Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
A possible solution for Brian?
Maybe we could contact him for an answer?
" A kind heart always brings its own reward," said Mrs. Lee.
- The Christmas Tree Aeroplane - Society Member
It was a nuisance. An adventure was one thing - but an adventure without anything to eat was quite another thing. That wouldn't do at all. (The Valley of Adventure)
Does anybody want to be interviewed on talkRADIO tomorrow by Julia Hartley-Brewer about these new Adult Famous Five books - I don't. Please get back to me fairly quickly if you are interested.
To be fair to the books one should have read them first ... and maybe we would then feel like this : To quote from the link...
Anne McNeil of Enid Blyton Entertainment added they were "thrilled" with the new books, adding: "We are certain Enid Blyton would have delighted in the gentle parody of her characters - characters which have helped to create a multi-million-selling global brand."
I wonder!
'Tis loving and giving that makes life worth living.
except Anne having herself exorcised doesn't sound like 'gentle parody' to me!
If anyone can explain how that can be described as 'gentle parody' I'd be interested to hear, lol!
How on earth can anyone be 'certain' that Enid would be 'delighted' by these books? That sort of phrase is always used when someone is attempting to do something they know won't really delight anyone!
I'm sure she would be delighted to know her characters were investigating office affairs, exorcising themselves, and self diagnosing themselves with several deadly diseases, including cancer and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, all in the name of comedy. Yeah - I'm sure she'd be delighted.
'Oh voice of Spring of Youth
hearts mad delight,
Sing on, sing on, and when the sun is gone
I'll warm me with your echoes
through the night.'
Courtenay wrote:And not a gluten free scone in sight! Definitely NOT dairy-free "cream" and sugar-free jam.
We must remember that for thousands of celiacs, that is not something to celebrate. There are also thousands of people with dairy intolerances and sugar-intake concerns who might still like to have a Blyton-style feast.
Last edited by Moonraker on 26 May 2016, 18:22, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy wrote:Good gracious... if that is what they are like I can only express great surprise at come people's sense of humour and idea of gentle parody.
According to a quote from the newspaper article Tony gave a link to earlier in this thread -
"The new books, written by humorist Bruno Vincent, include Five Go Gluten Free, in which the pals turn their hands to a series of DIY cures after ‘feeling rum’.
'Julian goes online to self-diagnose that he’s got pancreatic cancer, bird flu and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
'Anne decides that the old methods are the best and decides to have herself exorcised – which proves to be an awful lot of bother for everyone, and such a mess.’
In Five Go On A Strategy Away Day, the friends go on a management bonding session and try to discover whether ‘Shelly from production has been s****ing Luke from the postroom’.
'gentle parody'...apparently.
'Oh voice of Spring of Youth
hearts mad delight,
Sing on, sing on, and when the sun is gone
I'll warm me with your echoes
through the night.'
The email I had from Julia Hartley-Brewer was marked URGENT as she wants someone to get back to her today. Her programme is tomorrow morning from 10 am to 1 pm - any takers?
I have checked the Trade Mark Act 1994 and it says that a registered trademark can be 'any sign capable of being represented graphically, which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one understanding from those of another understanding. A TM may in particular consist of words (including personal names), designs, letters ... '. It can be granted for anything that is of 'distinctive character as a result of the use that is made of it'. That would cover the use of Enid's name as well as a signature; but the wording on infringements of a TM is to do with using the trademarked name/ design or a similar one to cause mistaking one for the other, not a minor matter - with no danger of confusion to customers involved - like reproducing illustrations with the relevant wording on them.
The TM that I have (like Rob) heard that Enid took out on her name - under a previous Act - would presumably be applicable to any commercial use of her name, as the items TMed are called 'goods' in the 1994 Act . I suppose 'commercial use' might include reproducing a cover with her name or signature on it in an illustration in a book as the latter makes money, but surely it is a 'grey area'? I was told by the cover artist's agent that the EB Estate regarded reproducing book covers with her name on them as controlled by the TM, so I could not do it. I had never come across this before. (The EB Estate not the artist's heirs own the rights to the covers, but I was told that the ban on reproduction of covers with the relevant names on referred to the TM not to the ownership of rights). The relevant words - Enid Blyton, Malory Towers, St Clares, could not be commercially used except by or as permitted by the Estate. As a result, I had to abandon a whole planned section of my illustrations which would have reproduced First Edition EB covers. (Other recent books on contemporaries of Enid's have been able to reproduce such covers of their works without problems - hence my surprsie.)
Logically the original intention of the TM that Enid took out was to stop other authors producing books and signing them off as 'by Enid Blyton' .The point of a TM would normally be to stop this sort of commercial use of another person's name; this is clear enough. Extending it to a ban on reproducing illustrations featuring her name would seem a new departure, as there is no possible intent to deceive involved. Was this law updated or changed in 1994 to fit in better with a more wide-ranging US law?
I hope I have not confused anyone further with this (!) - but I am trying to relay the problems that I have faced on a supposedly simple issue undertaken with the best of intentions, as a homage to Enid's work.
