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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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)

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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.

13

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.

14

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

15

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.

16

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 self-

esteem 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”

17

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

18

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

19

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?

20

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

21

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.

22

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.