The Enid Blyton Society

Moonraker wrote:

Katharine wrote:I've just finished reading Agatha Christie's The ABC Murders. In one part they visit a family in a bungalow and then go upstairs to look at the bedroom. My understanding of a bungalow is a house with only ground floor accommodation.

Although I've read the book a million times, I've never spotted that!Of course, it might've been a bungalow with a loft conversion/dormer window. No idea on the Railway Children faux pas though.

I've read the book a few times before and never picked up on the stairs either. It mentions the bungalow as being one of a number of newly built ones (mid 1930s), I'm wondering if it was a chalet bungalow, I know there was a trend for those at one time, but no idea when. I've double checked the Railway Children reference, and to start with it only mentions an E. Nesbit book, later revealing it was the Railway Children, but I still feel it doesn't fit in with the storyline the way it's written, however maybe that's my own interpretation.

Even an author like J.K. Rowling who plans her books, has to my mind, had a couple of inconsistencies. I can't remember all of them, but the first one that struck me is at the beginning of the first book. It says that Harry creeps down the stairs to catch the morning post and in the dark stands on Uncle Vernon. Only thing is though, it's early August and 6.00 in the morning. Surely it would be broad daylight at that time of the year, unless ofcourse the house had blackout curtains fitted? A really petty quibble I know.

I think uncle Quentin married Fanny because he loved her. In some books he obviously shows his love for her. For example the one Five run away together (I think it's that one), Fanny gets sick and he is obviously worried for her.

hehe yeah so worried that he left his daughter and her cousins alone with a criminal family whom he had just hired to be with Fanny in hospital!

Yak wrote:hehe yeah so worried that he left his daughter and her cousins alone with a criminal family whom he had just hired to be with Fanny in hospital!

Well that seems like true love to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Fiddler on the Roof - "Do you love me")

I think it's a bit like that. Not a romantic passionate love like in the Sound of Music, but a growing-together kind of love where they can't do without each other.

Though I wouldn't be too surprised if they were cousins and there was a certain amount of him marrying her partly because he needed looking after and would never had made a romantic liaison, and her marrying him under some pressure from parents because Quentin needed looking after.

Frankly I am not surprised that there were mistakes in the books, I mean, just how does anyone write that many books in a lifetime, let alone do it without any mistakes!

However, in my younger (much much much younger unfortunately) days I wasn't so much into analysing books as in just enjoying them, and engrossing myself in the wonderful adventures.

I agree with Poddys completely. The sheer volume of writing made it impossible for such fine details to always be correct, particularly with so many books, stories and series all being written around the same time. I'm amazed there weren't many more stuff-ups than actually appeared.

But like Poddys, as a child I didn't even notice them, I just got so involved in her stories and adventures, I tended to imagine myself there, part of the action, so these tiny gaffs didn't exist for me back then.

Its interesting as adults to analyse and in hindsight find problems in Enids writing and I know we do it here out of interest and with great fondness for her, but I think a lot of the bad press about her writing is done by people who have only read her as an adult so have no idea how good the books are for children.

cheers
Aussie Sue

Aussie Sue wrote: Its interesting as adults to analyse and in hindsight find problems in Enids writing and I know we do it here out of interest and with great fondness for her, but I think a lot of the bad press about her writing is done by people who have only read her as an adult so have no idea how good the books are for children.

How true. I can't believe we have arguments as to whether we should feel sympathy towards (as an illustration) Edgar Stick, whose actions could have resulted in criminal acts? Feel sympathy for the perpetrator and let's have a meeting on how we can help him. After all, the poor mite didn't have good parents. Oh, by the way George, your dog's been poisoned, get over it and get a new one.

     My head is spinning, after reading the arguments (especially early in this thread) about the Kirrin/Barnard situation, and who is married to whom.
     Incredibly convoluted arguments supporting this or that theory, and trying to reconcile the apparently contradictory facts, remind me rather of the Emperor's new clothes. The simple answer is nothing more than that Enid Blyton made mistakes on these family relationships in at least some of the books.

     I'm not sure if my opinion on another question is going to find much more support than my support for Julian elsewhere: but I believe Quentin and Fanny really do care for each other, despite Quentin being very "difficult" in various ways. And, odd as it may sound, I really do believe Quentin does care about George, although he often seems to treat her harshly.

Regards, Michael.

Moonraker wrote:I can't believe we have arguments as to whether we should feel sympathy towards (as an illustration) Edgar Stick, whose actions could have resulted in criminal acts? Feel sympathy for the perpetrator and let's have a meeting on how we can help him. After all, the poor mite didn't have good parents. Oh, by the way George, your dog's been poisoned, get over it and get a new one. :roll:

     I was beginning to feel a bit bad earlier on (in the Edgar Stick thread) about apparently supporting the Five too much and being pretty harsh and heartless about Edgar; but it sounds like you may at least somewhat agree with me, Nigel.
     Perhaps I was polarizing it a bit too much there; and in fact my comments were somewhat light-hearted, and not intended to be too serious. More seriously, yes, I guess I do have some sympathy for Edgar; but it's kind of difficult to do that when you witness (through the book) one malicious act by him after another to George, even gloating over her worry about serious things in her life.
     But Edgar surely does have a bad deal in life, with the parents he's got. I guess no-one can deny that. Presumably after his parents go to jail for kidnapping, he might go to a foster home and perhaps get the help and support he needs. There was no suggestion in the book that he was going to be charged with a criminal offence, although arguably he could be considered at least an accessory to a serious crime.
     (Now I'm wondering if I'm showing too much sympathy to him!)

Regards, Michael.

MJE wrote: But Edgar surely does have a bad deal in life, with the parents he's got. I guess no-one can deny that. Presumably after his parents go to jail for kidnapping, he might go to a foster home and perhaps get the help and support he needs. There was no suggestion in the book that he was going to be charged with a criminal offence, although arguably he could be considered at least an accessory to a serious crime.
(Now I'm wondering if I'm showing too much sympathy to him!)

Regards, Michael.

In the story, towards the end, Enid writes, '....Edgar sobbing away to himself. He imagined his father and mother in prison and he himself sent to a hard and difficult school, not allowed to see his mother for years. Not that that would matter, for the Sticks, both father and mother, were no good to Edgar and had taught him nothing but bad things. There might be a chance for the wretched boy if he were kept away from them, and set a good example instead of a bad one.'

As children we want to see justice done and Enid's books always end satisfactorily from that point of view. I think we can see she has some sympathy for Edgar and in the end, paints a rather more positive future for him because his parents have been caught and will pay for their crimes.

Daisy wrote:In the story, towards the end, Enid writes, '....Edgar sobbing away to himself. He imagined his father and mother in prison and he himself sent to a hard and difficult school, not allowed to see his mother for years. Not that that would matter, for the Sticks, both father and mother, were no good to Edgar and had taught him nothing but bad things. There might be a chance for the wretched boy if he were kept away from them, and set a good example instead of a bad one.'

     Oh - I'd forgotten the bit about the "hard and difficult school"; that does sound a bit punitive - maybe they were harder on kids in his situation in those days than they might be now. (And some would argue that that's why troublesome, violent youths seem to be more of a problem nowadays than formerly.) But it does also say merely that Edgar imagines that fate for himself; no-one else points out that that fate is likely. Perhaps it was, though; I guess I don't know what things were like back then.
     However, I recall the widely varying fates of the six boys in "The Six Bad Boys" - a novel which *does* tell us explicitly what happens to each boy; and it is clear that their sentence depends very much on the overall situation and attitude shown by each boy. Where Edgar would fall on that spectrum, I'm not quite sure.
     That is, if he is guilty of any crime at all; I really don't know if merely being present with your parents while they carry out a kidnapping would be an offence when, as a dependent child, he had little choice but to be with them. Interesting.

Regards, Michael.

Aussie Sue wrote:IBut like Poddys, as a child I didn't even notice them, I just got so involved in her stories and adventures, I tended to imagine myself there, part of the action, so these tiny gaffs didn't exist for me back then.

I think the same. Actually, I didn’t even know Barnard was a mistake when I first read Five Get into a Fix. I just thought it was Julian’s surname. I hadn't worked out the Kirrin family tree.

Lenoir wrote:Actually, I didn’t even know Barnard was a mistake when I first read Five Get into a Fix. I just thought it was Julian’s surname. I hadn't worked out the Kirrin family tree.

     I suspect that working the family tree out is a logical impossibility. And, for all I know, Barnard may be the correct surname for the cousins other than George, and the two (I think) other places where they are identified as Kirrin may be mistaken. Who knows? Most of the books don't identify any of their surnames other than George, who is consistently Kirrin.

Regards, Michael.

MJE wrote:     My head is spinning, after reading the arguments (especially early in this thread) about the Kirrin/Barnard situation, and who is married to whom.

The latest series of QI (BBC 2, Fridays) has a "Nobody Knows" flag which earns the user (if he raises it at the right time) bonus points when a question has no answer. I think the Barnard/Kirrin question falls into that category.