Page 4 of 8

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 07:17
by Ming
Lucky Star wrote:Philip and Dinah have a very tempestuous brother / sister relationship in general. They are always fighting and arguing.
I can certainly relate to that! :roll: :lol:

Seriously, though, a reactive brother/sister relationship sometimes makes them much closer. I felt Philip and Dinah were much closer to one another than Jack and Lucy-Ann - despite Jack being devoted to her, he wouldn't really spend much time with Lucy-Ann, or just talk to her whenever she wanted to. The Mannerings seemed to display the bond more, in my opinion.

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 16:39
by Dick Kirrin
You normally only tease up or quarrel with someone who is somehow important to you. Why waste time on people you don't care a monkey's for?
So I'm definitely with you here, Ming.
Besides, without knowing the adventure series too well, in the other series there is quarrelling, too. Maybe it doesn't come to blows, but if we take old Ju in "FF go off on a hike together" serious, he thinks he could exclude George from any further activities. That's a threat for sure. In addition, may I point out the quarrell in "Five go off to camp"? Total rejection for some time on both sides.
Just because Anne "needs", in his opinion, a babysitter, Julian forbids George to come along to the old railway yard. George of course objects, and things boil up.

As this is a thread about the "Island of Adventure", I won't get into it any deeper.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 03 Jul 2010, 22:04
by 70s-child
Belly wrote:Holiday coaching - as both Jack and Phillip's folks/guardians etc are 'poor' how come this was seen as so vital? So what, they'd fallen behind, the funds surely weren't really there for this? School fees alone we are told are a struggle. So what if they had to repeat a term? Would a normal boy and girl living in a terraced house (Jack and Lucy Ann) not be at a state school? Or did their father leave money for school fees? Shouldn't Jack and Phillip be working harder in order to not let families down when they were making such a financial sacrifice etc? They are supposed to be fine, upstanding boys after all.
Don't know much about British society, but status sometimes plays a role here. Often high status or upwardly mobile families, even if they are not well-off, will make a lot of sacrifices to give their children the best education. If expensive private schools were the only way of getting a good education in those days, then that's where their children would likely have gone. In any case I think these children would have been phenomenally rich before the end of their adventures. Apart from all the reward money they must have got, they also get some priceless antiques from the Govt. of Greece (Ship of Adventure). That alone would have made them millionaires several times over.
Belly wrote:Interesting to read your reply and I hadn't realised that Enid was newly married to Kenneth. Yes, I can see how she might have been influenced in that her feelings for Kenneth would have spilled into her characterisation of Bill. If me and there was a Daniel Craig type in the hotel then first flush of love or not I might have 'taken a shine to him' also
Sean Connery might be a better fit, right down to the bald head. :D
Ming wrote:I always wondered what a person who studies old papers is called! What is that something-o-logist? (The Mystery of the Burnt Cottage).
In Rilloby Fair Mystery, Diana Lynton says such people are called "antiquarians" (though Snubby thinks that means "anti-aquarium" :lol:).

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 04 Jul 2010, 22:24
by Yak
Given that grammar schools abounded in those days I am sure that both Jack and Lucy-Ann could have got a better education in the state system than they could nowadays :D

Yeah the holiday coaching must have been pricy tho ... and fair point about the boys 'letting their families down' by not knuckling down and doing some work.

And were Lucy Ann's guardians paying for her to be there too??

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 18 Nov 2010, 02:08
by 70s-child
Belly wrote: Would a normal boy and girl living in a terraced house (Jack and Lucy Ann) not be at a state school?
Not being familiar with the term, I looked up "terraced house" in wikipedia (an admittedly unreliable source!), and found that terraced homes are the same as what is called a row house here in the US. Now I am intrigued. Row homes in the US are typically seen in big cities or in the immediate suburbs of big cities, and thanks to this factor, they can be really expensive. Row homes in Brooklyn for instance go for over $600,000, while in Manhattan you need to be a fat-cat executive to be able to afford a decent row house in a decent neighborhood. So I take it from Belly's quote that terraced houses in Britain are not highly sought after dwellings? Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised that Jack and Lucy Ann can afford boarding school. If they lived in row-homes, their families would be reasonably well-off. While row homes in tough neighborhoods would be cheaper, I somehow don't envisage these kids as having grown up in that kind of neighborhood.

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 18 Nov 2010, 10:42
by Anita Bensoussane
Terraced houses, usually brick-built with a garden at the back and sometimes a small patch of garden at the front too, are found in most towns in Britain, not just big cities. They tend to be considerably cheaper than detached or semi-detached houses in the same area. We live in a two-bedroom terrace - we wouldn't have been able to afford a mortgage on a two-bedroom detached or semi-detached house of a similar size.

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 18 Nov 2010, 15:49
by Moonraker
Anita Bensoussane wrote:Terraced houses tend to be considerably cheaper than detached or semi-detached houses in the same area.
Unless they are in the Royal Crescent, Bath! :D

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 18 Nov 2010, 16:57
by Wayne Pyer
I always assumed that in their parents wills, that their education was financed. :D

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 19 Nov 2010, 02:56
by 70s-child
Anita Bensoussane wrote:Terraced houses, usually brick-built with a garden at the back and sometimes a small patch of garden at the front too, are found in most towns in Britain, not just big cities. They tend to be considerably cheaper than detached or semi-detached houses in the same area. We live in a two-bedroom terrace - we wouldn't have been able to afford a mortgage on a two-bedroom detached or semi-detached house of a similar size.
Interesting. In the US, as long as you are not very close to a big city, home prices, including for some really huge homes, are fairly reasonable. It helps too if you are as far away from Manhattan (and LA) as possible. :D That's the most expensive piece of real estate in the country. I wouldn't mind a nice row house on the upper west side of New York. Sadly I also don't have a few million dollars in the bank! :P

Coming back to why these kids went to boarding schools, is it possible that if the state schools of a particular neighborhood are not good quality then parents have to get their kids privately schooled? That happens here in the States. I have friends who are solidly middle-class, who send their kids to private school because they don't live in a good school district (and there are good reasons why they can't move to another town/state, which is what most people do). It's not easy since a good chunk of their monthly budget goes into paying tuition, but they don't have much choice.
Moonraker wrote: Unless they are in the Royal Crescent, Bath! :D
That's so beautiful! Oh well Lucy Ann and Jack clearly didn't live there! :D

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 23 Jan 2012, 18:43
by Catbury
I was wondering, isn't it more racist to make Joe (Jo-Jo) white than letting him remain black? I mean, there are loads of white villains in the Adventure series and in all series; in fact, I don't remember another black one offhand, even in The River of Adventure, the real baddie is white. So there is a villain who happens to be black, why is that automatically racist? Okay, is it pointed out here that he is black, but it was probably a mere way to describe him. In one of the Findouters books, the thief has two different coloured eyes; surely that's a discrimination for all people who have different coloured eyes? In Five on a Hike one villain is a woman; as a woman, I consider this a discrimination and demand she is changed into a man. And so on.

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 23 Jan 2012, 19:19
by Moonraker
Catbury wrote:I was wondering, isn't it more racist to make Joe (Jo-Jo) white than letting him remain black?
Of course it is, and I welcome your common sense. We will only have conquered racism when we don't notice the colour of someone's skin. Who knows, one day racism might extend to people of different planets! That'd be fun!

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 23 Jan 2012, 21:32
by Lucky Star
Moonraker wrote:Who knows, one day racism might extend to people of different planets! That'd be fun!
In the book Star Wars (the original one) Luke Skywalker is accused of being "Specieist". :lol:

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 24 Jan 2012, 12:36
by Moonraker
I was thinking of the café scene when I wrote that!

Re: The Island Of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 24 Jan 2012, 14:42
by pete9012S
Moonraker wrote:I was thinking of the café scene when I wrote that!

This One?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-H91fnD4k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think many of us may have been in bars like that! :wink:

Re: The Island of Adventure - some thoughts

Posted: 06 Feb 2017, 12:04
by db105
Split from 'What Enid Blyton book are you reading NOW!'


I just read The Island of Adventure, to take a short rest from the Famous Five audiobooks. As a child, the only Enid Blyton books I read were the Famous Five and the first half of the Adventure series, and I remember the Adventure books very fondly too. Probably they are even more thrilling than the better-known Famous Five, and the characters are quite vivid and likable too.

Anyway, this is my review, in a less detailed manner than my reviews of the FF audiobooks:

** spoiler alert **

Enid Blyton's best-known series is the Famous Five but, as much as I love the Five, if we had to say what's her best series, this would probably be it. The idea is rather similar to the Famous Five (a group of children having thrilling adventures), but the danger here seems more real, the situations grittier and a bit more "realistic" (as far as a group of children getting into so many amazing adventures can be realistic), the bad guys scarier.

The introduction of the characters is a real pleasure. The two pairs of siblings do not know each other yet, and the book opens with Kiki the parrot, Jack's pet, scaring Philip as he hears a mysterious voice when there's no one around, scolding him for the most absurd things. From there, the children become friends and come up with a daring scheme to try to spend the holidays together.

Let's talk a bit about Kiki. She plays the same role as Timmy in the Famous Five series: beloved pet who is part of the group, as much as the children. She's not as efficient as Timmy the dog at protecting the children, but she has her moments. Also, she has a comedic vein that Timmy lacks. Kiki is a riot in all senses of the word, always rudely scolding people in the most absurd manner, particularly stuffy adults, and making all sorts of noises and imitations. I was surprised to find out that some readers do not like her, finding her a bit overbearing, but I love her. Her cheekiness adds welcome comic relief to a world where children were not allowed to be cheeky or disrespectful to adults. With a parrot, though, what can you do?

The settings and the adventure are described in a most vivid manner, Blyton at top form, and the presence of an competent adult as ally allows for the dangerous moments to be believable. In the Famous Five, the children are mostly on their own, and while that's thrilling, it comes at the cost of making it a bit more difficult to suspend disbelief, with adult criminals routinely defeated by a group of children.

In this book, Blyton also has an ambiguous character, Bill Smugs, and you spend a lot of the book wondering whether he is a good guy or a bad guy (reading this for the first time I got it wrong!).

The ebook I have is the "modern" edition, edited to remove political incorrectness. Therefore Jo-Jo, the sinister black servant, is no longer black, his name is now Joe and he doesn't roll his eyes. Even though I agree that having a black character rolling his eyes is a no-no nowadays (racial stereotyping and all that), this political correctness business is still a bit absurd. The rest of the bad guys are white and way more stupid than Jo-Jo. Racism is very real and despicable, but this is not it. However, it's not like the changes make much difference, apart from some slight atmospheric element. If this is the price to be paid to avoid hearing from the PC police, then it's worth paying as far as I am concerned.