Mystery of the Pantomime Cat

[Katharine]

I think one of the important points here is that Enid wasn't portraying hitting a dog as an acceptable act. Maybe if she had been, there might be a point to be made about omitting it from the book. However I think the biggest issue here is the changing of text to suit people's ideas of what is or isn't acceptable reading material for children.

I thought that in this country we have freedom of speech, so surely books should be left as they are, even if they do contain words such as cripple, simple or whatever. If people find the books upsetting or offensive, then they have a choice not to read them. I know perhaps that would eventually mean that Enid Blyton books would no longer be in print, but quite frankly, the way they are being altered I'm beginning to think that wouldn't be a bad thing. At the rate they are going, they'll only bear a passing resemblance to the originals anyway.

As for what is unsuitable, I remember reading a copy of Roald Dahl's The Twits about 6 or 7 years ago, it was in the children's ward of a hospital, so presumably a fairly new edition. I can't remember the actual story, but I do remember thinking it was appalling. I also find Raymond Brigg's Father Christmas sitting on the toilet extremely distasteful. I could go on, but it seems to me that what is offensive/unacceptable is a bit like beauty - in the eye of the beholder.

Also, and I'm not pointing the finger at any particular person here, but there seem to be a lot of people saying they like Enid Blyton BUT, they don't like the gollies, they don't like the portrayal of girls, they don't like smacking, they don't like etc., etc. Maybe if they feel that strongly about the books they might be better off with another author. As I've said countless times before, I find Jacqueline Wilson's books extremely unpleasant, and have banned them from my house - end of story. I'm not campaigning to have her books removed from libraries or rewritten.

[Poppy]

You've mentioned a few interesting comments, Nicko. It is strange to see what gets editted out of books nowadays, and what remains in the text. I agree it is rather is a rather alarming speech made by Fatty, however I would agree to Buster being hit with the poker more unexpected, in my point of view. We do not see a lot of physical violence in Blyton's books, we see quite a few extraordinary speeches which expresses how times change from when this book was written and now. You mention Mr Goon wanting to have Buster destroyed (This occurs in Holly Lane), this pays to much of a big part in this book to be editted out (though I don't see why it should be), I think, when there is a few chapters dedicated to Fatty's trick, and Mr Goon waiting for the chance to catch poor old Buster, also bargaining with Mrs Mickles' young boy [Bert?] Despite much slyness, and spite we see in this, no violence is heard of, which makes the whole idea very much suitable for children to read - so why bother editting it?

The poker aspect of your post has just made me think of William out of Goodnight Mr Tom. I believe he suffered from abuse from his mother and is scared at the sight of a poker. I'm sure he was either threatened with one, or was hit and is scared at the sight of Mr Tom's red hot one. Perhaps this has not been editted out because we do not hear of any direct violence using this weapon, in the book, or maybe it played to much of a bit part to be editted out...

I have editted my post, because I feel, after re-reading it, I said things the wrong way, and gave the wrong impression. I have nothing against any aspect of Enid's work, and wouldn't give up my collection for the world!

Well said, Katharine. I do think people forget we have a freedom of speech, nowadays. (I can't bear Jacquline Wilson books, either, though my sister has just got into them, unfortunately. Can't really stop her reading them, if she's enjoying them, but she will eventually go on to something else, hopefully!)

[Anita Bensoussane]

...the depiction of Boysie is uncomfortable to read

Strangely perhaps I have no trouble with Fatty's comment about Boysie having perhaps been dropped on his head when a baby. Enid Blyton uses the same reasoning in "The Put-'Em-Rights" in explaining Will's liking for bright objects. I think it may have been just to give young readers a reason for someone having mental problems rather than leaving them perhaps puzzling about it.

An interesting discussion. When I read The Mystery of the Pantomime Cat as a child, I was confused by Fatty's comment about Boysie perhaps having been dropped on his head as a baby. I'd seen a number of people who were mentally disabled ("mentally handicapped" was the term used in the late 1970s when I was reading the Find-Outers series) and I'd never heard anyone claim that they had become disabled because their mothers (or other carers) had treated them carelessly when they were babies. Even as a youngster I was taken aback and couldn't help thinking that Boysie's mother would feel terribly insulted by Fatty's remark.

...the solution at the end involving an identical twin is atrocious.

That's the main problem with the story in my opinion - that that detail is introduced out of the blue. However, I still find The Mystery of the Pantomime Cat an entertaining read because of the varied cast of characters and memorable scenes involving the theatre, Kitty the cook and her films, and Fatty and Larry gobbling "snacks".

[Katharine]

I didn't read the book as a child, so it's difficult for me to be 100% sure of my reaction. However, I don't think I'd have been surprised or shocked to read the comment about someone being dropped as a baby. I can't actually recall hearing anyone saying it, but on the other hand, I just feel it's a term that would have been used in my presence whilst I was a child. I don't think any malicious intent would have been meant, it was just a general expression to explain someone who was mentally 'retarded' I'm afraid is the word that would have been common then. I don't necessarily think anyone would actually have thought a child had been dropped, it was just a flippant remark used to explain away a variety of conditions which probably didn't have a specific diagnosis back then.

I agree with Anita's comment about the explanation in this book coming out of the blue, I think the clues should all be there for us, whether we spot them or not is another matter. Still, from what I can remember, it was one of the better FFO books.

[Moonraker]

Also, and I'm not pointing the finger at any particular person here, but there seem to be a lot of people saying they like Enid Blyton BUT, they don't like the gollies, they don't like the portrayal of girls, they don't like smacking, they don't like etc., etc. Maybe if they feel that strongly about the books they might be better off with another author.

Hear, hear!

Even as a youngster I was taken aback and couldn't help thinking that Boysie's mother would feel terribly insulted by Fatty's remark.

But it is exactly what a schoolboy of the 40s would have said.

[Stephen]

We had several pupils at primary school with various degrees of handicap, so I was certainly familiar with the disabled when I first read this book, and I suppose I did subconsciously visualise Boysie as being very similar to people I knew. As for the expression, "dropped as a baby" it never bothered me at the time, but just came across as a plausible sounding explanation.

[Nicko]

Also, and I'm not pointing the finger at any particular person here, but there seem to be a lot of people saying they like Enid Blyton BUT, they don't like the gollies, they don't like the portrayal of girls, they don't like smacking, they don't like etc., etc. Maybe if they feel that strongly about the books they might be better off with another author.

I disagree strongly. I think it would be perfectly possible to enjoy EB's books for their page-turning quality and yet still dislike all of those things.

[Nicko]

This book actually does seem to be one of the most edited in the series in the modern editions.

Fatty's hilarious comment, 'I'm not smoking till I'm twenty one' has been changed to, 'I'm not going to be a smoker at all.'

The description of Boysie as a, 'poor, queer headed fellow' seems to have been omitted entirely (as far as I could see).

Fatty's horrible comment about the, 'sort of thing a mutt like Boysie would forget' has been edited to, 'sort of thing someone like Boysie would forget'.

EB's statement that, 'Boysie was queer (changed to funny) in the head and silly, he was ugly to look at...' remains.

I think this shows how confused the process of editing has been. In that last example I would say that the word queer was the least questionable part of the whole thing.

[Stephen]

Prompted by this very thread, I fished out my very battered copy and read it for the first time in years. It's even better than I remembered, reading a childhood favourite from a nostalgic yet grown-up pair of eyes, and also picking up things I hadn't noticed before.

The worst thing was the children's "Let's play a trick on the new copper" hooliganism, but as I said they soon get their comeuppance when they realise it's horribly backfired and could incriminate an innocent person. Goon is vile, but this just gives it that extra bit of urgency. The fact that there was someone else in the Pantomime Cat skin does seem pretty obvious with hindsight, but I'm sure it never occurred to me the first time round. And the fact there was a twin involved doesn't seem quite as "Deus ex machina" as you might think. If you knew the guilty man had a twin sister, you'd probably guess the solution straight away. And we find out fairly early on that he's a female impersonator, so there is at least a bit of a hint of the solution.

I'd forgotten we don't actually see Boysie's face until quite late on in the book, and I still don't think there's anything particularly offensive about him. A harmless, sympathetic character not judged by the children. He reminds me a bit of several handicapped people I've known over the years. And the "dropped as a baby" bit just sounds like a plausible explanation.

Also, I'd forgotten all about Fatty disguising himself as a foreign gentleman and asking the easily fooled Goon about Hoffle-Foffle House. Comedy gold!

[Julie2owlsdene]

Pantomime Cat isn't my favourite, but I always enjoy reading it, except the bit where Goon is particularly horrible to a dog. But then, that is Goon's character, he's not really meant to be liked.

I read this as a child, and had no idea who stole the money at all, but I did work out that someone was inside the cat suit. As for Boysie being dropped when a baby, that expression I used to hear a lot when a youngster back in the 50's etc, so maybe, when someone didn't know of a certain disability or why it was caused, maybe it was just wording that was said, and covered many degrees of a disability.

A good book, always enjoy reading the Find-Outers. Banshee is the poorest for me, and I've not read it in ages!

[Poppy]

Banshee Towers was the first FFO book I read, Julie, and I was thrilled with it. I still love to read it, but it certainly doesn't strike me as one of the strongest, though I don't dislike it. Perhaps I thought it was so good because it was the first Find-Outer book I read, and had nothing to compare it to. I loved the idea of the paintings being re-painted and the originals being stolen and replaced with the copies; I thought that was a marvellous idea, but perhaps the banshee part was a little far-fetched?? Anyway, I should give it a re-read sometime. I remember it being a rather amusing tale, however, unfortunatley, Fatty doesn't disguise himself at all - does he?

[Ming]

Also, and I'm not pointing the finger at any particular person here, but there seem to be a lot of people saying they like Enid Blyton BUT, they don't like the gollies, they don't like the portrayal of girls, they don't like smacking, they don't like etc., etc. Maybe if they feel that strongly about the books they might be better off with another author.

I disagree strongly. I think it would be perfectly possible to enjoy EB's books for their page-turning quality and yet still dislike all of those things.

Thanks, Nicko, for your reply. Blindly liking and believing in them simply because they were written by a particular author is, in my opinion, a silly thing to do. It is always better to question what you know, and then come to your own conclusions and opinions about it than conforming to everything that is said. Those who are able to do that, are better able to analyse the books and acknowledge that not everything about a certain character will be likable, which is an universal truth of anybody. If they feel that strongly about it, they have all the more reason for reading and discussing them. It is perfectly possible to like an author's works and yet find issues with several aspects - for example, I love Roald Dahl's books but I think they are incredibly violent and I wish sometimes they weren't so explicitly so. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy them, nor does it mean I shouldn't read his works.

As a child the explanation of Boysie being dropped as a baby terrified me very much. I was playing with the baby of our upstairs neighbour at their house once and I dropped him by mistake (I was 8 or 10, I think). I can't think now why there weren't any adults supervising me while I was carrying a six month old baby, but I certainly remember the baby's parents beating the life out of me afterwards. I was terrified he'd develop mental problems like Boysie, and cried all day. Thankfully nothing did happen to him.

I love Pantomime Cat because of its unusual setting, and it's glimpse into "show business". The twin plot twist did not bother me as a child but I'm sure if I read it now I'd feel "cheated". Same with Burnt Cottage - the tempests didn't bother me when I first read it, but later on I felt it was Blyton taking a convenient way out. How easy would it have been to have Larry observing the tempests from his window and then catching sight of the fire? Very simple, I should think.

[Katharine]

Ming I understand your comments about liking an author, but not every aspect of their work, such as the violence in Roald Dahl's books. I'm just wondering though if you think his book should be altered to reflect that opinion though? That was the point I was trying to make about Enid Blyton's books, it's not so much that people don't like certain aspects of her books, more the fact that they think these bits should be altered.

I hate the fact that a certain person gets killed off a the end of the final Harry Potter book, (I won't say who in case someone hasn't read the book), but that wouldn't stop me reading the books again and again, nor do I expect the publishers to change the text either.

I'm sorry to hear about you dropping the baby, I can fully sympathise, I fractured my sister's skull by dropping her when she was a similar age. Thankfully my parents realised it was an accident and I received no punishment, merely sympathy for the injuries I also received in the incident. Thankfully she appears to have grown up without any ill effects. Probably the only lasting effect of the whole incidence is the fact that I avoid walking with a baby or small child in my arms on any surface other than grass or carpet. If they need to be transport from one point to another they are either in a pushchair or they walked.

[Ming]

Ming I understand your comments about liking an author, but not every aspect of their work, such as the violence in Roald Dahl's books. I'm just wondering though if you think his book should be altered to reflect that opinion though? That was the point I was trying to make about Enid Blyton's books, it's not so much that people don't like certain aspects of her books, more the fact that they think these bits should be altered.

I understand what you mean now better, Katharine. No, I don't think they should be changed, but that is just me and others are well entitled to their opinions.

[Katharine]

Yes Ming, you're right it is a matter of opinion, I suppose I just find it a bit strange that people want to change something they say they like. It makes me wonder if they'd want to put the Mona Lisa in a different coloured dress, or make her hair blonde.

Seriously though, I suppose on the whole I've never really questioned books that I've read, I either like them or I didn't. If I liked them I read them again, if I didn't like them, I never bothered to pick them up any more. Possibly I was an unusual child in that I just accepted stories for what they were, maybe they were set at a different time to the one I lived in, or talked about a way of life I was unfamiliar with, but I either skimmed over the bits I didn't understand, or I went and found out what they were talking about.

If I hadn't discovered the EB Society, I probably wouldn't be thinking too deeply about the books even now, I'd still just be reading them as they were first written.