Enid Blyton - what changes are/are not OK?

[VictoriaOKeefe]

My example:
Jo-Jo in the Island of Adventure - i think Jo-Jo should have been kept as a black villain but with the "rolling eyes" and "nigra" speech removed. Changing him to a white man sends the dangerous message to children that a member of a marginalised group cannot be a nasty, small-minded jerk (as TPratchett put it). Women are marginalised but i wouldn't pee on my cruel abrasive mother if she was on fire.

Darrell 'shook Gwendoline hard' rather than slapping her

Isn't shaking someone usually more dangerous than slapping them? I don't understand why this was changed - the whole point was that Darrell behaved unacceptably by slapping Gwen in a temper; it's made clear that everyone thinks she's in the wrong, Darrell herself is ashamed, so leaving it as slapping isn't endorsing that behaviour.

NO changes are ok with Enid Blyton ( I love her books, even though a lot of them feel as though they've been dashed off in an hour or so) I've just finished re-reading all the Five Find-Outers books. AND, as a PP said, the way they've messed around with Ruby Ferguson's books is dreadful. Changing the name of Jill's pony Black Boy to Danny Boy!!!!

Also changing money from the original is stupid. I was born in 1996 and I was never baffled if someone in a childrens' book talked about ha'pennies, farthings or guineas.

I've just been rereading the St Clare books. It really annoys me when they change words like wireless and gramophone to radio and record player, or use decimal currency instead of old money. This series was written in the 1940s and the terminology should reflect that. If a modern day writer was writing a children's book set back in the mid twentieth century they would be expected to use the right terms, so why remove them from Enid Blyton stories?

Because if I was writing a book set in the 1940s it would be a historical book, and I’d consider each obsolete phrase or period reference as I put it in to check whether its meaning could be inferred from context or whether I needed to add anything to make it accessible to me intended age group. And I definitely wouldn’t include any terminology whose imitation would get modern readers into trouble or which would have been fine at the time but is now snigger-inducing or ambiguous (“gay”, “spunk”, “making love”).

No changes. The book reflects the era in which it was written.

Do children actually notice the adult-defined non-pc things? By 'pointing out and explaining differences' are we not placing the very things we want to avoid in front of children who might otherwise have thought nothing of it? I read Blyton as a child but didn't develop negative thoughts from it. My daughter always referred to "the brown lady" at Kindergarten, she meant the one who wore a brown overall, not the West Indian.

I've got several Blytons editions printed the early 70s, just after decimalisation, and edited to 'new money'. I have to say, in 2018, the decimalised books seem a lot more ridiculous in terms of money than my non-decimalised editions. Two shillings to buy a book and a ten shilling note as a present sounds great. 20p for a book and 50p as a gift from your generous uncle, not so much. Having different currency seems to me easier for a child to understand than the concept of inflation!

Do children actually notice the adult-defined non-pc things?

Children at a young age have been shown to have acquired significant implicit biases in exactly these areas, so I think we can be pretty sure that they do notice racism,sexism etc. It's unlikely that single books will have much impact in isolation of course, but that doesn't mean it's safe to always leave the biases in.

It may well be that it's better if they do notice, since explicit bias is more likely to be engaged with.

Arsing around with money is just plain stupid. Trying to pretend that somehow a 50p piece is in anyway "the same" as a 10s (sorry 10/- ) note, for example. Unless the whole text is being bought into the present day. Which would make even less sense.

Any "Jennings" fans ? I remember at least one very unPC word popping up in one book. (The "n" word). It was said by a teacher, and was pitch perfect for what someone of that age, in that role, from that class would have said in that situation. And reading it in the 70s, I knew it wasn't a word I should use.

Speaking of 10/- , almost all of the Billy Bunter books seemed to revolve around 10/- postal orders. (DM has a few her DB had as a child).

Besides, given the way we're headed back to the past, a working knowledge of L.s.d. and Imperial could be a boon to our young folk.

I remember the Jennings scene you mention - it was Mr Wilkins who said it IIRC. Mine is in an Armada edition from the 70s, so not even that old. I certainly knew when I read it in the 80s that it wasn't an acceptable term to use.

I remember the Jennings scene you mention - it was Mr Wilkins who said it IIRC

"woodpile" ?

If anyone has a modern edition of 'Last Term at Malory Towers' I would be interested to know what the inflation-adjusted version of Jo Jones's ill-fated £5 is. I first read this in the early 80s (in a pre-decimal edition) and even then thought £5 quite a lot of money to have.

That's the one, DGRossetti.

What interests me in this thread is that there is a focus on the people reading it who aren't personally affected by it. It's all well and good saying 'this is how we learn' but what are young black kids supposed to learn from it? Or are they not supposed to be reading these books? Why do black parents need to have yet another conversation with their children about historic racist attitudes (which aren't actually solely confined to the history books) just so we can be nostalgic? Does removing racial bias from these books harm the story? And if so, then doesn't that say something about the stories themselves? Saying that no one thinks like that now or these beliefs are old-fashioned just isn't true. Plenty of people are racist, either consciously or unconsciously.

There's a difference between censoring old books and re-releasing books for a new audience and promoting them to an audience of children in a diverse country. Most books with archaic and offensive beliefs just tend to die away when people and society move on, but if you're going to be re-releasing children's books and actively promoting them then they need to be fit for purpose for the audience you are targeting them at.

As for whether views like that affected you personally, there's honestly no way you can tell. I read those books as a child and I hope they didn't affect my perception. But the reality is that I'll never know exactly how much XYZ has shaped my beliefs. Unconscious bias is prevalent (it's in this very thread).

Racist stereotypes and the kind of derogatory messages in the Enid books help to fuel unconscious bias.

The people defending these books cannot have experienced the day in day out unconscious bias that's feels like a thousand paper cuts every day.

If you think the solution is simply having a "conversation" with the kids about the nasty things said in these books then you are seriously deluded about covert racism.

Most people are not rabid racist, walking about shouting racist things at people. Most people are good but we all are blighted by unconscious bias, regardless of our race or gender. It's just the way our brain works by absorbing stereotypes, etc.

For all the people who say the books are no big deal. No big deal for whom. Put yourself in the shoes of a black parent. If you child read some of the things written in that book, would you simply shrug it off and have a nice little chat with them? In what world do you think this is acceptable? Why should young black minds be confronted with these negative images of themselves day in and day out. In books, on TV, everywhere they turn. Then they are told to just suck it up? If these things were occasional and that the positive images were the norm, then I'd say fair enough. But that's not the case.

These books are embarrassing.

Why is it ok (and, before I get jumped on, I'm Christian) for the bible to be unchanged, because "that's what they did in those days" but Enid Blyton has to be all PC?

Genuine question!

Not in the spirit of discussion but I miss the ten shilling note references.

And I don't specially want my young children reading books where the heroes are always boys, or a girl who tries to deny the fact that she is a girl, and for whom the greatest compliment is to be told that she is "almost as good as a boy". Why would you want your child to read crap like that?

Most books with archaic and offensive beliefs just tend to die away when people and society move on

And yet we have the Bible ?

And no, I donMr rhino they should be changed-I just think they shouldn't be published any more.

And the pp who thinks the Bible has remained unchanged-it has been. Hundreds of times!

People are moving away from the Bible, though. Christianity (in this country) is nowhere near as influential as it once was. It's taking a long time, because the Bible isn't the same as en Enid Blyton book, but it's nowhere near as relevant in everyday life as it was a couple of hundred years ago. I'd be hard pressed to find any of my peers who have read significant, if any, parts of the Bible, and I can't see it having a resurgence in popularity.

Dickens would have us believe that the poor are either thieves or martyrs. Do we start inserting references to food banks into his books?

Also - certainly with EB - if you do start pratting about to "deoffend" you just get a load of garbage. You might as well read Jeffrey Archer, or dan Brown.

After all, why did Fattys' practically blackface disguise manage to fool PC Goon ? Why did the Five Find Outers (and dog) think a foreigner was a priori suspicious person ? It's because they are characters of their time. If you remove the offensive bits, you also remove their sensibilities. Not Enid Blytons, but the characters. And that's before we get to the nickname "Fatty" (which I seem to recall, even Fatty agreed made sense ....).

People are moving away from the Bible, though. Christianity (in this country) is nowhere near as influential as it once was.

Tell that to someone needing an abortion in NI.

Dickens was not writing for 7 year olds. And if you think that represents his attitude to the poor, you can't have read very much of his work!