Philip Pullman is not a Blyton fan, it seems...

[Lenoir]

George, one of the main characters of all, meets her match in Berta/Leslie, who is feminine and American, but can swim faster than her.
It rather spoils things for the critics who keep on about Enid Blyton being sexist and xenophobic (the bbc article refers).
This balances things out a bit anyway as George is known to be as good as any boy, Julian included, but not as good as any girl it seems!

[Moonraker]

In the main, I think the strongest characters come from the one-off novels. The main series seem to squeeze the orange dry; the Five and Seven are really quite bland; Fatty stands out way above the rest (in the FF-O&D series). There are too many to name in the one-off books, but here, I feel, the really three-dimensional characters prevail.

Obviously there are exceptions, Snubby, for example, is a strong character; I am just generalising.

I often query the success of the Five; they seem to be stereotypical kids - the butch tomboy, the girlie doll-lover, the buffoon and the pompous leader-type. Having said that, it is a damn good series!

[Julie2owlsdene]

I often query the success of the Five; they seem to be stereotypical kids - the butch tomboy, the girlie doll-lover, the buffoon and the pompous leader-type. Having said that, it is a damn good series!

Who's the buffoon Moonraker? Surely you can't be meaning Dick, the heart-throb

[Pippa-Stef]

I often query the success of the Five; they seem to be stereotypical kids - the butch tomboy, the girlie doll-lover, the buffoon and the pompous leader-type. Having said that, it is a damn good series!

Who's the buffoon Moonraker? Surely you can't be meaning Dick, the heart-throb

Now be nice Julie! Everyone is allowed there own opinion.

Anyway, Nigel, about the "girlie doll-lover"; I though she was your favourite?

[Anita Bensoussane]

That's just what i meant, really: the main series, such as F.Five have these two-dimentional characters which anyone can 'inhabit' whilst reading - except maybe for George, who is more three-dimentional. Also, Fatty is a character who stands up on his own, and the fantasy characters definitely do. But Jo, Bessie and Fanny could be anyone, just as Mollie and Peter could be anyone: those characters are just as important because they help younger children to place themselves as the main characters.

I agree with that - I just felt we were sounding a bit too accepting of Blyton's characters being described as "two-dimensional" so I thought I'd list some of the ones which seem very "real" to me (even though not all of them are "realistic.")

Anita

[Julie2owlsdene]

I felt Kit from the Boy Next Door was a strong character and very realistic, the same as Miss Taylor, (the dragon).

Maybe Enid put a lot more thought, into the characters of her one off novels, as a number of them do come across as three dimensional.

[Rob Houghton]

I often think Enid's 'smaller' characters were the ones who really shone, and were more three dimensional: for example Susie in Secret Seven, who is way stronger than any of the Secret Seven themselves. even Binkie is more 'fleshed out' than the Seven. Then there's Curious Connie in Faraway tree, and Eunice in 'Missing Man' and Ern in the other F.F.O books.

The 'less important' characters in the Five books such as Jo the gypsy girl or Sniffer are also more three dimensional than the so-called 'main characters'. And I think Big Ears is far more interesting as a character than Noddy!

[lizarfau]

I often query the success of the Five; they seem to be stereotypical kids - the butch tomboy, the girlie doll-lover, the buffoon and the pompous leader-type. Having said that, it is a damn good series!

I think that if Enid hadn't written so many books, she wouldn't have come in for the amount of criticism she does. Character development does take place in the first Famous Five book, especially in George's case. She starts the book lonely, friendless and fierce, and gradually the barriers come down and you see her softer side - she takes time to help Anne to swim, and the scene where Julian tells her there are things she can share with them even if she can't buy them ice creams is quite poignant. I think George is very "three-dimensional" in this book.

The problem is that as the series goes on, they just become more and more stereotyped. I'm not complaining about that, because I loved the Famous Five as a kid and still do. But if Five On a Treasure Island had been a one off, she'd have been much-praised.

With many of her series, the first book in the series is a stand-out, then the same thing happens as the series progresses. She's not alone with this - in fact the majority of series deteriorate after a while, whether aimed at adults or children.

[Lucky Star]

Barney is a good example of a well rounded character. We follow him from being a homeless orphan through to being a normal well adjusted member of a secure family. Along the way we see him lonely, disspirited and learn his hopes and dreams. We are devastated with him in Rubadub when his dreams are so cruelly dashed. Considering this is a character aimed at children his development is very gritty indeed. It is Blyton's talent that makes him also a person with whom we can laugh and share in adventures even while we are aware of the unresolved sadness in his life.

I agree with Lizarfau that the sheer volume of books written by Blyton makes it inevitable that many characters do not get developed to their full possible extent. Nonetheless when she does take trouble with a character as with Barney, George and Fatty to name just three we can see clearly that she is quite capable of creating in depth people.

Other books such as the Mistletoe Farm series and The Six Bad Boys also take serious issues use characterisation to highlight those issues, think of the crises which befall both branches of the Longfield family and the sharp contrasts drawn between those who are strong in those crises and those who go to pieces in the face of them.

Blyton also wrote for her time and in those days children were, I think, simply not expected to deal with sexual issues and drug related issues in the way which some modern "childrens" authors seem to think they are nowadays.

[Tony Summerfield]

Barney is a good example of a well rounded character.

You don't have to take him for walks every day! Sorry, I'm being flippant!

[bilgewaters]

my my,I'm so tired of people trotting out the same old boring excuses for not liking E.B.At the end of the day,if the books are so bad then why are they still in print?Other authors of childrens fiction have fallen by the wayside so why not E.B? the whole point is that theywere written for kids so it's pointless reading them and judging them as an adult,it's just not the same.E.B.'s books have and will stand the test of time because the CHILDREN they are written for love them and because they are GOOD!!

[Lucky Star]

Well said Bilgewaters and welcome to the forums.

[bilgewaters]

thanks for having me.I have read and enjoyed E.B. since my mother bought me my first mystery(diasappearing cat) after that there was no stopping me.still got em, and still reading em, and I'm 54 this year.thats whats so good about E.B. the stories stay with you,she taught me that it was wrong to lie,steal,take credit for something you hadn't done.whats so wrong about that?some writer wrote that he'd never read any Blyton so he read one and was "pleasantly underwhelmed" How arrogant can you get?this man was 33 how can you feel the same excitement as a 9 or 10 year old?O.k maybe the language and attitudes are abit stilted,but we're talking about a different time.E.B.wrote from her own experience,that was the world she knew.thousands of children and adults cannot be wrong and a few writers be right.When my grandkids are able they will get all my E.B.'s from my kids because they love them too.Maybe Mr pullmans kids and grandkids will too.who know if his books will still be in print in 70 years time.

[rogoz]

Pullman's viewpoint is not uncommon - there's supposed to be some ' gold standard ' of writing against which all must be judged - there's no room for individual style. By this measure, Austen's novels were too narrowly based & didn't include more about Napoleonic wars or the slave trade. Likewise, it's easy to assert Blyton's works have no depth of character or coherent plot lines or any number of other ' deficiencies ' & the riposte is that children mostly don't bother about such things. When they do bother, they can move on to other authors.

[Viv of Ginger Pop]

By this measure, Austen's novels were too narrowly based & didn't include more about Napoleonic wars or the slave trade.

Nice thought!

Viv