Wikepedia describes her as “Enid Mary Bylton was an English children’s writer whose books have been among the world’s best sellers…..
This, in spite of the generous use of the words ‘among the world’s best sellers’ seems to me a mere understatement to the achievement of a woman who practically shaped the imagination of millions of little boys and girls.
A host of ‘fairy folk’ that she introduced and popularized in her stories are a part of our collective imagination of fantasy lands. There are elves and gnomes, pixies and fairies, witches and wizards, not to mention magical wands, magical spells, tadstools, talking animals and flyaway objects. For anyone who has been deprived of the joy of reading her stories, these names would sound absurd and ridiculous. But for most of us I believe, these names would make us reminisce about the time of our life when we were more than willing to believe in the existence of the strange lands and people she wrote so vividly about. She also wrote a series of books on adventure tales for children. Gangs of children, living in a dream town, always accompanied by a faithful dog, always on a holiday, and always stumbling and solving mysteries that are undetected by the indifferent and cynical eye of the adult, these were the stuff her tales of children’s adventure were made of. Many of my summer vacations were spent devouring these mysteries. Needless to say, I grew up on her books and attribute a large part of my love for reading to getting hooked to a ‘famous five adventure’ of a ‘dog in wonderland tale’ in my childhood days.
Imagine my surprise then, when as an adult, I stumbled upon articles that attacked her works, and criticized her thinking. The allegations made on her were far too many and far too unfair to me. Chief among them was that her writing lacked literary merit and that her stories were mediocre and unchallenged (a special reference to one of her most famous series Noddy was made here). Many also alleged that ‘she was racist, elitist, sexist and xenophobic in her writing- at odds with a liberal environment’. Phew! The rather harsh criticisms that assaulted my image of her and her works, compelled me to once again read and analyze her books, this time with a neutral eye.
Let us begin with the first criticism levelled against her. Yes, her plotlines and characterization of people overlapped many times. Also, she rarely explored the myriad shades of human nature in her characters. J.K Rowling, in her phenomenally popular Harry Potter series, has not even spared the protagonist Harry for occasionally exhibiting behaviour that ran contrary to his otherwise near perfect value system, and we as readers have grown to understand the complexities of human nature through her nuanced portrayal of characters and situations. On the other hand, Enid Bylton always shows children in a singular manner, that is innocent and naughty. Their happy lives are spent looking forward to picnics at the riversides and philandering mysteries to solve. The adults in her stories are either benevolent and kind or mean and spiteful (her word).
However, let us not forget that while Rowling wrote for everyone with imagination and maturity to understand her work, Enid Bylton’s readers were primarily children. Sketching a child character with complexities of an adult, when it is children of the same age who would be reading the books, must have seemed unnecessary to her. Also, the adults were shown from the exclusive perception of the children in her books, and children do tend to categorize adults as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on their behaviour to themselves.
True, more often in her stories, cheekiness in children was punished and obedience was rewarded. Today we welcome narratives which would rather show characters asserting themselves and opposing the injustice that they face. But then the kind of cruelty Durselyes show to Harry or abuse Oliver Twist faced in the hands of his guardians is something that never was a part of her stories to begin with. She simply steered away from the dark realities of suppression and abuse of children or anyone, and so rebellious children in her stories hardly had a cause. Once again, her books were written for children to read, not for adults to read and perceive reality from the innocence of children, like say James Barrie’s ‘Peter Pan’ books attempts to do.
Sadly, there is enough to substantiate the allegations of her being sexist, elitist and racist. Her human characters always came from a well settled background, and poverty, impoverishment, domestic strife, and violence were never bothered to be showcased. Some of the coloured characters that featured in her books were weak or criminal or somehow inferior to the white majority. Stereotypes on how a girl should behave as opposed to a boy does exist, and one of her most famous character Georgina (a girl) prefers to dress and behave like a boy and call herself as the masculinise ‘George’, in order to be equalled to her male cousins in games and adventures. Contrast this to that are ‘little Anne’ or ‘Bets’ who epitomize the feminine ideal as delicate, sensitive and caring creatures that these boys love to condescend.
Should I rush to her defence now? Well, many great writers who have given rich literature to the world can be blamed for being fairly narrow minded, now that we re-read their books again. A colonial overtone of the ‘Master race versus the ruled’ is evident in a children’s tale like the Jungle book by Rudyard Kipling. Gone with the wind was racist enough in its portrayal of the civil war and the freeing of black slaves. When it comes to sexism, there would many, many more to name since so many leading writers whose books we cherish have simply never did enough justice to their female characters. The context in which Enid Bylnton wrote itself was unequal and rigid. Her books unfortunately may have reinforced the same in the minds of children, but assuredly, she did not mean to do that. Indeed, it is not her fault that in her times, ‘gay’ meant happy and ‘dick’ was what some boys were named. The books were meant simply to entertain and to be enjoyed, and that was something that was always achieved.
Overall, I would say that while a lot said against her may be true from a certain point of view but her contribution to children’s literature is still undeniable. Her books may not give the readers a holistic view of the world and its issues, but would definitely help you understand the importance of kindness, innocence, fairness, loyalty, courage and friendship, which her stories dwell on. It is still a good idea to give your child her books to read, if you have the sense enough to not limit them to her works alone!