The Enid Blyton Society

I always wondered what a person who studies old papers is called! What is that something-o-logist? (The Mystery of the Burnt Cottage).

Although I could hardly be called either young or innocent I must say I've never picked up on any innuendo in the flask comment and my presumption would be that it was not intentional... unless 'flask' has a slang meaning in some parts of the world that I am unfamiliar with. If Bill had handed Allie a door-handle and she'd said 'ooh Bill! What a big knob! I've never seen such a giant!' then yes, I would concede that there was something going on there but as it was my guess is that it was simply written in a hurry and nothing was intended.

I could be wrong of course

Hi Yak - to me it appears just like the comment about the door knob! Springs up cheekily out of nowhere and jars when you read the rest of the paragraphs on the page ! It's been commented on before but I can't remember by whom?

I am hugely cynical about these sort of things but have to say when I read the book again recently I thought 'Enid, I really do believe you are being saucy here'! I like to think Kenneth dared her to make a saucy out of context reference and she did!

When we were bored at work once a colleague dared me to get the word 'lettuce' into every interview that day. Same sort of thing but less of a saucy context! It was very tough!

Belly wrote:Hi Yak - to me it appears just like the comment about the door knob! Springs up cheekily out of nowhere and jars when you read the rest of the paragraphs on the page ! It's been commented on before but I can't remember by whom?

Probably me, in my review of The Island of Adventure in the Cave of Books!

Anita

The sentance certainly stands out from the rest of the book. Perhaps Enid was feeling exuberant at completing the first book of a major new series and decided to throw in a cheeky reference at the end.

In one of the St. Clare's books someone (Belinda Towers?) refers to the twins as "What a pair of boobs!"

Now, I do NOT believe this was innuendo. Naivety, maybe.

As for the poor family but the child at private school, it's similar to a fair number of pony books - the upper-middle classes have a different definition of poverty. It's taken for granted that the children go to private school; poverty means you struggle to pay the fees, and if you have to withdraw the child, you're really on beam ends. Ruby Ferguson, the Pullein-Thompsons, E. Nesbit - they all wrote about supoposedly poor families who could still afford ponies and housekeepers. Rather like those books where a child has no-one to play with as there aren't any other children for miles around - they don't actually mean there are no children, just there are no suitable children. The village children don't count. It's not authors' snobbishness, it's genuinely how things were in 1920's Britain, with aspects of it drifting on through the thirties but to a large extent fading post-war. (The Secret Seven were probably Enid's attempt at working-class children. And a pretty good attempt too, for a beginner! .)

I don't think that the term 'boobs' as you mean it was in use at the time the St Clares books were written, so I don't feel it was even innocence on Enid's part: just another example of how words have changed their meanings over the years.

Boobs meant, I presume, 'wet blankets': babies or words to that effect...

I think boob or booby meant 'idiot, stupid person' at the time and still does in some places . But no, I don't think its current meaning was in use then.

dsr wrote:In one of the St. Clare's books someone (Belinda Towers?) refers to the twins as "What a pair of boobs!"

Now, I do NOT believe this was innuendo. Naivety, maybe.

As for the poor family but the child at private school, it's similar to a fair number of pony books - the upper-middle classes have a different definition of poverty. It's taken for granted that the children go to private school; poverty means you struggle to pay the fees, and if you have to withdraw the child, you're really on beam ends. Ruby Ferguson, the Pullein-Thompsons, E. Nesbit - they all wrote about supoposedly poor families who could still afford ponies and housekeepers. Rather like those books where a child has no-one to play with as there aren't any other children for miles around - they don't actually mean there are no children, just there are no suitable children. The village children don't count. It's not authors' snobbishness, it's genuinely how things were in 1920's Britain, with aspects of it drifting on through the thirties but to a large extent fading post-war. (The Secret Seven were probably Enid's attempt at working-class children. And a pretty good attempt too, for a beginner! .)

Really interesting points here, I'm very interested in 'class' in literature. I think people were tied to the class they were born into in those days, less mobility between the classes? Private school was the only option for the upper and middle (?) classes up until about the 1920s I think that or a governess at home.

My grandmother's family lived in the Stoke Newington area at around that time. My grandmother's father owned a small gentleman's clothes shop. The children went to either girls or boys schools with one of the daughters, who was considered delicate, to a school for the ladies of gentlemen. They seemed to have gone through phases of being 'in the money' and others when they were not doing so well and the children wore hand-me-downs etc. They always had a mother's help, gardener, cook and stable boy but there were not 'rich' or always prosperous. My grandmother had some middle class pretensions (bless her) and thought that people should know their place. One of my cousin's married a girl 'who wasn't from the top drawer' etc. I expect it was a similar background to Enid Blyton herself now I come to think of it. My grandmother's educated and well read father (self taught largely - a bit like Thomas Blyton) allegedly had a yacht (although probably a small boat) and a number of mistresses....


I think it was relatively cheap to have help at home back then and think often it must have been similar to modern day Singapore in that respect. Here it is normal rich and poor have varying degrees of 'help' in the home, the country would grind to a help without it I think.

I wonder whether school fees were comparatively cheap back in the 1930s etc. Darrell's father might struggle to send both daughters to a Benenden type school on a surgeon's wages today (especially if he was the only breadwinner and there was no money in trust for this or similar).

Oooh I dunno .. I would imagine being a surgeon paid and does pay extremely well .

I am fascinated by class in lit too. Have you read George Orwell's 'A Clergyman's Daughter'? Dorothy (the main character)'s experiences teaching in a low-rent 'private' school and Orwell's rather waspish observations about the proliferation and quality of such schools for parents who could afford no better but wanted their children to have a 'private' school education are interesting. Seems pretty much anyone could set up a school back then .

MT and SC are, of course, obviously an entirely different kind of school, with emphasis on academic and moral excellence.

Yak, that's interesting I will put it on my holiday reading list, thanks. .

I always got the feelings that the Rivers family were comfortably off & middle class rather than super rich. Even a well paid surgeon (unless they were paid considerably more in real terms back then) I'd have thought would struggle with Benenden level (premier league independent boarding school) fees if you had other outgoings or no capital to pay for them up front etc.

Benenden currently charges £9,180 per term, 4 terms in the year so around £32,720 per child a year. That's without any of the extras that you'd need. So lets say that for Darrell and Felicity to go in today's terms it would cost the Rivers family with extras about £70,000 per year plus. An orthopaedic surgeon working 7 sessions on the NHS would earn circa £70,000 and if he worked in private practice this would top it up to £100,000 plus - so it's possible but that's a hefty chunk on school fees and assumes not too many other outgoings...!!!!

dsr wrote:In one of the St. Clare's books someone (Belinda Towers?) refers to the twins as "What a pair of boobs!"

Now, I do NOT believe this was innuendo. Naivety, maybe.

I am pretty sure you're right in that "boobs" means idiot, clown, fool etc rather than breasts. There is the expression "I feel a right tit" that means the same sort of thing and now has modern day entendres.

Which makes me wonder why words that have connotations of stupidity are used for something as useful as as breasts, but I'm going off on a tangent!

manzanita wrote:Which makes me wonder why words that have connotations of stupidity are used for something as useful as as breasts, but I'm going off on a tangent!

It's an interesting query Mansanita. Were words like 'boob' and 'tit' used to describe stupidity before they were used to describe breasts or vice versa?
Breasts are treated very oddly in Britain, I think. Men are more than happy to ogle themat any given opportunity, but a woman breastfeeds in public and many (not all) men find it off putting. Many women even object to a woman beastfeeding in public. However that's me going even futher off topic

I think boarding schools must have been cheaper in real terms then. When you read articles about modern boarding schools with all the extra curricular activities, healthy meal options and single study bedrooms with ensuites, they don't compare with Mallory Towers or St Claires with there minimalistic dorms. I remember being quite shocked that Elizabeth could only have six things on her bedside table! Food was probably pretty basic- no canteen style choices, veggie alternative or Friday night Pizza parties then.

Also I imagine staff wages and overheads were less then. Although I am sure Enid's schools had the best teachers, before the war there was little regulation of private education and often teaching standards were very poor- there were many sub-standard private schools.

Well, SC is possibly below the school Pat and Isabel wanted to go to - Redroofs? Been ages since I've read SC but I remember the other school being described in very grand terms - evening gowns etc and Mr O'Sullivan thinking it was a lot of nonsense and not needed. Therefore I suggest that a) Mr O'Sullivan and Mr Lacey may have got on well and secondly, that SC is not the most expensive school and therefore presumably MT.

In "Jean Tours A Hospital" by Doreen Swinburne she has an opening blurb on becoming a nurse (the book is supposedly nursing propaganda) and says that a qualified nurse' salary is £385pa and a matron of a large teaching hospital is £1,195pa with a great many gaining responsibility at £600 per year, which I suggest is the rank of Sister. These would be 1950s wages, so vaguely applicable to MT.

I just read "Upper Fourth At Malory Towers" and it in, it mentions a Sister for each Tower with a central Matron. Therefore, if each Sister earns £600, and a Matron £1,195, you're looking at £3,500 approx alone in nursing staff. Anyone any idea how much each of the teachers would have been paid? With a bit of putting our heads together we could probably work out how much MT would have roughly cost!