The Enid Blyton Society

Hello all.

So it's been 40+ years since I read and enjoyed all the Enid Blyton books.

Just bought a whole new series for my step Grand Daughter, but read them first. Secret Seven, Famous Five, Five Find Outers, Adventure series.

So I'm reading the Famous Five and I see often and repeatedly, 'idiot', 'idiot', idiot' etc.

No don't be silly, no stupid, no foolish, no crazy etc.

Have these terms been re-written since the 60's with idiot replacing other terms ? I don't seem to remember such stunted, repetitive language.

I note the other books, mentioned above, don't have the same single term. In fact 'idiot' is barely, if at all mentioned in the other series.

Just curious.

ADD: Another unusual thing is that in this Famous Five printing, it states in all 25 books, that they were first published in 1942 by Hodder and Stoughton, and this edition is 1997.

Clearly, that is wrong as they were published between 1942 and 1963

Welcome, Sunnyeveryday. It's strange that a mistake has been made regarding the original dates.

All my Famous Five books date from the 1970s and I recall "idiot" being used quite a lot - but I also associate that word with other series like the Adventure, Find-Outers and Barney series. I've never noticed whether it's used more in the stories about the Five, but it's certainly possible.

The Famous Five books were edited for the 1997 printings (not for the first time, as minor alterations had been made previously) and they've since been revised again, in 2010. However, the versions with the Eileen Soper covers or the covers by a range of artists (Quentin Blake, Chris Riddell, Shirley Hughes, etc.) still have the 1997 text. I've no idea whether any of the updates increased the incidence of "idiot".

I think they were in the original books. Also I don't think they started changing the text until the mid 2000s.

it states in all 25 books

There were 21 books!

I remember words such as idiot were used a lot - I think it was a common expression to call someone an idiot in that era.

Welcome, Sunnyeveryday, you must have a very positive attitude to have such a name!

How strange, or should I say, idiotic? I've compared the original text of Five on a Treasure Island to a copy from 1997 and no idiots had been added at that stage.

How queer.

Moonraker wrote:How strange.

I can't say that 'idiot' stuck out for me as I read through the series - but I was reading early editions, pre 1970's.

It's not true, as someone stated, that text revisions weren't made until the 2000's as many had been made in the 1997 editions and going back as early as the 1970's paperbacks a few things had been altered such as 'jeans' instead of 'shorts' etc.

As Moonraker knows, I have an obsession with comparing the Centenary editions to the originals - many words have been altered - such as 'traveller' instead of gypsy etc, but I don't recall 'idiot' being inserted for other words. 'queer' has become 'strange' a few times though...like in this thread!

Of course I had to check this out officially in Liam's book.It really is excellent for this type of specific query:

I read Famous Five books to such an extent I could quote entire paragraphs almost word for word, knew what page certain text was from and must have read every one at least 20 times or more yet I can honestly say the word 'idiot' never stuck out once . 'Fathead' and 'ass' are the two terms that I would associate with the FF, the only 'idiot' that springs to mind is Uncle Quentin's yell at George for thinking of attempting to seperate two fighting dogs with her bare hands!

Great post,thanks,

Of course I've just had to look up the terms 'fathead' and 'fat-headed' now in Liam's book to see how often they occur!!

I'm presuming, as everyone else no doubt is, that the information in Liams book comes from very early editions? I guess so - but I'm interested to see the occurrence of 'idiot' so many times, as it never stuck out for me when reading the books, as I said earlier.



I guess Enid had to use words like 'idiot' a lot because some of the alternatives wouldn't have been suitable for children's books.

Rob Houghton wrote:I'm presuming, as everyone else no doubt is, that the information in Liams book comes from very early editions?

I didn't think this, I had always assumed that he had used more modern editions, but I could certainly be wrong, possibly Pete can tell us, as I think he is one of the few that has a copy of the book.

Yes, I'd be interested to know, as of course it makes a vast difference!

Of course it does. I don't want to criticize Liam's book as I haven't read it but any work of reference such as this is pointless if we are left unaware of which edition(s) he is using as his source material.