Text modifications in Egmont editions and elsewhere

Viv of Ginger Pop · Post by **Viv of Ginger Pop** » 25 Jun 2006, 22:49

I've been cancelled (or deferred) because of some breaking story.

I found this web site whilst doing a bit of research, which I thought interesting Click here

best wishes

Viv

Post by **Keith Robinson** » 26 Jun 2006, 00:36

About text changes, I can't remember where I was talking about this before, but I'll mention it again:

My "favorite" change has to be in Five Have Plenty of Fun. The 2004 cover clearly shows modern kids, and the text changes would certainly not indicate we're talking about a period setting. Why, then, has the scene with Berta on the beach been left unchanged?

"Have you a swimsuit, Berta, I mean Lesley?" asked George.

"Yes. It's an absolutely plain one, so I'll be all right in it," said Berta. "Hurray, I shan't need to wear a cap. Boys never do."

And in the originals, this is enough to convince spies that Berta is a boy -- because she's cropped her hair and isn't wearing a cap, and in those days, swimsuits all looked the same. But any child reading the book today would be thinking, "Er... so... Berta's running about topless? Or are the boys wearing bikinis? Mum, see what it says here...!"

The original bookcover at least explains to a reader that this is a period setting, whereas ANY of the new versions (including this 2004 version) clearly show modern-day children...

Confusing or what?

Post by **Tony Summerfield** » 26 Jun 2006, 10:36

As promised yesterday, the saga of text changes rumbles on and again I draw your attention to a News update on the Home Page or a link here if you would prefer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

As they invite the opinion of readers, this seems a fine chance for some of our Forum members to stick their oar in!

Best wishes
Tony

Post by **Anita Bensoussane** » 26 Jun 2006, 13:10

A very good article, Tony. Thanks for letting us know about that - I thoroughly enjoyed it. Did anyone else buy the Daily Mail? The article carries a small photograph of "Barbara Stoney" - but it's actually a picture of Imogen Smallwood, Enid Blyton's younger daughter!

Anita

Lucky Star · Post by **Lucky Star** » 26 Jun 2006, 17:03

Tony Summerfield wrote: As they invite the opinion of readers, this seems a fine chance for some of our Forum members to stick their oar in!

I've added my comment. It was a very good article. Well spotted Anita, I barely looked at the picture and missed that completely.

Raci · Post by **Raci** » 27 Jun 2006, 09:44

Well I eventually managed to add a comment although it has yet to be posted.
I never realised how short 1000 characters was! I don't know how many times I had to shorten it trying to get it down to the right length

I seemed to be there for ages last night and then I got a message saying Your comment will be reviewed shortly. Comments may be edited and not all will be published.
Well I think I was pretty restrained so I guess it just hasn't got through the review procedure yet.

Or at least I hope thats all it is!

By the way does anyone know of a way of getting a computer to tell you how many characters you have used?

Post by **Keith Robinson** » 27 Jun 2006, 12:33

Raci wrote:By the way does anyone know of a way of getting a computer to tell you how many characters you have used?

If you download EditPad Lite (a sort of beefed up NotePad) it shows you how many characters you've used in the bottom left corner of the status bar. It changes as you type, starting with 1:1 (line 1, character 1). Very handy for composing short notes, among other things.

EditPad Lite (free)

Raci · Post by **Raci** » 27 Jun 2006, 14:27

Thanks Keith!

Post by **Tony Summerfield** » 28 Jun 2006, 18:54

Another link for you to look at - this is from The Guardian

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevult ... f_doa.html

This article seems to be strongly in favour of change - and some of the comments are vitriolic!

Tony

Post by **Keith Robinson** » 28 Jun 2006, 19:50

Gosh, the things people say! There are always those that bring heavy religious discussion into any subject, and I tend to tune out at that point, but for the most part it's interesting to read the "for" and "against" arguments.

Like most fans (at least on these forums) I'm all for the early editions, especially since I've actually read the modern versions and have got to know what's missing! It's not just the textual changes, but the illustrations too; the original book covers and internal illustrations give a much nicer "period" feeling for those who want to go back in time while reading the books. The newer versions, even as early as the late sixties, show modern styles, starting with drainpipe trousers and then moving on to flares and enormous collars... And all those horrible 70s and 80s haircuts...!

A few comments left at the Guardian website ask whether or not children understand the social differences between "then and now." Well, personally, the only thing I didn't get when reading the books as a child was why the Five arrived at Kirrin Station on a steam train. I owned the "As shown on TV" editions, with the 70s TV show photos, so of course I assumed when I started reading these books that they were modern-day settings - hence the confusion over the steam train. I also didn't understand why Timmy was shown on the cover as a black and white Welsh Collie when in the books he was described as a brown funny-looking mongrel (and even Betty Maxey's illustrations showed him as such). So these are the things (the ONLY things) that confused me, and it was all down to the publishers' ideas of "updating to suit a new generation of kids."

However, I can see the point of view of those who want to buy these books for their children but would like them updated. I've now come around to the idea that there should be two sets of everything available - updated for those want them that way, and unedited for those don't. The unedited versions should be fascimiles of the originals - same text, same illustrations, same everything - just new packaging. If I was certain these books contained the exact same text and illustrations, with no ommissions, then I would be quite happy to buy fresh new copies.

(Having said that I have now come to like the old hardbacks, musty-smelling as they are.)

Post by **Tony Summerfield** » 28 Jun 2006, 19:55

For those that haven't time to check out the Guardian, I thought I would post one of the comments here for everyone to smile at:-

Enid Blyton's books have caused irreparable damage to a whole generation of subcontinental children. Ofcourse children are not capable of distinguishing subtle insiduous racism.She has to be criticised publicly and internationally to prevent further damage.We grew up reading her books and i can vouchsafe that they were a primary influence in imparting a distorted viewof white superiority as well as destroying completely the natural imagination and creativity in a lotof children.

Posted by zaqi on June 27, 2006 05:43 AM.

I don't entirely condemn the Gurdian article as they have given a link to our website!!

Tony

Post by **Keith Robinson** » 28 Jun 2006, 20:37

Yes, that's a funny one! But this one is quite sad when you read between the lines:

"I am not so sure that children can grasp different realities and truly understand that the world we live in today is different from the world of Enid Blyton (is it, anyway?)..."

Which is it? Different? Or the same?

"...I know African-Scandinavian children who feel insulted, unhappy and helpless when they read stupid, stereotypical descriptions of Negroes and other "darkies" in old children's books. Black children need to read positive things about themselves in order to strenghten their self-confidence. They need to read stories where they are equal and as important as the white kids...."

And yet Blyton has, for instance, a huge Asian following - and most baddies in Blyton's books are white. Yes, there are a few "stereotypical" black baddies (Jo-Jo for instance) but the most stereotypical thing about Blyton's villains is the scarring on their faces, and their thin lips. All those people in the world that suffer from thin lips and have had a nasty accident recently, it's time to get together and complain about political correctness regarding the vast majority of Blyton's villains.

"...(Is there a single black kid in Harry Potter?)..."

No, but does anyone really care? Should Rowling put one or two in just for the sake of it?

"...far as I'm concerned, Enid Blyton's books should be left on the shelves gathering dust. There's no need to glorify her world, which was the world of British colonialism and British racism at its worst..."

British colonialism at its worst? And British racism at its worst? I can't make out if this person is anti-Blyton, anti-Racist, or just anti-British.

noddy13 · Post by **noddy13** » 28 Jun 2006, 21:07

Hi everyone...

I havent logged on for a while, so when I saw a bit of juicy malevolence snaking its way through this forum, I thought Id stick my oar in.

Im afraid Im one of those subcontinental children being bandied about this site. Im afraid Im the guy who gulped down 2 raw ones while distracting myself with a Blyton or two before school. Im afraid Im the pest who carried a few of her tales in my tatty schoolbag to be ingested during lunch. Im terrified to acknowledge that Im the laddie who snuck in a chapter or two under the bedsheets, and the little crook who snacked on the famous five at midnight.

What of it.? My skin colour is colonial brownand Im proud of it! My heart is large, my view of the world is magnanimous. I dont do drugs, Im not racist, I like white, black and colourful human beings, gnomes, elves, pixies, gollies, noddys... and Mr. Plod.

But I tell you what I dont like. Social retrospection. That be the case, forget Enid Blyton, world history may have to be rewritten. The Roman Empire, the Crusade, the industrial revolution and the space program. Ill find something racist, sexist and biased in anyone of them given sufficient motivation. But I wont waste time precious enough to be used in reading...

So you know what..? Im going to enjoy reading my first editions. Unspoiled and untainted by "prudence" and "purity". Im going to take Blyton for what she was. If social circumstance moulded her writing so be it. Im going to enjoy every word. And be back for more next morning...!

--------

Viv.. just to mention that the link you provided regarding the BOOK THAT SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED.. well saw a copy of the book up on ebay with the buy now offer of US$675. Retrospection is fashionably expensive...

Post by **Tony Summerfield** » 28 Jun 2006, 21:32

One further amusing anecdote on the topic of making Blyton less racist and more pc. When the Royal Mail designed the UK centenary stamps in 1997 and submitted them to Chorion for approval, they were horrified to see that one of the Famous Five boys was depicted as black (Julian or Dick?). They said to the Royal Mail, 'You do know that they are brothers, don't you?' The stamp was redesigned as was another which showed a black boy reading a Noddy book instead of the original white child.

The Royal Mail had the last laugh with these stamps when they designed a Famous Five first day cover - but the picture they used was taken from the Adventure Series!

Going back to the Guardian article, neither Barbara Stoney or I spoke to them at any stage. Barbara was furious about it, as the 'rant' wasn't hers in the first place and it certainly was not taken from the new edition of her Biography that comes out in November. Nor did I speak to The Sun at any stage!

Best wishes
Tony

Post by **Anita Bensoussane** » 28 Jun 2006, 23:19

Ooh - that article was certainly scathing of poor Barbara Stoney! Other than that, though, it was rather an interesting read. Several of those who posted comments were unnecessarily rude to each other, I thought. Obviously they need a good dose of Enid Blyton to teach them some manners!

I'm amazed that anyone should say that Blyton's books destroy imagination and creativity - on the contrary, they foster those qualities!

As for her supposed racism, people often talk about Jo-Jo but not Mafumu, who is a hero in The Secret Mountain. More should be made of the fact that Enid Blyton was fully aware of her international readership, and welcomed it. As she says in her editorial letter in Enid Blyton's Magazine No. 11, Vol. 2 (1954): "I want to send a special message to-day to my overseas readers, and tell them that we love to have them in our circle. They are all part of my big family of children and I love their letters as much as I love those from the children in my own country. I am particularly glad to know that so many of them are joining our Clubs - you would love to see their letters, British readers! I have just had one from a little girl in Malaya, Jaya Subramanian. She and her sister have joined the Sunbeams [which helped blind children]. Here is a little bit from her letter: 'I am happy to tell you that some of my friends also want to join as Sunbeams, and I assure you that we will always be at your side to help our brothers and sisters.' Thank you, Jaya, very much!"

We are an international group here on this Forum, and it is our love of Enid Blyton that unites us. Funny that that should be the case, isn't it, if reading Blyton makes people grow up so bigoted?!

Anita

Text modifications in Egmont editions and elsewhere

I'm NOT doing an interview for Radio Ulster!

Daily Mail article

Re: Daily Mail article

Further Link

Guardian Comments

Political correctness

pc Blyton