and I'm sure many of us would love to find somewhere that sold portions of chips so cheaply. And anyway, with inflation, whatever currency/prices are used, things are in danger of becoming out of date quite quickly - fairy tales are easier where payments take place with basic currency such as one gold coin. On such subjects, I wonder if classic works that refer to really old-fashioned currency such as groats are being reworked?
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what "Chippy Gaynor" means after your explanation, but maybe reading more would make it obvious, if not, I'm assuming it wouldn't have a major bearing on the story.
Yes, wonder why plump is deemed acceptable here?
I wonder if the bigger issue here is not that children aren't considered capable of coping with different dialects, but more a case of there being a desire to remove middle-class English dialects?
Katharine wrote: ↑12 Dec 2023, 13:13I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what "Chippy Gaynor" means after your explanation, but maybe reading more would make it obvious, if not, I'm assuming it wouldn't have a major bearing on the story.
It's just that there's a tradition in Wales (and perhaps elsewhere) of naming someone (informally, within a small community) according to the job they do - i.e. Gaynor is known as "Chippy Gaynor" because she runs a chip shop.
"Heyho for a starry night and a heathery bed!" - Jack, The Secret Island.
"There is no bond like the bond of having read and liked the same books."
- E. Nesbit, The Wonderful Garden.
Katharine wrote: ↑12 Dec 2023, 13:13...I wonder if the bigger issue here is not that children aren't considered capable of coping with different dialects, but more a case of there being a desire to remove middle-class English dialects?
I 100% believe that to be the case.
I've said before on here that I think the main reason why Enid gets edited more than other just as 'problematic' writers of their era - and has pretty much became the byword for such writers - is mostly to do with reverse snobbery.
Other writers used 'problematic' language, and adopted the views of their time - just like Enid - however she is seen as 'speaking for the middle class', whereas a lot of the others are seen as 'speaking for the working class', and so they don't get as hard a time about it. I very much believe the biggest 'issue' with Enid for many is the class and posh vocabulary of a lot of her protagonists, but they focus more on the other stuff - which applies just as much to many other writers - as an easy stick to poke her with.
As regards TheAngryPixie's (shorter) list of pros and (longer) list of cons of the TV show, I agree with a lot of it. I didn't go as far in my terminology or criticism, but did touch on a lot of those points - such as the dialogue, villain, Julian being sidelined... - and agree a lot of that was what I least enjoyed about it.
The one criticism I'd probably disagree with most was about Kirrin Island. I thought it was a decent enough choice. I agree an old, impressive wreck would have been much more atmospheric, and more examples of the rabbits and birds would have been nicer. But, overall, it wasn't one of the (many) things that stuck out to me as being a big disappointment.
I like the extremely rugged Kirrin Island that is depicted in The Curse of Kirrin Island. It has plenty of jagged rocks and hollows, and ledges leading up like a natural staircase. We may not see any jackdaws but we do see cormorants and gulls, and hear a crow or two. The ruin looks appealing too, ivy-covered and full of secrets. I'd have loved to own an island like that as a child - and still would!
Katharine wrote: ↑12 Dec 2023, 13:13I wonder if the bigger issue here is not that children aren't considered capable of coping with different dialects, but more a case of there being a desire to remove middle-class English dialects?
What's strange is that traditional middle class speech is represented in books by modern children's authors, so why should it be toned down in reprints of older books - or in TV serials? Here's an extract from Hilary McKay's The Skylarks' War, published in 2018. The story spans a number of years, but the following incident takes place in 1912:
Clarry didn't like the bows, but the bathing suit was the lightest thing she had ever worn. She put it on and pranced into Peter's room, saying, "Look! Look! Look!"
Peter was lying on his bed, reading and resting his aching leg. He put down his book and peered at her. He said, "It's the worst thing I've ever seen you wearing."
"Oh," said Clarry. "It can't be!"
"It is. Can you get that blue-ribbon muck off?"
"The bows? They're what hold it on."
"Well, it's awful," said Peter, picking up his book again. "Wait till Rupe sees it. He'll tell you."
"What'll I tell her?" asked Rupert, coming in just then. "Oh... CRIKEY, Clarry!"
"What?" demanded Clarry.
"Did you make it yourself?"
"I bought it," said Clarry. "With my own money. Some of my birthday sovereign."
"From a shop?" asked Rupert incredulously, and then, seeing Clarry's face and remembering his manners, added, "Well done! Good for you! Superb!"
If terms like "bathing suit", "Rupe" (short for "Rupert"), "CRIKEY", "my birthday sovereign" and "Good for you! Superb!" can be used by a current children's author, why are the same or similar terms often updated or rendered blander when it comes to reprints of older fiction by authors like Enid Blyton? If young readers can cope with them in modern books, they can cope with them in older books too!
"Heyho for a starry night and a heathery bed!" - Jack, The Secret Island.
"There is no bond like the bond of having read and liked the same books."
- E. Nesbit, The Wonderful Garden.
Anita Bensoussane wrote: ↑12 Dec 2023, 20:38
If terms like "bathing suit", "Rupe" (short for "Rupert"), "CRIKEY", "my birthday sovereign" and "Good for you! Superb!" can be used by a current children's author, why are the same or similar terms often updated or rendered blander when it comes to reprints of older fiction by authors like Enid Blyton? If young readers can cope with them in modern books, they can cope with them in older books too!
Dare I suggest for the simple reason that they arewritten by Enid Blyton?
OK, I know that's a sweeping generalisation, but I do honestly believe there's a little of that involved at times. A bit like the 'lashings of ginger beer', which is so often misquoted, I think that there's a perception amongst some people that she 'needs' to be updated.
I wonder how many surveys have been done of children reading original texts and how much they understood or struggled with.
Is it a clever marketing strategy? ie, declare that some of Enid's original text is 'boring' or not easily understood by youngsters, so change a few words, print new editions and get people to rush out and buy the 'new' books, rather than having hand-me -downs. After all, let's face it, there must be enough copies of Enid's major works up and down the country to keep new readers happy if people just passed them on- not that anyone is getting their hands on mine any time soon.
A bit like parents rushing out to buy their infants the latest 'must have' toy for Christmas, and then finding the child is more interesting in the wrapping paper and empty box.
Katharine wrote: ↑12 Dec 2023, 21:43
Dare I suggest for the simple reason that they arewritten by Enid Blyton?
OK, I know that's a sweeping generalisation, but I do honestly believe there's a little of that involved at times. A bit like the 'lashings of ginger beer', which is so often misquoted, I think that there's a perception amongst some people that she 'needs' to be updated.
I agree with you Katharine. People do seem to think that Enid Blyton 'needs' to be updated even though she was a woman of her time writing in her time. It's stupid and annoying and it beats me why but they do really seem to think that. Enid Blyton does not 'need' updating, she needs to be left alone and so do her books. People need to stop trying to put the past in the present and the present in the past.
Society Member
I'm just an old fashioned girl with an old fashioned mind
Not sophisticated, I'm the sweet and simple kind
I want an old fashioned house, with an old fashioned fence
And A̶n̶ ̶o̶l̶d̶ ̶f̶a̶s̶h̶i̶o̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶a̶i̶r̶e̶
I have just watched The Curse of Kirrin Island on Three Now, which is Three's on-demand service in New Zealand. (Three is like ITV in Britain; formerly known as TV3, it's the main competitor to the three channels run by state-owned TVNZ , although TVNZ and Three both have a lot of "sub-channels" nowadays.) It inspired me to come here and see what others made of it. So now I am going to share my thoughts on it. On the whole, I quite enjoyed it, but as with others here, there were aspects I didn't like. (There are some spoilers in this post for those of you who haven't yet watched it.)
Must admit that I groaned when I first saw that George was dark-skinned. I have no problem whatsoever with diverse casting, except when it's not authentic. What I mean by that is doing something like making Ann Boleyn into a black woman. It's a fact of history that she was white. So portraying her as a black woman just feels fake. Can you imagine Martin Luther King Jr. or Nelson Mandela being played onscreen by a white man? Nobody would accept that. It would just seem absurd. So how is it any less absurd to make Ann Boleyn black? I guess George in the Famous Five is not a real-life historical figure, but a fictional one. So maybe it's not quite as far-fetched to change her ethnicity. But when a character has always been one ethnicity, it feels wrong to change it. (I'll make an exception for Doctor Who due to the particular nature of that character.) The other thing that irritates me about changing a character's skin colour is that the primary motive is usually woke virtue-signalling (and in this, I'll include Doctor Who). Sort of like, "Let's make one of the main characters black - OK, we've ticked the woke box to satisfy our bosses and advertisers". Indeed, I feared greatly that the show was going to be ruined by woke lecturing.
I was therefore pleasantly surprised to find that there was absolutely none of that. Nobody made a big deal about anyone else's skin colour, which is as it should be. Moreover, there was hardly any focus on George's desire to be a boy (other than her saying that she slapped the last person who called her Georgina). In fact, much more was made of it in the original books than in this remake. The focus was on good old-fashioned adventure, not woke moralising or identity politics, and that pleased me (I was also greatly relieved).
George's ethnicity aside, I didn't feel like she was quite feisty enough. When she talked about slapping the last person who called her Georgina, that did feel like feisty George, but on the whole, I think she's a lot more passionate than the way she was portrayed in this particular Famous Five adaptation. Jemima Rooper probably came closest to capturing the really passionate, fiery temperament of George. Also, this George seemed to warm up to Julian, Dick and Anne a little bit too quickly. So yeah, in a way, she's a little bit too nice in this version. One aspect of George that is captured quite well though is her honesty and loyalty. Another thing they portrayed well was her athleticism and confidence in navigating the tricky waters and rugged terrain of Kirrin Island.
The Julian character looked about 15 or 16, rather than the 12 or 13 that he is in the books. However, I didn't mind this. It gave him a more grown-up air. That said, he didn't act nearly as grown-up as he does in the books. I don't think there was ever any point where he took charge of things. George was really the leader (perhaps that was ticking the female empowerment box). Julian took a back seat most of the time. Dick was too nerdy. Having him wear glasses was something else that felt inauthentic. He's never worn glasses in the books or in any previous adaptation (that I know of). The Anne character was reasonably faithful to the books. However, there was one scene (in which she and her brothers were just arriving at Kirrin) when I thought she spoke rather imperiously to the person assisting her. That did not feel like Anne at all. Enid Blyton's Anne is, for the most part, a polite and gentle soul. Timmy reminded me of the one in the 1990s TV show. It was either the same dog breed or a very similar one. There wasn't too much wrong with this Timmy, although I did wonder who had trained him so well when George so easily got him to sit, roll over and shake hands/paws.
The Uncle Quentin character wasn't too bad, although like George, he wasn't feisty enough. The Quentin of the books was prone to fits of temper and brooding, but this Quentin didn't display any of that. Not that he needed to be unduly grumpy, but the fact that he was so mild-mannered just made him feel a bit bland. I did rather like the tender scene between Quentin and George towards the end. Sometimes in the books, there was a bit too much conflict and not enough affection between Quentin and George. But in a way, that touching scene would have worked even better if they'd had a couple of fiery clashes earlier. It would have felt more poignant by being contrasted with those. The Aunt Fanny character was actually more feisty than Quentin in this adaptation, especially the scene where she was telling George to grow up. (Incidentally, was Fanny ever called by name in this? I don't remember that if so.)
It appears that this adventure was set in the 1930s. The initial vision of the future that Wentworth has includes footage of World War II. So in the universe of this FF adaptation, that hadn't happened yet. Also, the cars and clothing seem about right for the '30s. But since they did choose to set it then, the use of more modern language does feel a bit incongruous (as others have observed).
I hated the opening credits, and the closing ones weren't much better. They were garish and more appropriate for a cartoon than a period adventure story. Just didn't feel right for the Famous Five at all. The theme music was OK, but not that catchy. Rather like the George and Quentin characters, it was kind of bland.
On the whole, I thought the adventure scenes were really well done. I especially enjoyed the scene where water was pouring down on top of them and filling the cave. You really felt a sense of danger with that. Kirrin Island had the right sort of atmosphere. The scenes in London were all right, but I thought the best action scenes were on Kirrin Island. It felt very Blyton when they were finding hidden tunnels and exploring dark caves with torches. The linguist in me enjoyed it when they were trying to work out the Latin inscription on the goblet. This sort of tied in with Five Go Adventuring Again, when the children try to translate the Latin phrase, "Via Occulta" and end up asking Mr Roland for help with that.
The main villain was a bit weird. He seemed to be a bit of a mama's boy, which is not what you expect of a bad guy, even one in a children's TV programme. (Wentworth's mother was another rather bland character. If she was supposed to be villainous, she didn't come across much that way.) I did not like the sci fi/fantasy element where he sees into the future at the end. While this show exercised a lot of artistic licence (like with the ethnicity of Aunt Fanny and George, having the Five go to London and suchlike), this plot element felt like one step too far. It was departing completely from the Blyton formula. One aspect of the villain that was done well, I thought, was his madness. Even before he drank the contaminated water, he came across as someone not altogether in his right mind. I think Jack Gleeson portrayed that insane side of him very well. He came across as dangerously demented at times. But at other times, he was maybe a little too cartoonish.
Overall, I enjoyed it. For the most part, it was pretty good entertainment. Despite my initial irritation at the ethnicity of George, that didn't really matter in the end. The key was that this was never made an issue of. The focus was on the story, not the identities of any of the characters. Which is exactly what you want in a programme like this. There was an awful lot of artistic licence taken, but then, the 1978 show took a lot of liberties too in that it was set in the 1970s, and the characters all wore 1970s clothing and had '70s hairstyles etc. Also, the plots of some or even most episodes departed considerably from the books at times. The 1990s show was probably the most authentic in terms of period accuracy (that was set in the 1950s, if I recall rightly). And it was probably the most faithful to the books in terms of the plots and how the characters were portrayed. (The '70s version had the best theme song though.) But while I like faithfulness to books wherever possible in TV or movie adaptations, I can live with liberties being taken as long as the final product still ends up being a good and enjoyable story in its own right. And by and large, I think The Curse of Kirrin Island was pretty decent. Not the greatest Famous Five adventure ever made, but by no means the worst either. Despite ticking some "obligatory" woke boxes, it was anything but the exercise in dreary political correctness I'd feared it might be. Indeed, it was enjoyable enough that I will be quite happy to check out Peril on the Night Train whenever that comes to NZ. And if anyone were to ever write books to tie in with these adaptations, I'd probably buy those too.
Best Regards
ROWAN M.
A room without books is like a body without a soul - Cicero
It's good to see you looking in, Rowan, and I've enjoyed reading your very thorough and interesting post.
As you say, "identity" plays a part in the original books in that George identifies as a boy, making it easier for her to focus on activities like boating, fishing and climbing without people expecting her to take an interest in frocks, dolls and housewifery. However, like you, Rowan, I'm glad that "identity politics" doesn't feature in this adaptation. Once George has got over her initial guardedness (which evaporates the moment Anne makes a fuss of Timmy!), the children and dog are a team. And as a team they're outward-looking; ready to explore, discover and do their bit. Who would want our intrepid adventurers to get bogged down in inward-looking, angst-ridden self-obsession?
I like the scene with the rising water too. It reminds me of a similar incident in The Island of Adventure. Oh, and I agree that the sci fi/fantasy element is the poorest part. Any elements in Enid Blyton's adventure and mystery books which seem to be supernatural always turn out to have a logical explanation.
"Heyho for a starry night and a heathery bed!" - Jack, The Secret Island.
"There is no bond like the bond of having read and liked the same books."
- E. Nesbit, The Wonderful Garden.
I've just watched it and enjoyed it. I think I'd have preferred it not to be claiming to be a Famous Five because I could have enjoyed it without thinking "but that's wrong" - but then I probably wouldn't have watched it!
I'll try not to put spoilers, but apologise if I do give a couple of things away.
Characterisation was generally good.
George was good, could have done with being a little bit more independent/feisty. Very little was made of the "I want to be a boy"; she objects to being called Georgina (but says "the last person who did that I slapped them" which jarred because a slap is more "girlie" and I don't think George would have either said or done that. I can see why they didn't want to have her thumping them though.) and later she objects to being called a "little girl", but she's at the age when she would object to being called a "little girl" anyway. Her clothing was far too girlie too, even the blouse had embroidery on it.
I'd have ideally like to see her more angry at parts, and take longer to accept the cousins, but generally well done.
Julian: Too old, but it worked okay. There were times I'd have expected him to protect Anne more, and he doesn't really take charge at any point. I'd agree with him being a bit side-lined. The adventure would have worked without him there at all.
Dick: Too young. He looked younger than Anne to me. I didn't mind making him the bookish one, although I wish they wouldn't automatically give the bookish one glasses. And why did he always have to have a large rucksack all the time on when none of the others had bags? I think there's only one time (when he gets the rope out) that it's used. And particularly ridiculous when they're escaping from the underground water to still have it on his back. As the booking and knowledgeable one he'd have known to jettison it immediately.
Anne: In a lot of ways the best character. She's nervous, but brave at times. I thought sending her down first into the cave George initially found was wrong. No way would Julian have allowed that. I thought they got her pretty well though.
Things I really found irritating:
Firstly they didn't change clothes even when they'd been thoroughly soaked. They wore the same outfits throughout except when they were in pyjamas. Probably irritated me more than it should.
When they're escaping and think they've been stopped by a guard with two German Shepherd dogs. Timmy barks once and the dogs (with guard) retreat. Come on, Timmy isn't that scary and I can't imagine two guard dogs being at all intimidated.
The "woo" stuff. It wasn't really necessary. He could have gone mad on the water without it being woo.
I think Wentworth could have been a lot more creepy. Four of them and a dog would be pretty good odds against him. He's quite weedy in looks, so he needed to be more scary in characterisation. I'm wondering whether he's been set up to appear again too.
I think I'll probably watch the others, which I didn't think I'd say.
And anyway, with inflation, whatever currency/prices are used, things are in danger of becoming out of date quite quickly - fairy tales are easier where payments take place with basic currency such as one gold coin. On such subjects, I wonder if classic works that refer to really old-fashioned currency such as groats are being reworked? 
