THE GUILLOTINE: No 22: ENID BLYTON

Twentieth-Century Classics That Won't Last

Gilbert Adair
Saturday 05 June 1999 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Over the past century the human ageing process has undergone a curious evolution. To simplify, the old have got younger while the young have got older. Look at your own family's photo album. When your grandfather was exactly your age (in the 1940s, say), he looked as old as your father does now; but when your mother was 10, she resembled a modern six-year- old.

Or, to take a cultural example, when Shirley Temple made the films that landed Graham Greene in so costly a legal wrangle that it bankrupted the magazine Night and Day (he had made a libellous insinuation about her sexual appeal to middle-aged male spectators), she was unquestionably precocious for her age, both her own and the age - the period - in which she lived. Nowadays, she would probably be regarded as something of a late developer (and that goes for the matter of her sexuality).

Even curiouser, the same process has transformed literature. Fiction written for adults has inexorably rejuvenated itself (the rhetorical orotundity of a Henry James would be inconceivable in a contemporary novel).

Children's fiction, on the other hand, even that intended for the tiniest of tots, now treats as a given, as an irreversible fait accompli of our radically altered world, social attitudes and linguistic manners which, a half-century ago, if they had been sanctioned at all, would have remained the exclusive preserve of adolescents.

Which is the first reason why Enid Blyton is destined for posterity's chop. It would doubtless surprise us to learn just how many children continue to enjoy the adventures of Noddy and Big Ears, the Famous Five, the Secret Seven, Malory Towers, etc. Even so, she wrote for a species of child that barely exists any longer and will have become utterly extinct well before the end of the next century.

And the second reason? The poet Brian Patten, a fan, was nevertheless forced to concur that Blyton's characters were "wooden", her villains "stereotyped", her prose "repetitive and clumsy and bigoted". The problem isn't at all one of political correctness (the impact of which will almost certainly be neutralised as the years, the decades and the centuries elapse). No - as witness the pantheon of Carroll, Barrie, Kenneth Grahame and company - children's fiction survives for precisely the same reason as adult fiction: because it is well written. QED.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in