Kitty wrote:...why do people insist on grouping all post-nursery children's literature into one catch-all. It is infuriating!
Yes, that struck me too.
Pullman's own writing (I've only read his "His Dark Materials" trilogy) is far more sophisticated than Enid Blyton's but it is aimed at a rather older readership (or at least that series appears to be.) He weaves complex themes into his work relating to philosophy, theology, physics, etc, much of which I'm sure would have gone completely over my head if I'd been able to read those books as a child. There are also sexual references, though not graphic. The third title in the series,
The Amber Spyglass, seems particularly adult - not all books
about children are necessarily
for children, whereas Enid Blyton's most certainly were even though many of us still enjoy them as adults.
I disagree with Philip Pullman when he says, "There's no pleasure in reading Enid Blyton's style. There's no sense of delight or joy in the language." Enid Blyton often uses onomatopoeia, alliteration and rhyme in her work and writes with clarity and fluidity. When I read her books, I sense that she enjoyed playing with language - her sentences are wonderfully rhythmic and she is skilled at writing natural-sounding dialogue even if her vocabularly isn't the most varied. Then there's the economy of expression, the humour and the expert timing, as Kitty pointed out.
Michael Rosen's views are more considered than Pullman's but his comment that, "In her stories about girls, like Amelia Jane and Mallory Towers, she explores the rivalries and jealousies of children and the ways in which they can be quite unpleasant to each other," suggests that he hasn't actually read the Amelia Jane books, which are not "about girls" but about a rag doll and other toys!
Good to see the link to this website, and to learn that Enid Blyton is "the sixth most popular author worldwide."
Anita