Parents

[Moonraker]

It amazes me, how in most of Enid's books (especially Famous 5, S7, FFO&D), the children have such a 'fear' relationship with their parents. Especially the boys, who seem to be in constant fear of a thrashing from their fathers if they do as much as step out of line. I know it was the 40s/50s, but I was a child of the 50s and was never subjected to such fears. The children were farmed out to boarding schools, and where the FF was concerned, even spent most of the holidays at Kirrin! Didn't Ju, Dick & Anne's parents want to see their children? There seems to be little evidence of love in these families. Pip & Bets's father seems a horrible man! It begs the question, why did these people have children?

[Kirrin]

I think the relationship they have is a healthy one and they all
loved thier children!

[oldbookfan]

Perhaps Ms Blyton had some trouble understanding a loving relationship between parents and their children - after all, her mother is said to have cared a great deal about the house and a tad indifferent towards the child, and her father, well, he went away. And then look at Enid's children. It is said she was far too busy to spend much time with them. So perhaps Ms Blyton did not have much in the way of warm family life to call upon for her books. But then, Im just throwing this in for something to think about.

Cheers

[Anita Bensoussane]

I'd agree with Moonraker that there is something disturbing about the relationships some of Enid Blyton's child characters have with their parents. Mr. Lynton, one of the worst fathers in the Blyton canon, is remote and irritable all the time - he rarely speaks a word of kindness or encouragement to his children. On the first page and a half of The Rilloby Fair Mystery he speaks to Roger impatiently, glances at him irritably, glares at him over the top of his newspaper and gives an exasperated click at Diana. His children have only just returned from boarding school for the Easter holidays, yet he seems to be tired of their company already and has made no plans to spend any time with them. Indeed, he and his wife often fly off to America as soon as the children break up from school, leaving them in the care of Miss Pepper!

Then there is the mother in the Wishing-Chair books, whose children, Mollie and Peter, go off on long adventures without her even noticing! In The Adventures of the Wishing-Chair, Peter comments: "You know how Mother hates us to mess things - that's why we have this playroom at the bottom of the garden - so that we can do as we like and not spoil things in the dining-room or drawing-room or study up at the house." To echo Moonraker, why did she have children in the first place?

Having said all this, I think the real reason that parents in Blyton books are so uninvolved in their children's lives is that Blyton needs them out of the way so that the children can go off adventuring!

Anita

[Tony Summerfield]

Whilst I fully agree with both you and Moonraker I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last paragraph Anita - it was essential to have the parents out of the way for the adventures to begin. One should also mention the Arnold parents in the Secret Series who seem equally happy to disappear at the drop of a hat.

I think the other thing to consider is that Enid was primarily writing about middle class families and in those days it was the norm to send your children away to boarding school. However having said that when it comes to the larger series like the Fives this absence of parents seems to stick out like a sore thumb - Julian and Co. seem to virtually live at Kirrin and their parents must be almost complete strangers - it is hardly surprising that Enid even managed a slip up on their surname!

Going back even further in time I remember watching a drama documentary about Douglas Jardine (an English cricket captain in the early 30s) whose parents lived in India. At the age of 7 they sent him off to boarding school in England and I remember being horrified at his Father's parting words - "Goodbye old man, I'll see you when you are 18". Perhaps some of the children in Enid's stories had it relatively cushy!!

[Icecream342]

In Famous 5, George sais that her dad is a scientist and doesn't like to be disturbed, and she says that they have to walk around on tip-toe. I wonder why...

[Moonraker]

Quentin, in his role as a top scientist, needed great concentration to carry out his research and experiments. For that reason, he needed peace and quiet. Rather unlikely with four kids and a dog running around!

[Dick Kirrin]

Maybe I won#t shed any more light on this matter, but I'll try to summarize:

Caring parents may be nice, but they could spoil all the fun there is to be had whenever matering a demanding situation such as an adventure on your own. For one thing, any caring adult would be interested in what their children do, as Blyton heroes don't lie, the adult in question would inevitably be involved. Most likely he or she would simply forbid the children to go on. Even if there was no clear "NO", the adult would come along and the children wouldn't have to cope on their own, which is exactly what the readers like about the stories.

So EB needed a way to get rid of such parents or rather a way not to get them into the story in the first place. She had several ways of doing so, in the case of the Five we have the businessman Mr Kirrin whom we can assume to be away pretty often and the kind at heart, yet very ill-tempered Uncle Quentin. In addition, the children attend, as nearly all child heroes in all of the books do, public schools.
With the FFOs it worked slightly different, or let's rather say, we encounter a mixture, with the Trottevilles being away whenever possible and the Hiltons being rather strict.
The Lyntons are different, too. Mr Lynton obviously doesn't even like his own children, let alone Snubby. To be more precise, he isn't able to perceive them as children with their own needs and rights, such as an urge to make noise.

What's left can only be evil, wicked parents (the most common type being the stereotypical stepfather like Mr Andrews) or broken families like Jo's or Nobby's. There is Mr Lenoir who is in fact not a rotten character, but simply can't handle children at all and therefore is suspicious of them to the extent of rather believing his servant that his stepson.
Then we have some minder characters like Mrs Tickle, Mrs Pepper or Mr Luffy. Most of them either believe that children are best left with as little supervision as possible or are simply not fit to look after children. As much as I might like Mr Luffy as a friend, I'd think twice about trusting my kids to someone like him. To do the man justice, he seems to be a genius as a teacher and very good at children's psychology, and therefore he may not need to use any kind of force (not even a forbidding) as much as others do.
Also we have servants being trusted with looking after the children, but in nearly any case, servants are there to be given orders, even by a "Master Julian". So they couldn't dare to keep the children in line too much. They have a certain influence on them, but apart from that they have to make the beds, clean up and cook.

Cheers

Dick Kirrin

[Lenoir]

There is Mr Lenoir who is in fact not a rotten character

That’s good to know!

[mynameisdumbnuts]

Mr. Lynton, one of the worst fathers in the Blyton canon, is remote and irritable all the time - he rarely speaks a word of kindness or encouragement to his children. On the first page and a half of The Rilloby Fair Mystery he speaks to Roger impatiently, glances at him irritably, glares at him over the top of his newspaper and gives an exasperated click at Diana. His children have only just returned from boarding school for the Easter holidays, yet he seems to be tired of their company already and has made no plans to spend any time with them. Indeed, he and his wife often fly off to America as soon as the children break up from school, leaving them in the care of Miss Pepper!

There are hints that Mr. Lynton isn't as bad as he seems. Here's where I'm hoping I don't get my books switched up.... In "Rilloby Fair" Roger ruffles his father's hair when he comes in for breakfast, something I feel he wouldn't dare do if Mr. Lynton really were that fearsome a father. In "Ragamuffin," it's either Roger or Diana who says it's a shame their dad can't come caravanning because he's so much fun on a holiday (I admit I had a hard time believing that one). And in "Rat-a-Tat," when Roger expresses dismay that Uncle Robert is coming because it means the children will have to be quiet and polite all the time, Mr. Lynton says with a twinkle in his eye that maybe that's why he told the old fellow to come, so he does joke with his children. In "Rilloby Fair," Snubby is looking forward to seeing everyone including his uncle, so Mr. Lynton can't be all that bad.

I agree that Mr. Lynton doesn't make a good impression, though. He comes off as impatient, brusque and not particularly caring, and apparently he has no compunctions about thrashing the children, or at least the boys. But I do get the sense he's not all that bad. I think the Hiltons are much colder.

[aminmec]

I think what Anita says is quite correct that the stories have the focus on the children and their exploits .
So parents and their dealings are not prominent .
Probably it would be too plain if all parents were shown to be loving and caring .So for variety and spice, some are probably shown out of the ordinary .

What always strikes me as good is the level of honesty and truth the children are shown to maintain . I think all try their utmost to be frank and truthful to their elders even in the face of adversity and danger .

This quality is slowly fading from the lives of youngsters nowadays in feel .

[Anita Bensoussane]

There are hints that Mr. Lynton isn't as bad as he seems. Here's where I'm hoping I don't get my books switched up.... In "Rilloby Fair" Roger ruffles his father's hair when he comes in for breakfast, something I feel he wouldn't dare do if Mr. Lynton really were that fearsome a father. In "Ragamuffin," it's either Roger or Diana who says it's a shame their dad can't come caravanning because he's so much fun on a holiday (I admit I had a hard time believing that one). And in "Rat-a-Tat," when Roger expresses dismay that Uncle Robert is coming because it means the children will have to be quiet and polite all the time, Mr. Lynton says with a twinkle in his eye that maybe that's why he told the old fellow to come, so he does joke with his children.

I wouldn't call Mr. Lynton "fearsome" either - just detached, impatient and not good at relating to children. When Mr. Martin comes into the story he strikes me as far more patient, warm and informal than Mr. Lynton. I wonder what the two men think of one another? Mr. Lynton may well develop a better relationship with his children when they're adults. The line I find most heartening regarding him is when he meets Barney for the first time in Rilloby Fair and says, "You're welcome, Barney. Any friend of Roger's is a friend of mine." Roger appreciates that: "Roger's heart warmed to his father. Good old Dad! He might be hot-tempered and strict and all the rest of it - but he had the right thoughts and feelings every time."

[MJE]

     That's a strange coincidence. In another thread, I gave a rather unfavourable opinion of Mr. Lynton, and asked if anyone had anything good at all to say about him - and it was before I read the last few posts here.
     I guess those things do give Mr. Lynton a favourable light - only slightly, though, and to my mind not really enough to offset the extremely bad image he projects at other times.
     I can understand why it might be thought that Blyton made some parents remote in order to make it easier for the children to hide from them that they are involved in dangerous adventures. But I wonder if there could be another approach. The parents and children are close and loving, and everything you'd expect them to be if they are a harmonious family, but the children are of essentially good and responsible character, and the parents just trust them to do the right thing and so allow them to wander round at their pleasure. And the children needn't guilty for hiding their activities from their parents if the parents don't ask in too much detail about what they're doing, and so can go ahead with solving their mysteries.
     When I was a boy, I used to roam miles around the neighbourhood even before I was ten or so - either on foot on the tricycle I had at the time (on the roads, too). This was not in a busy city, admittedly, but not ina fully rural area, either; for anyone who knows Adelaide, South Australia, it was in those semi-rural, semi-suburban areas around Belair and Stirling in the Adelaide hills, just outside Adelaide (sadly, those areas are now more built-up than they were then).
     If anyone is tempted to think what terrible, irresponsible, neglectful parents I had, allowing me such total freedom even before I was ten, it just wasn't an issue at the time; it was normal, and I would have resented it if anyone tried to stop me doing it. Since I had apparently shown my parents I didn't do foolish, dangerous things, there was no reason for them to stop me doing this. As it happens, of course I wasn't involved in adventures - but I suppose I *could* have been, and they might never know it.
     I know it's popularly perceived that things are far more dangerous for children now, but I have heard experts say that this is not always so, that really things are no more dangerous now (at least in some areas), but the media whip up a frenzy of panic, so that parents now feel they have to watch their child's every movement. If there are parents today who don't buy the frenzy-of-panic view of today's world, they might still believe in allowing their children freedom if the children have shown that they are responsible enough to cope with it properly.

Regards, Michael.

[Aurélien]

Hmmm, and (in NZ) some years earlier than you, Michael, I walked to (primary) school without parental escort at the age of 7.

These days parents who allowed such independence might be seen as neglectful.....they could even possibly be reported to 'the authorities' for this.

And yet, worsening traffic problems aside, is it that our world has really become so much more dangerous for children, or more that adults responsible for kids have become so much more fearful?

'Aurélien Arkadiusz'

[MJE]

Hmmm, and (in NZ) some years earlier than you, Michael, I walked to (primary) school without parental escort at the age of 7.

     Not that we want to turn this into a competition to see who had the most freedom at the youngest age - but I don't know exactly at what stage I began to wander over the district. It was certainly before the age of 10, though. Possibly it began gradually, with no definite starting point, and I was allowed more freedom as I gradually seemed old enough to deal with it. I don't know - it just wasn't an issue at the time. I probably spent more time wandering around than some other children because I was a loner and didn't play much with other children.
     I do recall sometimes walking to and from my very first school, and that was a full mile. And I'm not exaggerating the distance due to my childish mind feeling it to be a greater distance than it really was: I visited Adelaide some years back and drove along the same route and measured it - it's pretty well exactly a mile. I suppose some people today would be shocked that a child 7 or 8 years old - 8 at the most - would be allowed to walk such a distance alone. And I also recall, on the way home, deviating from the road and wandering through fields and bushland and following odd tracks, quite freely taking my time if I felt like it. And I never got lost, because I knew almost the whole district like the back of my hand.
     And that first school comprised the first two years, maybe, of my schooling - it's difficult to say what grades, because it was an "experimental" school that didn't have rigid grades. Due to my personal difficulties, my parents apparently thought I might do better at such a school; but they later changed their minds about that, and sent me to a traditional (probably rather British-style) school in Adelaide, and I joined that school in the middle of Grade 3, in the middle of 1962. I was born in March, 1954, so I was 8 (and a few months) when I entered that school. So I was 7 or 8 when I was walking to and from the previous school, which I attended for a year or two.
     (The exact chronology of that part of my life is a little vague now. But I suppose I must have been there for two and a half years if I was to go through the equivalent of Grades 1 and 2 and part of Grade 3, unless I covered that work much quicker than average - which is possible - I just don't recall. But because of the lack of a rigid grade structure, it would have been possible to move up more quickly than usual if you could learn the curriculum. And I guess I can't have started school too much later than the normal starting age for children, which would have been maybe 6 years old, although it's conceivable I was held back a bit due to my emotional and social difficulties, which were already very apparent.)
     I really don't know if I think it would be irresponsible of parents now to allow kids to walk around freely at such an age. It seemed to be okay then, and I suppose it would depend on the character and maturity of the individual child. I wouldn't like to make hard-and-fast rules about it, and am inclined to think there are too many busy-bodies going about today who think they can lay down the rules about how other people should behave or bring up their children. With some of the spoilt brats around these days, the parents need to get better ideas about such things before telling others what to do.
     If kids can't be allowed that freedom, then I think that is truly sad indeed. And of course, being childless, I don't have to make a serious decision about this and take a definite stand.

These days parents who allowed such independence might be seen as neglectful.....they could even possibly be reported to 'the authorities' for this.

     What would be the grounds of such reporting? What authorities? I don't see how you could involve the police if no criminal offence has been committed. And what other authorities might say to parents "You cannot allow your children to wander around so freely".
     Sounds like another effort by the P.C. brigade to me; and I sometimes get the impression that the P.C. types are the bossiest of all, the most inclined to tell others how to live their lives, the most intolerant of any view that doesn't agree with theirs.

And yet, worsening traffic problems aside, is it that our world has really become so much more dangerous for children, or more that adults responsible for kids have become so much more fearful?

     I don't know about the danger. Perhaps some city areas are busier with traffic now, although back in the 1960s there were certainly enough cars around that accidents could occur. I do think adults are far more fearful now, and this is probably fed by media reports of child molesters, rapists, and paedophiles, who you are led to believe lurk around every corner in their greasy raincoats, waiting to pounce on any innocent child who wanders too close - when apparently statistics say that children are *far* more likely to be molested by someone known to the family, and deeply trusted by them - such as a friend, an uncle, or even a parent - sometimes an older sibling. So I think possibly it's to some extent at least a beat-up.

Regards, Michael.