Golliwogs/Gollies

[noddy13]

Hi Fleet,

You are entitled to your opinion of course, as I am entitled to mine, and that means that in this case, I am prepared to accept that Enid Blyton was a product of her times just as all of us are.

Censorship therefore has no place in this scenario. If it had, we would be gathering literature, art and sculpture and throwing their representations into that great Trashcan of Political Correctness. So much of nude art down the ages, are you planning to advocate their banning to please the more prudish individuals within our society.? Then Venus di Milo should be covered with a robe... lest Im offended as a very conservative Indian.

Perhaps Pope Benedict should have a gag order.. he does have a habit of shooting off his mouth.. and why not close down the Royal & Ancient Club.. or do they allow women members now..?

And what about Winston Churchill.... why not ban his books .? After all he was sexist - no votes for women-and a strong advocate of colonialism.. I ought to treat that as offensive as Im an Indian. And lets not get started on Mein Kampf..why publish Hitler and allow him to publicise his voice when he is guilty of the most heinous crimes in history..?

Be it racism, gender inequality or colonial nonsense, one has to see creativity in a subjective light. If I believed that Enid Blyton was an devilishly clever woman with an evil agenda and chose to put in her golliwogs as a strong racist statement - I would surely push for a banning or amendment. I instead choose to believe that the golliwog was a mere toy in her storytelling hands...and if the WOG has a tone of insult embedded in it, I will look upon it with a broad mind..and be mature enough to accept it as a mid century invention within the parameters of a society that was perhaps not mature enough.

Or lets call a blackboard a whiteboard...!

[Anita Bensoussane]

[Noddy 13:] "Or lets call a blackboard a whiteboard...!"

Actually, blackboards in British schools have now been replaced with whiteboards!

(This is because of developments in technology - whiteboards can be written on with special pens and also used as computer screens - but I suppose someone somewhere will claim that there is a racist motive behind that change! )

Back in the late 1980s, people started to get really worked up about references to the colour black and, in some places, the word was effectively banned. A blackboard had to be called a "chalkboard" and, at a few children's nurseries, "Baa Baa Black Sheep" became "Baa Baa Green Sheep." Bizarre! Alternatives were also put forward for words like "blackmail" and "blackout," though the new terms never caught on.

To get back to golliwogs, some people view golliwogs as "human" and dislike them - yet they accuse the rest of us of racism?!

Anita

[noddy13]

Hi there Anita,

What I really do not understand are the word changes like actor instead of actress and the like. I mean, why would it be politically incorrect to sound feminine..?

I guess we have a real job on our hands... we are going to get so twisted in our ways of thinking... its perhaps best to be one of the Three Monkeys.. or are we still capable of getting into trouble if we are all deaf, dumb and blind..? Or we could stop chasing our own tails,be less suspicious and see what Jo, Bessie and Fanny are upto today...!

And I do have whiteboards at the office...

[Anita Bensoussane]

Hi Prabhu,

[Noddy 13:] "And I do have whiteboards at the office..."

Oh sorry - I obviously missed the sarcasm in your statement "Or lets call a blackboard a whiteboard...!"

[Noddy13:] "What I really do not understand are the word changes like actor instead of actress and the like. I mean, why would it be politically incorrect to sound feminine..?"

I'm not sure really, except that perhaps those endings have been seen as belittling women and making them sound unequal to men in the same role. The endings have only been removed in a few cases, eg actor and author (we rarely hear of actress or authoress nowadays.) However, princess and lioness are still in common use, so feminine forms of words do still exist although they're in decline. Perhaps the decline is a sign that traditional feminine qualities are no longer valued in today's society - we're all "male" now and the breadwinner is rated more highly than the homemaker or part-time worker. Women have taken on traditional male roles in the workplace but we rarely see men taking on traditional female roles because, in the current climate, such roles are undervalued. How many men stay at home to bring up the children, for example?

Anita

[Fleet]

Hi Anita,

OK, this thread may be in danger of widening out to encompass the thorny issue of text changes in the books as well as alterations to illustrations but I will attempt to answer your earlier questions in the context of the 'gollywog' discussion.

While I was at the BBC I was reponsible for the reproduction and/or alteration of most of the images from the Noddy back catalogue for use in new publications. This involved the removal of gollywogs, the re-origination of lost pieces as well as the removal of scenes of corporal punishment and violent retribution. To be honest there was not much of the latter but it was certainly there. I did not have anything to do with replacing some figures with 'black' dolls - this was thankfully confined to the 'Noddy Library' and was done before we took on the property.

More recently, I have worked for other publishers with responsibility for other Blyton properties. The main reason that changes are made to the text of Blyton work is that it needs to be brought up-to-date for a modern audience. Publishing these works as a 'period piece' is simply not economically viable. This means the removal of certain words (as well as those images) which we might possibly consider racist today and the inclusion of the dreadful 'Americanization' of some phrases and items. The idea is, that these books are to be read by a child without adult support and without having to ask things like how pre-decimal currency works. I am sure there are some children who can read period work such as Dickens or Austen unaided but they are rather rare.

The simple truth is that within children's publishing, there is little respect for Enid Blyton as a writer or a storyteller. Within the profession, her books are widely considered to be poorly written, irrelevant and not worthy of too much effort. We also must remember a book editor or an agent is a professional, someone who is often deluged with manuscripts, who is constantly under pressure to find the next Anthony Horowitz or Philip Pullman. There is no time and no budget to devote to the re-invention of Blyton - publishers would rather look to the future, that's where the money is.

There are also matters of 'house style'. When a property moves from one publishing house to another, it will be updated to suit the spellings and phrasings used by that publisher. This applies to currency and metric measurement for instance. As opposed to a 'book editor', these smaller changes are made by a 'copy editor' I'm afraid in my experience, it is amongst these latter editor's that Blyton gains the least respect. I suppose it is possible that the Gollywog has also become a convenient stick with which to beat the work of Enid Blyton.

I am not suggesting I share all of these people's views, I'm just trying to be honest.

Noddy13, Don't get me started on censorship! I believe everyone has right to an opinion and I see much sense in yours. But I come back to a word that you used with regard to gollys - 'mature'. Seven-year-olds are not mature enough to see the historical context and the adults, as I said, should be mature enough to see it but often they are not.

I'm not making myself very popular am I? Perhaps we should all just agree to differ and celebrate the things we have in common!

[noddy13]

Hi there Fleet,

I guess we should then agree to disagree and leave matters at that. I do believe that you are not out for war, but trying to put across your own viewpoint rather gently, and therefore its time peace reigns again.

Equally gently, I'm just a little surprised that you compare the language of Dickens and Austen to Blyton. Im sure that the former two may perhaps be rather difficult to read "unaided" by some children.. but I dont think Blyton could be rated as having the same degree of difficulty. More so because she has authored books for ages from 3..? 4..? till... dare I say 80..?, so one can literally grow with her books.

Also I'm rather astonished that according to you Blyton apparently has no or little respect from within the publishing world.. that is mindboggling in its implications...

All this is getting too much for a simple Enid book lover like me. Im going to buy my early editions that are unhampered by the marketing manipulations of the modern publishing world, and read those 'period' pieces as they are... Ive understood them when I was five, and I will continue to appreciate them as I grow older than 42... and I dare say Anita, Moonraker and almost everyone of the members here will do the same.

Cant help feeling sad for those who who would rather have her politically corrected books on their bookshelves than the real deal.

[Anita Bensoussane]

Hi,

[Fleet:] "I'm not making myself very popular am I? Perhaps we should all just agree to differ and celebrate the things we have in common!"

Fleet, the points you've made make fascinating reading and you're very welcome to share your views with us. I'm sure there are others on the Forum who will agree with you.

[Fleet:] "The main reason that changes are made to the text of Blyton work is that it needs to be brought up-to-date for a modern audience. Publishing these works as a 'period piece' is simply not economically viable. This means the removal of certain words (as well as those images) which we might possibly consider racist today and the inclusion of the dreadful 'Americanization' of some phrases and items. The idea is, that these books are to be read by a child without adult support and without having to ask things like how pre-decimal currency works. I am sure there are some children who can read period work such as Dickens or Austen unaided but they are rather rare."

The trouble is that, when publishers update a few things like currency and slang, yet leave the basic storyline untouched, they ruin the integrity of the author's writing. The alterations sit uneasily with the tone of the story. When reading an Enid Blyton book one enters a slower-paced world of fountain-pens, goloshes and errand boys on bicycles; a world in which television rarely features and pop music and computers are unheard of. These elements remain unchanged in most modern editions, yet the characters are now called Zac and Courtney, they wear jeans and trainers, spend £1.20 on an ice-cream and exclaim how "Cool!" everything is. These things are out-of-place in stories which are clearly set in another era.

A while ago I bought an Award collection of Blyton short stories called The Little Lost Hen and Other Stories. Flicking through it, I found that it was more-or-less a reprint of Everyday Stories (Purnell Sunshine Library, 1972), which is itself a collection of stories first published several decades earlier. In their original form, any stories which referred to currency would have talked about shillings and old pennies. The 1972 Everday Stories, however, talks about new pence. By the time we get to The Little Lost Hen (1993), more alterations have been made and these are far from consistent.

In many of the stories in The Little Lost Hen, children have had their names "modernised" - we have Gemma, Melanie, Anthony and Nicky, for example. However, in other stories the children still have names like Lennie, Gordon, Betty and Belinda.

I examined one story in detail, called "Never Mind!", which concerns a boy who loses some of his birthday money and is unable to buy the paint-box he had set his heart on. He spends the remaining money on a comic and some colouring things, enters a colouring competition in the comic and is lucky enough to win a paint-box that is even nicer than the one he had meant to buy. His mother says that he deserves the prize for not grumbling about losing his money.

Here are some of the differences between the 1972 and 1993 versions:

"paper money" has become "money"

"a postal order for fifty pence" has become "a five pound note"

"a perfectly lovely paint-box" has become "the smashing paint-box"

"chalks" have become "crayons" (though they're still referred to as chalks by mistake once or twice)

"fine pictures" has become "nice pictures"

Sunny Stories has become Beano !

"to chalk" has become "to colour"

"a penny" has become "ten pence"

"as nicely as ever we can" has become "as nicely as we can"

Inflation has been taken into account, though 13 years on the prices given for various items seem rather low. Curiously, some things have not been updated - the boy has kept the name Henry, his prize still arrives
wrapped up in brown paper tied with string, he carries his money in
a "purse" and the story contains old-fashioned phrases like "Just fancy!" This gives the story an air of peculiarity.

[Fleet:] "There are also matters of 'house style'. When a property moves from one publishing house to another, it will be updated to suit the spellings and phrasings used by that publisher. This applies to currency and metric measurement for instance."

That explains why some titles which are set firmly around the time of the Second World War now feature decimal currency (while still featuring oil-stoves, sculleries, bombed-out houses, people darning stockings, etc.)

[Fleet:] "The simple truth is that within children's publishing, there is little respect for Enid Blyton as a writer or a storyteller. Within the profession, her books are widely considered to be poorly written, irrelevant and not worthy of too much effort."

If publishers really believe that, then they shouldn't print the books at all. It just goes to show that they'll print anything that they know will make money for them, regardless of whether they think the work is of good quality. (Personally I don't agree with them about Enid Blyton's books being poorly written and irrelevant. I would argue that her books have a lot to offer children, teaching them about the natural world, human relationships, morals, etc. Blyton's characters are positive role models, embodying truth, courage and loyalty; her plots are exciting and her short stories are beautifully-structured cautionary tales. It could even be said that her simple vocabulary is a strength rather than a weakness.)

Sorry for the long post!

Anita

[HeatherS]

The main reason that changes are made to the text of Blyton work is that it needs to be brought up-to-date for a modern audience. Publishing these works as a 'period piece' is simply not economically viable.... The idea is, that these books are to be read by a child without adult support and without having to ask things like how pre-decimal currency works. I am sure there are some children who can read period work such as Dickens or Austen unaided but they are rather rare.

I have both a seven year old and a five year old, and neither of them have had any trouble at all reading the original text, as first written back in the 50's and 60's. The only occasional misunderstandings are with English words that aren't used in Australia - things like "galoshes" and "larder". But as far as I know, these remain unchanged in the newer editions. With one simple explanation, my children have no further difficulty understanding these words, or any context or idea they may ask about. Children asking questions is a very important way for them to learn, and if they are given material they don't need to ask questions about, they will often learn less. Plus, as adults, I don't think we give children enough credit for the amount of information they absorb and comprehend. Of course, neither of them could attempt Dickens or Austin, but that's like comparing apples and oranges.

The simple truth is that within children's publishing, there is little respect for Enid Blyton as a writer or a storyteller. Within the profession, her books are widely considered to be poorly written, irrelevant and not worthy of too much effort.

I think thousands upon thousands of children who still buy her books would disagree! Enid's quote very nicely deals with editors who may rubbish her books - "Criticism from anybody over the age of twelve doesn't matter". Basically, the books were written for children, who loved them then and still love them fifty years later. I object to adult publishers deciding what they think children should read and enjoy.

I suppose it is possible that the Gollywog has also become a convenient stick with which to beat the work of Enid Blyton.

Ah, now with that I think you may have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Seven-year-olds are not mature enough to see the historical context and the adults, as I said, should be mature enough to see it but often they are not.

I have to disagree with you there. My seven year old is definitely able to see historical context in both books and movies. Just as she can see the difference between real and pretend, she can also see the difference between a period piece and a contemporary piece. Her only slight inaccuracy is that she sees the 80's (when I grew up) as the "olden days".

I'm not making myself very popular am I? Perhaps we should all just agree to differ and celebrate the things we have in common!

Oh, don't worry Fleet. Hearty discussion, whether we all agree or not, is an important part of life. As long as it doesn't turn into an argument it's all fine with me!

[Moonraker]

The simple truth is that within children's publishing, there is little respect for Enid Blyton as a writer or a storyteller. Within the profession, her books are widely considered to be poorly written, irrelevant and not worthy of too much effort.

Wow! I wonder if I could produce poorly written books, of irrelevant material without putting too much effort into them? They would then sell throughout the world and still be available in 80 years time, continuing to sell in phenomenol quantities. Who knows, there may even be TV and Film adaptations. In the future, people could be employed to nit-pick the language, censor any out of date material, have huge discussions on the relevancy of works written in 2006 to 'today's children in 2080' and see that much of what I wrote was partly responsible for racist attacks, as people were unable to differrentiate between nursery toys and human beings. And to achieve all this without the respect from childrens' publishers.

Think what could have happened if only Enid Blyton had put in a little more effort and tried to write with a modicum of talent.

[Anita Bensoussane]

Point well made, Nigel!

Anita

[noddy13]

Yes Nigel, that could be one literary experiment worth trying. Just goes to show that the moment there is talent in any field, it has to go through a host of middlemen to reach the consumer. How simple it would have been if Enid Blyton wrote her book...then wrote a few million copies herself.. and had a retail outlet in her garage. Now I have printers, publishers, editors, copywriters, marketing agents, political agents, censors, display artists, bankers, lawyers between Noddy Goes To Toyland and me.. and now Im seriously begining to question whether even the first editions that I have are really true to her original words. Anyone have original manuscripts for a thousand EB stories..?

Question is, why should we be blackmailed by the system..? Im sure if we had a poll today amongst all her fans, with the subject being ' censorship or not', we will have our answer! Do the publishers then need to bow to some real public opinion..?

[Fleet]

Woah! Hold on, I didn't say I agreed with it all!

I LOVED the 'Secret Seven' as a child, read them all by myself unaided and, as a child in the early seventies, understood the historical context of the books. It is just a sad fact of life that in my professional life it does me no credit amongst my peers to suggest that they are suitable for children today.

Reading Enid Blyton books as a child living in a depressed, rough area where I could never even play out in the street was the very reason that I chose my occupation. I get as excited by a good read and the smell of a new book as I did then. Since I was a child, I have wanted nothing more than to work on children's books and to know there are other children out there who gain as much pleasure and escape from a well illustrated, exciting adventure as I did. Reading the posts on this site, I gather I am not alone. I was just trying to show that the world of children's publishing is a far more cynical and money-minded field than many of you may think. It has certainly disappointed me at times.

I happen to think that either Blyton's books need to be re-adapted for a new audience and totally re-written in a modern context or be published without ANY modernisation at all as a 'period piece' - I agree that children are not stupid. The trouble is, the pressure on editors and publishers to 'come up with the goods' is immense. I think this is the main force driving the politcal correctness that has upset so many people - trying to make ALL books ALL things to ALL people. It has, of course, pleased nobody.

My reference to Dickens and Austen was as a result of those works being mentioned on another thread with reference to text changes - I don't agree with it, it's just the reason that the changes are made.

[Viking Star]

Can I first say, hang on in there Fleet!

There hasn't been much voice weighing in agreeing with your comments (whether held by you or simply ones held by others which you are sharing on the forum). But I'm glad you're still here.

I think it's a credit to everyone on this forum that a good debate is being had between people with quite differing views, without it being stopped in its tracks by someone taking offence at the other's views and waltzing off, as it were.

One small contribution to the debate: when I read Enid Blyton's books as a child, one of the criticisms of her works was that the books were not challenging enough. It seems to me a bit ironic that the books are now being updated because the original context is seen as a challenge that today's children can't cope with or understand!

As HeatherS said above, part of the learning process is to ask questions about things one doesn't understand.

And Moonraker, I applaud your eloquence!

And that's all I'll say on the subject. For the time being anyway....

[Moonraker]

Yes, Fleet, stay in here! It is great to have such a mature thread running!

A Christmas catalogue has just been delivered, and features a poignant item for sale.



However, the dreaded G word has not been used.

The description reads:

Three Nostalgic Toys Large measures (H) 18in. Medium 8in. Small 4in approx.

How many lucky children will get these this Christmas. I wouldn't mind them myself! However, I do have a couple of large Golliwogs in the attic that were given to our boys when they were little. They never saw them as black people either.

[booklover]

In defence of the golliwog: it's a great soft toy (as the picture above shows) and a great word, sadly now much maligned.

Blyton is a convenient scapegoat for people who want to take cheap shots about racial stereotyping in literature. As has been said many times, she reflected the times she wrote in. So we see Ern Goon get caned by his uncle in The Mystery of the Hidden House. Critics get support for their views by picking on isolated incidents. But for those who have read the totality of Blyton's writings, a strong moral code of behaviour comes through.