In the last few years a veritable avalanche of criticisms has been directed at Enid Blyton, long dead in the 1960s.
One of these is the contradiction between her behaviour in personal life compared with what her characters portrayed. She saw her children minimally, leaving them to the care of nannies. Her books project a mother always there for her children, something that Enid claimed for herself personally also.
I dont mind the truth about her life pointed out by biographers, but i dont appreciate the criticisims of Enid's work on this account. Do we discount Einstein's work because he may have been unfair to his two wives ?
Enid's work must stand or fall based on the objectives it sets for itself :
Does it get into the minds of young readers ?
Does it inspire in them a moral compass and to be a fair, balanced human being ?
Does it entertain and excite young readers ?
Does it preapre young readers for the ups and downs of life ?
Does it tell them more about the world - science, nature, the rythms of life ?
I think it does, and remains relevant, seven-eight decades after she wrote it.
These are classics. Just because she wrote for children, was so prolific and so successful, that is no reason to see her work with a jaundiced eye.
All the other criticisims : that she used the word queer (not in the sense it is used today), or portrayed black or working class people a certain way (generally not as heroes of her stories - though that is not true. Jack of the Adventure series is an orphan), are a product of her times.. she wanted to talk to the children about the world they saw around themselves.
Would you rather have Homer talking about Apple watches ? I find the criticisisms on such counts ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment