The Famous Five – a Good Starting
Point for Raising Important
Questions in the Classroom
An Intersectional Analysis of Power Differences and Stereotypes in Enid
Blyton’s Five Fall into Adventure
Vi fem – en bra utgångspunkt för att beröra viktiga frågor i klassrummet
En intersektionell analys av maktskillnader och stereotyper i Enid Blytons Fem
går i fällan
Kim Paunia
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
English
15 points
Supervisor: Maria Holmgren Troy
Examiner: Anna Linzie
2015-02-03
Abstract
In this essay, Enid Blyton’s book Five Fall into Adventure is analyzed with a focus on
behavior patterns, stereotypes and power division. Intersectionality is used as an approach and
a close reading of passages is used as a method. I argue that the novel could work as a good
starting point for raising important questions in the classroom, despite the criticism which has
been directed towards Blyton’s works. Although the way in which Blyton portrays gender
stereotypes is often more acknowledged by critics, this book could be an especially useful
tool when touching upon the questions of class and ethnicity. The essay also demonstrates
that the criticized aspects of the books, such as them being considered sexist, should be
further analyzed, emphasized and discussed, rather than suppressed, because they could serve
as a good starting point for dealing with questions which are important to touch upon in
teaching situations. Inequality, sexism and xenophobia are examples of such questions.
Keywords: Enid Blyton, The Famous Five, intersectionality, power differences, stereotypes,
inequality, teaching situations
Sammanfattning
I denna uppsats analyseras Enid Blytons bok Fem går i fällan med fokus på beteendemönster,
stereotyper och maktskillnader. Analysen utförs utifrån ett intersektionellt perspektiv och
närläsning av avsnitt används som metod. Jag framhåller att boken skulle kunna fungera som
en bra utgångspunkt för att beröra viktiga frågor i klassrummet, trots att kritik har riktats mot
Blytons verk. Det är ofta Blytons sätt att skildra genusstereotyper som uppmärksammas mest
av kritiker, men jag belyser att boken skulle kunna vara ett särskilt användbart verktyg för att
beröra frågor rörande klass och etnicitet. Uppsatsen visar även att de kritiserade aspekterna av
böckerna, exempelvis att de kan anses vara sexistiska, borde vidare analyseras, betonas och
diskuteras, istället för att undvikas. Anledningen till det är att de kan användas som en väldigt
bra utgångspunkt för att ta upp frågor som är viktiga att vidröra i undervisningen. Ojämlikhet,
sexism och främlingsfientlighet är exempel på sådana frågor.
Nyckelord: Enid Blyton, Vi fem, Fem-böckerna, intersektionalitet, maktskillnader,
stereotyper, ojämställdhet, undervisningssituationer
2
In 2008, Enid Blyton was voted Britain’s best loved author. David Rudd refers to Blyton as a
“publishing phenomenon”, stating that “no British writer for children, other than Roald Dahl,
has been commercially so successful – and like Dahl she has attracted endless controversy”
(185). Rudd writes that since the 1950s, Blyton has been criticized for “the literary qualities
of her work and the correctness of her social attitudes” and he emphasizes that “not all of
these attacks have been based on close discussions of the books themselves” (185). The fact
that Blyton, despite all the negative criticism directed towards her, is still loved and read by so
many, calls for the need to analyze her work more closely. Rudd mentions a girl who was not
allowed to read Blyton in school because the books were considered too sexist. To that, the
girl answered that “it was obvious that the books were ‘sexist’, given when they were written”
(185). Rudd states that “in other words, the girl had enjoyed the stories but was in no way
being sold into gender slavery by them” (185), and he proves a good point. Discussions of the
books could work well to teach pupils how to make connections such as the one the girl made,
whereas trying to save children from the criticized aspects of the books by excluding the
books from teaching can instead have negative effects:
Trying to launder the books in terms of “political correctness” is to undermine
children’s own capacities – particularly girls’; girls, it is often reasoned, need
to be protected from such material. But to do this is to perpetuate the very
discourse that many are trying to circumvent (i.e., to perpetuate the notion that
girls really do need wrapping in cotton wool). (Rudd 194)
Many critics have focused mainly on the gender aspects portrayed in Blyton’s work, but this
essay points out that the books are equally interesting to discuss in terms of class and
ethnicity.
As this essay aims to show, one beneficial way of working with Blyton’s books is to
analyze them using an intersectional perspective, examining power differences between
characters. The concept of intersectionality has become very popular and this essay shows
that the concept could work very well when applied to Blyton’s works, which also suggests
that her works should be included in teaching situations, rather than excluded. Oxford
Dictionary provides a good definition of intersectionality and states that “through an
awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among
us’” (“Intersectionality”), which clearly shows how important it is to touch upon the topic in
teaching situations. Intersectionality could be defined as “the interconnected nature of social
3
categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group,
regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or
disadvantage” (“Intersectionality”). Discussing differences between people, such as those
which pertain to gender, class and ethnicity, is of outmost importance in a time when
xenophobia appears to become more common, to keep working against such tendencies and
towards the goals of the curriculum. The curriculum states that xenophobia and intolerance
better must be fought with knowledge, open discussions and active efforts and that nobody in
school should be discriminated against because of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age or
other aspects (Skolverket 7). Analyzing stereotypes and power differences in children’s books
may raise the reader’s awareness of such inequalities among children and could be used to
teach young readers to recognize such tendencies through literary depictions.
In this essay, intersectionality is used as an approach and close reading is used as a
method for analyzing Five Fall into Adventure. The focus of the analysis is on behavior
patterns, stereotypes and power relations. I argue that the book could work well as a starting
point for important discussions, not least in the classroom. However, the essay does not give
concrete examples of how to work with the book or questions in teaching situations. Instead,
it is to be considered an example of how one could apply intersectional ideas and questions
about stereotypes and behavior patterns to the book in general.
I aim to show that the book contains several aspects concerning class and ethnicity
which makes it especially useful in discussions about such questions. Moreover, I propose
that the criticized aspects of the books, such as them being considered sexist, should be
further analyzed, emphasized and discussed, rather than suppressed, because they could serve
as a great starting point for dealing with important questions, for example concerning sexism
and xenophobia, in teaching situations.
The essay starts with a theory section, which explains the term intersectionality
further. I then move on to presenting some of the criticism which has been directed towards
Blyton’s works and continue with a brief summary of Five Fall into Adventure. My
intersectional analysis of the novel then follows.
Because intersectionality can be a rather complex concept, it requires some
definitions. Intersectionality derived from “black feminist scholars’ attempts to conceptualize
both the particularity and universality of their social condition” (Gopaldas 90). The approach
is explained further by Ahir Gopaldas, who says that intersectionality “refers to the
interactivity of social identity structures such as race, class, and gender in fostering life
experiences, especially experiences of privilege and oppression” (90). Gopaldas discusses the
4
advantages of not specifying particular social identity structures beforehand when undertaking
an intersectional analysis and then demonstrates that it is beneficial to keep an open mind and
be willing to include other categories which are shown to be of relevance (90). This essay
focuses on class, gender, age and ethnicity, because those categories proved to be the most
relevant for the analysis of Five Fall Into Adventure. Economy and education are here
considered a part of the category of class.
Applying an intersectional perspective when analyzing fiction has been done before
with good results. For example, Svenja Bingel et. al analyze the fictional representations of
Māori women’s identities, using an intersectional perspective and they clearly show how
beneficial the perspective can be when applied to fiction, as it is in this essay. They mention
ethnicity, age, sexuality and gender as aspects of identities which evidently are “highly
intricate, therefore spiraling in and out of each other” and claim that the fictional
representations of the work they have analyzed showed to be valuable for discussions “of
such identitary (and thus frequently political) complexeties” (57). Any reading which fails to
look at the text only through the perspective of gender and sexism will miss the crucial power
relations which are illustrated through, for example, Jo and her liminality. In the example of
Jo, they are illustrated in terms of gender as well as in terms of class and ethnicity.
As mentioned in the introduction, Blyton’s works have received a lot of criticism, not
least concerning sexism. To be familiar with some of the criticism which has been directed
towards her writing is of importance when analyzing her works. Although the analysis in this
essay will show that class and ethnicity could be considered the most interesting aspects of
Five Fall into Adventure, the concept of sexism is also of importance for the essay and
because Blyton has been criticized for being sexist, the topic is here discussed and defined
further. Rudd argues that sexism is a process rather than a thing and that “nothing is innately
‘sexist’; rather sexism draws its energy from relations of power”, which encourages analyzing
the sexist aspects of the books from an intersectional perspective. He makes his point clearer
when stating that in a patriarchal society, certain meanings will predominate, “just as the
concept of sexism is itself normally concerned with the power of men over women, not vice
versa” (187). Five Fall into Adventure portrays boys as the predominating sex and it could
therefore be considered sexist.
However, despite all the negative criticism, some critics argue that the books are not
sexist. For example, Liesel Coetzee brings up some very good points and my analysis will
draw on some of her ideas. She claims that Blyton should have been praised for subverting
“dominant heteronormative discourses of the time” (86), which shows how the books could
5
instead be considered a reaction against the sexist stereotypes of that time. When arguing that
the books are not sexist, Coetzee draws attention to two specifically interesting aspects of
them, which will be relevant for the analysis in this essay as well.
The first aspect indicates that the books are not sexist is Blyton strengthening the idea
that women have a freedom of choice, at a time when society did not really provide them with
such freedom. That choice is, according to Coetzee, illustrated by Anne and her ability to
choose whether she wants to join in on her siblings and cousin’s scary adventures or not.
Coetzee raises the thought that Anne is not criticized for choosing not to participate in certain
daring activities, which is discussed further below as well and shows that every girl’s own
choice should be accepted (96). However, Coetzee fails to acknowledge George as an
additional character exhibiting a freedom of choice, when choosing to be different from other
girls. The second aspect concerns Blyton’s tendency to create “opportunities for female
characters to succeed in traditionally more masculine tasks and activities”, something she
illustrates through George (86). Coetzee has a really good point here, which supports the
analysis of this essay. Furthermore, the essay will highlight Jo as another example of such a
subversive character.
As Blyton’s critics have often pointed out, certain aspects of Five Fall into Adventure
could indeed be considered to be sexist. The portrayals of Anne as a stereotypical girl and of
Julian as the stereotypical, powerful male are examples of such aspects. However, my thesis
will show that the book could instead be considered the opposite of sexist; a reaction to the
sexist stereotypes, much like Coetzee claims. Coetzee acknowledges that Blyton has received
much negative criticism, but convincingly describes a more positive way to interpret the
books:
Although there is evidence that Blyton does support a dominant
heteronormative discourse that encouraged girls and women to take a
submissive role in relation to boys and men, she also undermines such
stereotypes and shows her readers different possibilities for girls and women.
In her portrayal of the tomboy George, Blyton illustrates that girls and women
can succeed at traditionally masculine tasks, while at the same time she
reassures young readers that a traditionally feminine role such as that ascribed
to Anne is also available to them. (Coetzee 85)
6
Having suggested that the books could be considered sexist, although they could also be
considered the opposite, I would argue that the former is not a reason to exclude them from
teaching situations. Instead, it is in fact a good reason to include them; because doing so
offers a good starting point for discussions about questions related to gender, sexism and
stereotyping. Rudd similarly maintains that “Blyton’s books are not sexist but explore sexism
in a way to which children can relate” and that taking away that dimension would be denying
“children some of the pleasure experienced in the books – in particular in the person of
George” (194). Furthermore, he emphasizes the advantages of the books:
Some modern books miss the tension of the Famous Five precisely because
they inscribe a world of unlikely equality – whereas many children experience
a world that is not like this. The Famous Five, I contend, allow children to take
part in the struggle, to fight it themselves, rather than being protected from it.
(194)
Rudd’s arguments clearly indicate why discussions of Blyton’s books could be beneficial to
use in teaching situations. I am convinced that The Famous Five could provide children with a
useful basis for productive engagement with complex and important questions.
Five Fall into Adventure was first published in 1950. Its main characters are Georgina,
who is called George, and her cousins Julian, Dick and Anne. The three siblings go to stay
with George at her home, Kirrin Cottage, while her parents, the well-known scientist called
Quentin and his wife, Fanny, are away on holiday. Except for the family’s cook, Joanna, and
George’s dog Timmy, the children are alone at Kirrin Cottage. They meet a child named Jo
and her father on the beach one day and after that, Jo plays an important part in the book. The
children first mistake Jo for a boy, but soon learn she is in fact a girl. One night, Anne sees a
face in the window and strange things begin to happen after that. Another night, Timmy
disappears for a while and returns drugged. The next morning, the children wake up to find
that somebody has broken into the house and gone through Uncle Quentin’s study. George
and Timmy then disappear and the children receive a note from Jo, saying that George has
been kidnapped and will be set free in exchange for one of Uncle Quentin’s notebooks. Even
though she first refuses to give them any information, Jo eventually helps the children find
George. They find clues which lead to Red Tower. Jo informs the children that Red Tower is a
person and that she knows where he can be found. Anne is left at home but Julian, Dick and
Jo go to rescue George and Timmy. They then come face to face with the kidnappers, one of
7
which is Jo’s dad, and Jo ends up saving both George and the boys from the dangerous
situations. In the end, the children are reunited and thus the book has a happy ending.
One does not need to read very many pages of Five Fall into Adventure before the
stereotypical gender roles of the book become clear. In fact, already on the second page, the
following is described: “Out came a big boy, who helped down a small girl” (Blyton 2). This
gives the impression that gender stereotypes will be described like this throughout the book;
with big boys taking care of small, vulnerable girls. However, on the next page, George tells
Dick to “shut up” and although it is in a friendly way, it becomes clear that George is not like
stereotypical little girls but instead challenges such gender representations. Anne, the small
girl who is helped, would never tell a boy to shut up. Lois Tyson writes that feminist criticism
looks at how “literature (and other cultural productions) reinforces or undermines the
economic, political, social, and psychological oppression of women” (83), an idea which is
especially relevant when analyzing the portrayal of Anne. Tyson discusses traditional gender
roles further:
Traditional gender roles cast men as rational, strong,
protective, and decisive; they cast women as emotional (irrational), weak,
nurturing, and submissive. These gender roles have been used very
successfully to justify inequities, which still occur today, such as excluding
women from equal access to leadership and decision-making positions (in the
family as well as in politics, academia, and the corporate world), paying men
higher wages than women for doing the same job (if women are even able to
obtain the job), and convincing women that they are not fit for careers in such
areas as mathematics and engineering. (85)
In this context, the representations of adult characters in the book are interesting, since they
could be considered to represent the children’s role models. George’s father, Quentin, is a
successful and well known scientist. He is described as “rather a difficult man at home,
impatient, hot-tempered and forgetful. The children were fond of him, but held him in great
respect” (5). George’s mother, Fanny, is a typical housewife and is first depicted “handing
around plates of her nicest scones and teacakes” (5), which says a lot about women’s role in
the book. When the children arrive at Kirrin Cottage, their aunt Fanny is “very pleased to see
her nephews and niece again”, suggesting that she is a much more loving and warm person
than her husband. This agrees with the prejudice that women are usually more emotional and
8
caring than men, a stereotypical portrayal much like the previously mentioned one that Tyson
discusses.
One episode is especially interesting when analyzing the portrayal of Quentin and
Fanny: the one in which they have tea. Dick then asks Fanny where Quentin is and Fanny
answers that he is in his study and aware of it being tea time, “and he’s heard the bell, but I
expect he’s buried in something or other. I honestly think he’d go without food all day long if
I didn’t go and drag him into the dining room!” (6). When the two of them are to leave for
their vacation, Fanny has been ready for a long time, but must try hard to get her husband
ready to go (11); just like a mother has to get her child ready for school. This makes Quentin
seem rather baby-like and left to Fanny’s care, which is a bit different from the stereotypical
relationship of men taking care of their women. Women taking care of their men’s material
need at home should be seen in the context of the traditional woman’s role in the domestic
sphere. Coetzee addresses this topic in terms of the time in which the books were written,
which could be considered an explanation for many criticized aspects, such as the traditional
woman’s role:
Some of the dominant gender discourses of Enid Blyton’s time, as reflected in
her writing, appear to promote the middle-class heteronormative views
prevalent in Britain at the time, which regulated the behaviour of women in
respect of what were then considered appropriate middle-class domestic roles
and activities for women, such as raising children and managing the
household, rather than following a career. (85)
The way in which Fanny’s utterances are introduced in the book says a lot about how she is
portrayed. When she says something, her utterance is followed by “said his wife”, whereas
Quentin’s sentences are followed by, for example, “he shouted” (6). This suggests that Fanny
is merely the property of her husband and worth more when put in relation to him, than when
standing alone. It shows that that she is a stereotypical and subordinate woman. However,
Fanny has Joanna, the cook, to help around the house. This brings the aspect of class into the
equation; hinting at different levels of power among adult women as well.
Having suggested that Quentin and Fanny are portrayed in stereotypical ways, one can
argue that Julian, Dick and Anne are as well. The three siblings are portrayed quite differently
from each other, but the biggest difference is that between Julian and Anne. Julian is the
oldest of the children and takes the role of the protecting, mature and adult man. He is
9
described as “a very responsible boy” and Fanny refers to him as “almost grown-up now and
he can cope with anything that turns up” (9-24). Julian is indeed the one who controls the
situations and the father figure of the group, which supports the male stereotype. For example,
when Anne sees a face in the window at night, Julian is the person she calls for (27). The next
day, when Anne is scared and trembling, “Julian put his arm around her comfortingly” (28).
Some nights later, when Anne expresses her fear to Julian, he says “if you like I’ll come and
lie down on George’s bed instead of George tonight, and stay with you all night long” (46),
suggesting that he would be a better comfort and support than George because he is a boy.
Julian tends to treat Anne and Dick differently, which is evidence for how
stereotypically the children are portrayed. One night, Julian has some trouble sleeping: “He
was sorry that Anne had been frightened, and somehow the boldness of the burglar in
climbing up to a bedroom window worried him, too” (30), which shows that Julian, too, is
only human and worries about things, but it also indicates that he cares very much about his
family; in this case Anne. When Anne asks Julian if he thinks the face in the window could
have been part of a bad dream, Julian answers that it is “quite likely” and is “glad that Anne
should think this” (31), which indicates how protective he is of Anne. Protecting the family
could be considered typically male. However, Julian tells Dick the truth about what he knows,
that there was in fact somebody climbing up to the window (31), suggesting that Dick is a
stronger individual than Anne and that he can handle the truth better. Dick is also described as
a stereotypical boy; being brave in a typically masculine way. This is, for example, shown
when he is the one who heads out pretending to be the paper boy, although it could be
dangerous because George’s kidnappers have forbidden the children to leave the house, to
avoid the risk of them calling the police before handing over Quentin’s notebook.
Considering the power differences between the three siblings, the categories gender
and age are of importance. Dick and Anne are not that far apart age wise, which suggests that
their gender is the reason they are treated so differently. Furthermore, Julian having more
power and responsibility than Dick has to do with him being older, since it is the only factor
which makes them different. Anne being the youngest of all the children makes her less
powerful than them. Put in relation to her brothers, she is also of the “weaker” sex, which, in
combination with her age, makes her even less powerful.
Anne is the miniature version of Fanny: always sweet, well behaved, helpful and keen
to take care of the others; sometimes by acting like their mother, much like Fanny does
towards Quentin. For example, before the children go to the beach, Ann starts by saying that
she will “get some ripe plums”, and then continues: “And we’d better wear our shirts and
10
jeans over our swimming costumes, so we don’t catch too much sun” (15). On another
occasion, before heading to the beach, Dick says that they could bring lunch if Joanna would
make them one. Anne then answers that she will help Joanna make it for them (33), which is
typical for a stereotypical girl to say and do. None of the others offers to help make lunch.
When the police come by the house, Joanna “made them cups of coffee and put some of her
home-made buns on a plate and sent Anne to pick ripe plums” (55), which is one of many
examples of how Anne is described as the stereotypical girl, performing stereotypical girl
chores. Another example is when Julian and Dick go to the grocer’s to do the morning’s
shopping. In the meantime, Anne helps Joanna with some of her work (67).
Anne is also more sensitive and easily scared than the other children, features which
could be considered typically feminine. For example, after hearing what the note from the
thieves said, Anne starts crying and clings to Julian’s arm (75). There is in fact an entire
chapter of the book called “Anne doesn’t like adventures” (127). Before heading into a
possibly dangerous situation, Julian says “I think we’d better leave Anne behind this time. I
don’t like taking her into something that may be dangerous” (149). Anne answers that she
wants to come, but ends up staying in the cottage to keep Joanna company in the end. She is
described as “really rather glad” that she stayed (149). This could be seen as an example of
the freedom of choice which is mentioned in Coetzee’s article. Anne is not criticized for
sometimes choosing to not participate in certain activities, which, as Coetzee suggests, could
be interpreted as a hint that the choices girls make should be accepted, whatever they are
(Coetzee 96). However, Anne being described as easily frightened adds to the idea that
stereotypical girls are like that.
Looking at the stereotypical Anne makes the more unconventional George, who could
be considered to be the opposite of Anne, deviate even more from the stereotypical girl.
George is the typical tomboy who turns stereotypical gender roles upside down. On the very
first page of the novel, it says that “she looked like a boy with her short curly hair and her
jeans and open-necked shirt. Her face was covered with freckles, and her legs and arms were
tanned and healthy” (1), making it clear from the very start that she is different from other
girls. Talking about Fanny’s trouble getting Quentin ready for their vacation, George says
“well, there’s one thing certain – I’ll NEVER marry a scientist” (12). George then clarifies the
difference between herself and typical girls, stating that she would never settle for the kind of
life her mother, and most other women, live. It is not only George’s appearance which is
similar to that of a boy, but also her personality. She tends to act more bravely and is more
persistent than stereotypical girls. When being reunited with Timmy and the children after
11
having been kidnapped, “she badly wanted to cry, and as she never did cry it was very
embarrassing if anyone saw her” (180). This shows how George is trying to maintain a more
masculine and tough facade. Tyson mentions crying as something men are not supposed to
do, which clearly shows how George has some masculine features:
For example, because traditional gender roles dictate that men are supposed to
be strong (physically powerful and emotionally stoic), they are not supposed to
cry because crying is considered a sign of weakness, a sign that one has been
overpowered by one’s emotions. (87)
There is an important difference between the terms sex and gender. George and Jo, being born
girls but acting more like boys, are good example of the important difference between the two
terms and how gender is socially constructed:
Feminism therefore distinguishes between the word sex, which refers to our
biological constitution as female or male, and the
word gender, which refers to our cultural programming as feminine or
masculine. In other words, women are not born feminine, and men are not born
masculine. Rather, these gender categories are constructed by society, which is
why this view of gender is an example of what has come to be called social
constructionism. (Tyson 86)
Anne is “culturally programmed” to be feminine. Although Rudd, as previously mentioned,
argues that George is the character which has received the most criticism for being too
stereotypical, Anne could be considered even more stereotypical. While George challenges
the stereotypical gender roles, even though the way in which she does so could be argued to
be stereotypical in itself, Anne stays right inside the stereotypical box. The differences
between the two characters show that people are not born with feminine or masculine
characteristics, but are instead constructed that way by society. While Anne represents the
stereotypical girl constructed by society, George shows that such constructions can be
challenged.
In terms of the categories gender and class, one episode is especially relevant: the one
in which Sid, the paper-boy, gets to spend an evening with the rest of the children because
they need him at their house to trick the thieves. Sid is part of a lower class than the children,
which one can assume based on the way he speaks and by him working extra as a paper boy.
12
The chapter is called “Sid’s wonderful evening” (82) and the name of it suggests, before one
even begins to read the chapter, that Sid considers himself to be privileged to get to spend
time with the children. When he comes by to leave the paper, Julian quickly yanks him
through the front door and Sid’s cap then gets “snatched off his head, and his bag of papers
pulled from his shoulder” (82). While “holding him firmly”, Julian then tells him that “it’s all
right” and “just a joke. We’ve got a little treat in store for you” (82). Sid does not like those
kinds of jokes and “he struggled, but soon gave up. Julian was big and strong and very
determined” (82). Even though Sid soon comes around and ends up having an amazing night,
and despite the fact that it is all for a good cause, the way in which Julian “attacks” him could
be considered rather humiliating. It suggests that Julian considers himself to be so much more
powerful than Sid that he can physically “attack” him without any concerns. It also shows that
Julian does not respect Sid, which could be explained by Sid being of a lower class and less
fortunate economically than he is.
The way in which Sid looks up to the other children becomes obvious when Julian
later asks Sid if he will stay and have supper with them: “Sid’s eyes nearly fell out of his
head. ‘Supper with you?’, he said. ‘That’d be a treat!” (83). Sid then wonders what his mother
might say when she hears that he had supper at Kirrin Cottage (83), suggesting that she would
be very impressed and that the people at Kirrin Cottage are looked up to due to their status as
a well-educated, well-to-do middle-class family. The class difference between Sid and the
other children is indicated by one of Joanna’s comments:
That Sid! We’ll never hear the last of it down in the village – him being invited
here to supper. He’s a strange boy, but there’s no harm in him. I’ll get him a
lovely supper, don’t you worry. And I’ll come and sit with you tonight in the
lighted room – we’ll play a card game. One that Sid knows. (85)
Stating that they need to play a card game that Sid knows suggests that he is not as well
educated and intelligent as the other children. Joanna, who is a cook, is friends with Sid’s
mother, which hints that they are likely of the same social class; a lower class than that of the
other children. After supper, Sid and Anne help Joanna with washing the dishes. He says that
he always does it for his mother, which indicates that they lack the kind of help that Joanna is
at Kirrin Cottage and further supports the idea that they are of a lower class than the other
children.
13
It becomes obvious that Sid feels privileged getting to spend time at Kirrin Cottage
when he keeps saying that “this is a smasher of an evening” and mentions that he has never
enjoyed himself so much (86), but his way of expressing himself is also a clear indicator that
he is of a lower class. Another example of how Sid’s language differs from that of the other
children is when Sid says “Hasn’t that brother of your come back yet? Well, you tell him to
leave it at my house in time for my paper-round tomorrow morning. And my cap, too. That’s
my Special Cap, that is. I’m very partial to that cap – it’s a smasher” (89).
Throughout the chapter, the differences between Sid and the other children are
obvious. That he considers himself to be subordinate is illustrated by the extent to which he
looks up to the children in an almost uncomfortable way. It is rather disturbing to read about
how much he appreciates the chance to spend time with the people in Kirrin Cottage, because
it makes the differences between the characters even clearer. The way in which the children
treat him reinforces the image Sid already has of himself, as subordinate to the other children.
The categories gender, age and class are relevant when looking at the power division
between Julian and Joanna. Even though Joanna is the oldest of the people left in the house
when Quentin and Fanny go away on holiday, Julian is the one who is primarily responsible
for taking care of things, except the housework, which is left to Joanna. The difference
between Julian’s and Joanna’s responsibilities become clear in an episode in which “Joanna
came in with a jug of hot chocolate and some biscuits” (23). She then notices Julian yawning
so loudly that “she offered to lock up the house for him”, but he rejects her suggestion and
says “that’s my job, locking up the house. You can trust me all right. I’ll see to every window
and door” (23). Locking up the house appears to be a much more important job and failing to
do so properly might actually result in danger, in the form of break-ins, which shows how
Julian, being a man, is trusted with the more important things around the house. Serving
biscuits could be considered a typical and less important job – more appropriate for a woman
of the serving class.
When looking at the characters of George and Jo, the categories gender, class and
ethnicity are of importance. Jo is also a tomboy who adds unconventional gender behavior to
the book and both her appearance and personality are often compared to George’s. In fact,
they are so much alike that class, ethnicity and education could be considered the only aspects
dividing them in terms of power and agency.
It instantly becomes clear that Jo and her father are of a lower class than the other
children, judging by their appearance, which shows how appearance is another factor which
could affect power differences. When they are first introduced, the children think that Jo is a
14
boy “and what a ragamuffin the boy looked! He wore torn dirty jeans and a filthy jumper”
(15).
The first time the children and Jo meet is an episode worth mentioning, because it
brings up several aspects of gender and power differences between the children, not least
between Julian and George. Jo sits down in George’s sit-hole on the beach and when George
tells her, with a temper rising at once, to get out of her hole, Jo answers “finders keepers. It’s
my hole now” (16). It does not take long before Jo and George begin to argue, which is not at
all surprising due to both of them being both stubborn and forward tomboys. When they are
about to start fighting, Dick runs up and says “George – if there’s any fighting to be done, I’ll
do it” (17). This implies that fighting is something which should be performed by men and
boys, not girls. Despite being a tomboy, George is apparently still not considered masculine
enough to fight. Dick and Jo then have a small row, before Dick learns that Jo is in fact a girl
and Dick says that “you shouldn’t fight girls” (17). Afterwards, he says “that girl’s got some
courage though, facing up to me like that. Well, that’s the last we’ll see of her!”, suggesting
that he is much more powerful than she is. However, Jo still wants to fight George but Julian
states that “fighting’s forbidden!” and then orders Jo to “clear off!” and “go away!”, which
makes her run of crying (17). In this episode, it becomes clear that Julian is the most powerful
of the children and when requesting Jo’s departure in such a rude way, he also appears
superior in an unpleasant way. However, his behavior could be defended by him only looking
out for his family.
The power differences between George and Julian become obvious after the children’s
argument with Jo. George then says “I can’t see why Julian wouldn’t let me have a go at her”
(19), which shows how much power Julian has over George. She abstained from fighting only
because Julian verbally forbid it, which shows how she takes orders from him and therefore
lets him take power. However, when Dick answers her by saying “you can’t go around
fighting” and “don’t be an idiot, George”, it says that “this sort of speech didn’t please George
at all” (18). She then shows that she is not happy with being told what to do, but still accepts
it. In one episode, when the children arrive at the beach, Julian “led the others firmly” to
where they will sit down and then says, “we’ll be here today. It’s so hot we’ll be glad of the
shade from the rocks. What about just here?”. George then answers that “it’s all right”, but is
described as “half sulky and half amused at Julian for being so firm about things” (33). This
suggests that George acknowledges and reacts to Julian’s tendency to control things, but she
does nothing to change it. Age may play a part, but based on the depiction in this novel one
can argue that the power Julian has over George is primarily based on their different genders.
15
Because George has more masculine features than Anne does, she is also more powerful than
Anne is, not least when put in relation to Julian. However, the fact that George is not really a
boy makes her unable to be equal to him. Still, she acknowledges and challenges the
stereotypes when reacting to Julian’s way of acting; something Anne never does.
The way Jo behaves towards the other children, and vice versa, is quite interesting
because it demonstrates great power inequalities. Jo desperately wants to fit into the group of
children although readers eventually learn that it is partially because her father, who is one of
the villains of the book, has told her to get close to them to help him and the other villains.
However, there are other reasons for her wanting to get accepted as well. Jo could be
considered a victim of rather bad circumstances. Fearing that the children will call the police,
Jo says “they’ll put me into a Home for Bad Girls, and I’ll never get out again – because I am
a bad girl and I do bad things. I’ve never had a chance” (101). This shows Jo’s poor selfesteem and self-image, which could explain her desperately seeking love and acceptance from
the children. It also suggests that Jo is aware that she is not inherently bad and knows that her
bad behavior has to do with her circumstances. Her poor relationship to her father is another
reason for her seeking love from the children instead. It becomes clear that the relationship
between Jo and her father is not very good: “she had no love for him and no respect, because
he was everything that a father shouldn’t be” (195). The episode also shows how the children
have a very important power over Jo: the power to have her put away, simply by calling the
police, but they choose not to. Instead, they bargain with her – making her promise to take
them to George, in order for them not to call the police (101).
One episode is especially interesting because it clearly shows how Jo is desperately
seeking the children’s acceptance and affection. When Jo comes by to take the children to
where George is held captive, Dick mistakes her for a thief and they start wrestling.
Afterwards, Dick says something quite rude, stating that she is “a savage, deceitful, two-faced
little wildcat” (98) (the expression is further discussed later in this essay). Dick yells at Jo in
fury and Jo weeps, trying to convince him that she only came by to take them to George. Jo
crying makes her different from George, who resists doing so. Jo says “my dad would half kill
me if he thought I’d grassed on him” (99), which shows how much she is willing to risk for
the other children. When she finally convinces them that she will indeed take them to George,
she says “you’ve been mean to me, but I’ll show you I’m not as bad as you make out. I’ll take
you to George” (99). This suggests that she helps the children to seek their approval, even
though they have treated her poorly. She does not even like George, but desperately wants the
other children, especially Dick, to like her. In one episode, Dick says to her “in a kind voice”
16
that it would be good if she could tell them what they need to know and “Jo loved a bit of
kindness and couldn’t resist this” (106). When Dick apologizes to Jo for having hurt her, “Jo
looked at him as a slave might look at a king” and says “I don’t mind. I’d do anything for you,
honest I would. You’re kind” (107).
Hence, the power the children have over Jo is based on her desire for them to like her.
The children realize this and take advantage of it. For example, when in need of information
about Red Tower, Julian first grabs Jo’s arm to stop her from leaving and then tells her that
she will stay, “if I have to tie you to me all night long!” (142). This is another example of how
Julian uses physical force as well as verbal threats to exert his power and put himself in a
superior position in relation to other characters. However, it is not physical force or verbal
threats that convince Jo to stay and help them. That is, instead, Julian saying that if she does,
they will trust her forever. Jo then asks if Dick too will trust her. He answers yes and
continues: “but I don’t feel as if I like you very much at the moment. If you want us to like
you as well as to trust you, you’ll have to help us a lot more than you have done” (143). This
clearly shows how Dick takes advantage of Jo’s desire to be liked.
It could be argued, then, that the children abuse their power over Jo and treat her
badly. Once, Jo says, “can I stay with you today till my dad comes back? I’ll wash myself if
you like. I’m all alone today” (44). She then puts herself in a vulnerable position, giving the
power of the situation and decision to the other children. George then replies: “No. We don’t
want you. Do we Anne?” (44). Anne hesitates because she “didn’t like hurting anyone”, but
then says “well, perhaps Jo had better go” (44). Even Julian tells Jo to leave. Dick is in fact
the only one who behaves well towards her in this episode, suggesting to the others that they
should actually let her stay, which makes Jo grow fond of Dick. However, he says “after all –
she can’t help being dirty…” (44), which, just like the other children’s comments, suggests
that Jo is inferior, although it also portrays Dick as understanding and kind. The way in which
they talk about her, in the third person as if she was not even there, makes it sound like she is
worth less than them; which can be compared to the previously mentioned episode in which
Sid appears.
Jo being regarded as inferior to the other children becomes extra obvious is the
episode in which she is to spend the night at Kirrin Cottage. Joanna then says “she’s going to
have a bath first. She smells like something the dog brought in!” (101). After her bath, Jo is
“perfectly clean, although marked with scratches and bruises from top to toe, hair washed,
dried and brushed so that it stood up in curl like George’s” (101). The comparison to George
here suggests that being like her is to be preferred. When Dick and Julian see Jo, they hardly
17
recognize her: “she was wearing one of Anne’s old nighties and looked very clean and
childish and somehow pathetic” (102). The word pathetic makes Jo seem even more inferior
to the other children. Several times, she is in fact also described as a monkey, which makes
her appear less civilized than and thus not equal to the other children. For example, Dick
“thought her a bad, cold-blooded, savage little monkey, but he felt sorry for her, and admired
her unwillingly for her courage” (107). The quote sums up the children’s relationship to Jo
very well; although she is not very likable, they nevertheless feel sorry for her and admire her
courage.
Another important factor which makes Jo different from the other children is her lack
of education and certain knowledge, which has to do with her ethnicity as a traveller and
likely plays a part in her being represented as subordinate to the others. Ross Deuchar and
Kalwant Bhopal describe Travellers as families who “live in wagons” and mentions that they
spend much time “on the road during touring season” (734), which fits the description of Jo
and her father. Deuchar and Bhopal mention different types of travellers, such as Irish
Travellers and Circus Travellers, and write that they “also live in and off settled communities
and earn a living by exploiting niche market opportunities self-employment” (734), much like
Jo and her father. They have been travelling with a circus, but then left it to live in a caravan.
Her father was an acrobat but hurt his foot (43).
At the traveller’s camp in the book, “three caravans stood together, and a crowd of
children were playing a game with a rope” (121), which gives another example of how
different Jo’s life and upbringing have been. The descriptions of the travellers could also be
considered a sign of prejudice against or stereotyping of other cultures and ethnicities. Jo’s
father being a traveller and depicted as a criminal is example of such prejudice. When the
children hear about Jo’s upbringing, they think “what a strange life she must have led!” (43)
and compared to them, she has indeed. Compared to the other children, Jo belongs to a lower
class and her ethnicity is that of a traveller. When Dick says that she is “a savage, deceitful,
two-faced little wildcat” (98), he says so mainly because he is mad for her withholding
information about the kidnappers. However, the use of the word “savage” is particularly
interesting, because it does not necessarily have to do with her actions. Instead, it could be
interpreted as a description of her as a person, a traveller, and her being of a lower class than
the other children.
Deuchar and Bhopal examine the experiences of traveller children in schools today
and argue that “there is still a sense that such groups are not fully accepted within the school
and the wider community as citizens. Their participation in schools is tainted by negative
18
experiences, usually in the form of exclusion, racism and bullying” (746). This call for the
need of discussing such questions in school, to fight such negative patterns. Using Five Fall
into Adventure could be a very good starting point when doing so, because it portrays
travellers in a stereotypical way which opens for discussions.
Jo’s lack of certain social skills, which is due to her upbringing and the fact that she
has most likely not gone to school, becomes obvious when she has breakfast at Kirrin
Cottage. Jo eats in the kitchen “and the others could hear Joanna scolding her for her
manners” (110). She does for example not know what “feeling ashamed” means (104) and has
no watch, because she cannot tell the time: “time was just day and night to her, nothing else”
(150). She likes Joanna, because “she knew where she was with her. If she kept on Joanna’s
right side and did what she was told, Joanna would feed her well and not interfere too much –
but if she didn’t then she could expect something else she understood very well indeed –
scoldings” (111). That kind of directness is likely easier for Jo to understand than many other
social codes which she is not really used to, having grown up a “savage”. Talking about her
not being able to read, Jo says that her mother tried teaching her, “but Mum wasn’t very good
herself. What’s the good of reading anyway? Won’t help you trap rabbits or catch fish for
your dinner, will it?” (112). Julian then thinks that “it was very difficult to know exactly how
to deal with a person like Jo, who knew so little of some things and so much of others” (112).
Talking about how Jo will know the right way to go, Joanna says that “people like Jo can
smell out any road they want” (112). Thus, Jo has a great deal of knowledge, just not about
the kind of knowledge that is considered important in a middle-class environment. Instead,
she knows the things she has needed to know to survive. This does, however, not help her
earn respect from the children until she knows the things that they need to know.
It is in fact not until Jo is very helpful to the children in the rescuing of George that the
other children really begin to accept her. Jo says, “I know you think I’m mean and thieving
and not worth a penny, and I expect you’re right. But I can do some things you can’t, and if
you want this thing, I’ll do it for you” (167). She then climbs up a wall to rescue George,
which earns her a great deal of respect from the other children. After having been rescued by
Jo, who she could hardly stand earlier, George says, “she’s wonderful. She’s the bravest girl I
ever knew” (180). In one episode after the rescuing, Dick actually refers to Jo as “the eighth
wonder of the world” (198). To Jo’s delight, he gives her a hug and compliments her for
being brave, which is interesting from a gender perspective because he would most likely not
have hugged her if she had been a boy. Jo then says, “you trust me now, Dick, don’t you?
19
You won’t be mean to me any more, any of you, will you? “ and Julian answers: “of course
not. You’re our friend forever” (198).
Considering how badly they treated Jo before she helped them rescue George, this
suggests that performing extraordinary feats in unusually dangerous situations, such as
rescuing somebody who is held as a hostage by climbing up a wall, is what it takes for the
children in the book to truly accept somebody from a lower class and different ethnicity.
When trying to escape the thieves, Dick says to Jo: “but what about you? You’ll be last of all.
Will you mind? You’ll be all alone up on this ledge, with the men coming behind you at any
minute”. Jo answers, “no, I don’t mind” (209). It would be unthinkable for the children to
even consider leaving Anne in such a dangerous situation, which shows how Jo, due to being
a tougher tomboy, is thought handle more pressure. It could also be considered an indication
that the children do not care as much about her as they do about each other.
In conclusion, this essay has shown that Five Fall into Adventure very well could be
used while touching upon important questions in the classroom. The book mainly addresses
questions concerning class, ethnicity, gender and age. The essay shows that although the
criticism towards the books have been quite focused on the gender aspects, class and ethnicity
are actually equally interesting aspects to touch upon when discussing Five Fall into
Adventure. For example, the way in which Jo is treated by the other children due to her
ethnicity and class could be an excellent starting point for discussions about how people from
other ethnicities and classes can sometimes be treated. It is also an example of the benefits of
using an intersectional perspective, which allows one to take several factors into account
when discussing power differences. The power differences between the characters could not
have been explained as well if they had only been based on one power category. It is
important to acknowledge how several different categories of identity interact and affect
power division and the analysis in this essay shows that Blyton’s works could serve as a good
starting point for doing so. Another example of that is Anne being inferior to Julian, a fact
which could be explained by both her age and her gender. It is important to take both into
account.
Blyton’s novel may also serve as a starting point to address questions about sexism,
gender roles and stereotypes. The many differences between George and Anne indicate that
people are not born with feminine or masculine characteristics, but are instead constructed
that way by society: a topic that is important to discuss in the classroom. The portrayal of
George shows that gender constructions created by society can be challenged and the
portrayal of Anne is an example of how society can construct stereotypical girls. The book
20
could be considered sexist, not least in its portrayal of stereotypical girls and boys. However,
while most of the characters are portrayed in stereotypical and what could also be considered
sexist manners, the characters of George and Jo show that the book could also be considered
the opposite, a reaction against the sexist stereotypes of the time in which the novel was
written. The topic is debatable and that debate could with good results be held in the
classroom, because the novel raises important questions which makes it beneficial to use in
teaching situations, whether one considers it sexist or not.
It is of outmost importance for teachers to work towards the goals presented in the
curriculum, such as those stating that xenophobia, intolerance and discrimination must be
fought, and this essay shows that using Blyton’s works could be very beneficial when doing
so.
21
Works Cited
Bingel, Svenja, Vera Krutz, Katharina Luh, and Anneki Müetze. “‘The Auntie’s Story’:
Fictional Representations of Māori Women’s Identities in Witi Ihimaera’s The Uncle’s Story
(2000) from an Intersectional Perspective.” Women’s Studies Journal 25.2 (2011): 56-73.
Web. 20 Dec. 2014.
Blyton, Enid. Five Fall into Adventure. 1950. London: Hodder Children’s Books, 2010. Print.
Coetzee, Liesel. “Empowering Girls? The Portrayal of Anne and George in Enid Blyton's
Famous Five Series.” English Academy Review: Southern African Journal of English Studies
28.1 (2011): 85-98. Web. 21 Dec. 2014.
Deuchar, Ross and Bhopal, Kalwant. “We’re Still Human Beings, We’re Not
Aliens’: Promoting the Citizenship Rights and Cultural Diversity of Traveller Children in
Schools: Scottish and English Perspectives.” British Educational Research Journal
39.4 (2013): 733–750. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.
Gopaldas, Ahir. “Intersectionality 101.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 32 (2013):
90-94. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
“Intersectionality.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2014.
Rudd, David. “Five have a gender-ful time: Blyton, Sexism and the Infamous Five.”
Children's Literature in Education 26.3 (1995): 185-196. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
Skolverket. Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011.
Västerås: Edita, 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Web. 11 Dec. 2014.
22