Journal Jitters

[Sally]

Lovely to see the front page, Tony, and it certainly whets the appetite! Interested to read your article, Julie, on Snubby, as he is one of my favourite characters.

[pete9012S]

A little mischievous I know,but I have put a link promoting our Journal on Stephen I's facebook page.

I'm sure he won't mind as he surely owes us a bit of reciprocal advertising after his energetic promotion of his own self published work on this site.

[Eddie Muir]

Good one, Pete.

[Moonraker]

As he has 54 friends, one of them being Eni Kyoga, his alter ego, and most of them seem to be in Africa, you might be contributing to a further loss in Journal profit, should your campaign prove 'successful', Pete!

[pete9012S]

Good points Nigel.
It was more of a symbolic gesture rather than a bona fide anec-postage on Steve's page...

[MJE]

     I have kind of drifted away from the forum for a couple of months - as I'm afraid seems periodically to happen, as I'm not the best-organized of people, and tend to get swamped by other things - but I've taken a quick look at this thread; and I see a few other threads I need to catch up on. Tomorrow, maybe, as I'm about to go to bed now....

     So I'm not up with all the angles that have been discussed here, and doubt I have much of use to offer, anyway.
     But I am curious about one thing: a little while ago, it was discussed how some subscriptions to the Journal had been taken for children by parents and grandparents who thought they would be interested, then apparently the children were disappointed when they found it wasn't suitable for them, after all.
     And I'm just wondering why. Such a Journal was not available (to my knowledge) when I was a boy in 1960s; but, if it had been, I'd have loved to get it and read all the different things about the author I was obsessed with at the time. So I'm just wondering why the content is not suitable for children now.
     Or was I an unusual child in having that kind of interest, and most children just want to read the actual books, but are not interested in learning any background information about them, or not interested in discussion about aspects of Enid Blyton's work?
     And why, for that matter, is Society membership not suitable for children? (Maybe that wasn't stated, but it seems to be the implication behind the idea that it targets older adults.) I'd have thought it very suitable for anyone of any age who is interested in Enid Blyton's work.
     I'm just wondering. I guess there must be something about this I'm missing.

Regards, Michael.

[Anita Bensoussane]

Maybe the children concerned are a little young to get the most out of the Journal? I imagine I'd have enjoyed much of it at the age of 11 or 12. However, if I'd had it at the age of 7 or 8 some things would have gone over my head and the articles would probably have seemed wordy, and the vocabulary a little advanced. At that age, I'd have preferred something similar to the Famous Five Annuals (or indeed Sunny Stories or Enid Blyton's Magazine) with shorter articles, stories and poems, puzzles, games, things to make and do, etc.

[Katharine]

I agree with Anita. I really enjoy the journal, but I think I'd have found certain parts of it too 'heavy' as a child. My daughter is 9, and I don't think she'd enjoy it at the moment. I don't think I've found much in the journals that I would consider unsuitable for a child, although I do seem to remember Gary Russell using the 'B' word in an article, which made me wince when I read it. I just don't think it would appeal to the majority of children who are reading Enid Blyton books. From my experience they are reading the FF at about 7 or 8, but I think many would struggle with a lot of the articles in the journals. Much as I enjoy them, I've sometimes found I've had to re-read bits several times myself before I've really grasped what was being said. By the time a child of say 12 is able to appreciate the articles, I suspect many of them would probably have moved away from Enid Blyton books (hopefully only temporarily).

The journals are a good mix, but I can't see the majority of children being interested in being able to identify a 1st edition Noddy or FF book based on the spacing of text on the D/W. I know we've had some interesting articles written by younger members of the Society, but the majority are written by adults, and are aimed (in my opinion) at adults. If the format was changed to make it more appealing to children, I suspect many adults wouldn't renew their subscriptions.

[MJE]

     Oh... I see. Trying to remember how I was when I was reading Enid Blyton, I think I would have enjoyed much of the Journal even then (I know it's difficult to remember back to how you were half a century ago, but I still think I would have).
     But I was reading Enid Blyton up to the age of 15 or 16, when maybe I was more mentally capable. So I guess I was a very immature child in my mid-teens: still reading Enid Blyton, but intellectually grown enough that I would have enjoyed the Blyton discussion.
     Let's see... I probably started reading her books when I was 10 or 11 - maybe 9 - I don't remember exactly. I still think I would have enjoyed the Journal even then; but maybe I was atypical as a child - I was in dozens of other ways, some desirable, and maybe some not so desirable. I was writing stories of my own around 10, 11, 12 - probably very atypical. I was probably regarded as a nerd at school (only that term didn't even exist then - I think the term was "sissy" or "sook" or "cry-baby", although that's not exactly the same).

Regards, Michael.

[pete9012S]

I think when I was about eight or nine my 'reading age' was about fourteen.
I'm sure I would have enjoyed the Journal then just as much as I do now,but obviously everyone is different.

[Rob Houghton]

The same here! At age 10 I know my reading age was 14...but I sort of resented it at the same time as being proud of it! I didn't want to stretch myself and so I read Blyton more or less exclusively until I was about 12.

[Rob Houghton]

One question I would ask on this point is when was the price established at £10? I have been a member now for about 6 years and the price has always been £10. This means there has been no increase for inflation, production costs, postage charges etc and this means the price is considerably cheaper now. There has to be an argument for an increase to £12 at least plus postage charges for those overseas. How can that be unreasonable? Any business would have to do it or simply not be in business. We want to see this Society continue and with Tony as editor and so please go for it Tony.

I completely agree. £10 is absolutely nothing to pay for a year's subscription in my opinion. What can £10 buy these days that is as long lasting and collectible as a Journal is and has so much great information and exclusive Blyton contributions also?

A price increase really should be happening, but on the other hand it's not carved in stone. I never pay only £10 for my subscription - out of choice I always pay a little more, and any of us can choose to do this. There's no law against it!

[Eddie Muir]

I'm in total agreement where a price increase is concerned. A year's subscription for the superb Journal would still be excellent value at £12 or even £15.

[Moonraker]

To add to Anita's post, I think that parents might think the Journal contained items that were suitable for young children. Maybe stories or comic strips, along the lines of Sunny Stories. However, once they have subscribed and see that it isn't what they thought it was, coupled maybe with the child not reading it, don't re-subscribe.

I never pay only £10 for my subscription - out of choice I always pay a little more, and any of us can choose to do this. There's no law against it!

I usually haggle a price down, not up! However, you are to be commended for doing this, even if you have made the rest of us feel a morsel of guilt.

[Rob Houghton]

I wasn't intending to make anyone feel guilty! As I said, it's a matter of choice and it's not carved in stone. Nor did I intend for anyone to commend what I do. I was merely remarking that if people feel the price should go up, they are free to pay more if they wish to do so, while those who would rather not don't have to!