Talk:The Famous Five

The Surname Debate

Jul/Aug 2006

Since it is not clear what surname the four children bear, and it is scarcely an issue in the books, couldn't we just list the characters without surnames, as they appear in the books? And alter the linked stubs from (e.g.) "Julian Kirrin" to "Julian (Famous Five)". Myopic Bookworm 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is only of the surname of Julian, Dick and Anne; George's is explicitly stated many times. Since both names are referred to in the books, I don't see the point of completely removing the information, as it does not take up much of the article and is a point of interest. Whether the most plausible surname is Kirrin or Barnard is debatable (Kirrin was listed as it seems to be the most popularly accepted and, as far as I know, the name used in the television adaptations), but it is not Bannard, as the article had previously stated. And I 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't want to remove the information, but listing the characters as "Julian Kirrin" etc. seems to foreclose the debate. (And book-purists will not take kindly to having the TV series taken as canonical.) I'd refer to them by first name, and keep the note about surname. Myopic Bookworm 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough point, I must have misread. And I 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In Five go to Billycock Hill, the five are introduced as "Julian Kirrin, Dick Kirrin, Anne Kirrin, and George Kirrin, their cousin - and their dog Timothy"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.47.195 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Feb 2007

In a review of Five Get Into a Fix on enidblyton.net[1] the reviewer, Keith Robinson, says "I've been told that in the original books Julian's mother is referred to as Mrs Barnard. There's no mention of her name in the later version I have, and I have to assume it's been altered due to the fact that it's a glaring error on Blyton's part—for as we all know, Julian's father is Uncle Quentin's brother, which makes both families Kirrin".

I believe that the assertion ...Julian's father is Uncle Quentin's brother... is substantiated in Five on a Treasure Island, so it appears that the surname of all the children is Kirrin, and Blyton made a mistake in FGIAF which was later corrected. Does anyone have the relevant editions of FGIAF so this could be substantiated? RichardEll 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The following note was taken from the The_Famous_Five_(characters) article on 26.02.2006 RichardEll 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC) There is debate about whether Julian, Dick and Anne share George's surname of Kirrin (as shown in Five on Finniston Farm), which would imply that their father was brother to Uncle Quentin, or whether their surname is Barnard (as their mother is referred to as "Mrs Barnard" in Five Get into a Fix). However, it seems unlikely that George's surname could have been Kirrin, because it is explained in one of the stories that Kirrin Island belonged to George's mother, who then made a gift of it to George. So Kirrin would have been Aunt Fanny's maiden name. Referring to Uncle Quentin as Professor Kirrin seems to have been an error in the seventies TV series.

To complicate matters further, it's not that unusual for a man to take his wife's surname (or combine them) when she brings property into the family. Maintaining the name is important in some circles. So Kirrin could well be Quentin's surname and not his brother's. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In the first book of the series, "Kirrin" is given as the name of George's mother's family - the island and the cottage are named for her ancestors, not her husband's. So I always thought that George's surname was not Kirrin, since it would be unlikely that Uncle Quentin would change his surname to his wife's. Since Julian's mother is Mrs Barnard, I assumed that Quentin's name must also be Barnard unless Quentin and his brother had different fathers. So surely George must also be a Barnard? 79.179.62.156 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lashings of ginger beer

"with lashings of ginger beer" - an oft-quoted cliché but never actually mentioned in any of the 21 books

Wasn't this "cliché" coined by The Comic Strip when they made the spoof Five Go Mad In Dorset in 1982? 217.155.20.163 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that "lashings of cream" occurs in one of the books - but I wouldn't remember which one now. If a similar phrase including "lashings" occurs occasionally, it is by no means the overused cliché it is often portrayed as being, usually by those who want to denigrate Enid Blyton's work. M.J.E. (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Extremely outdated"

The first books in the series were written during the 1940s, and some of the basic concepts can now seem extremely outdated.

Is it really necessary to point out that books written 60 years ago may contain "outdated concepts"? 217.155.20.163 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten books

I understand that the editions currently on sale have been rewritten to remove some of the more objectionable stereotypes ("nasty common children") and the use of certain words whose meanings have changed ("a pile of coke"). Other children's books that have stayed in print as long have not been altered in this way, e.g. the Narnia series, or E. Nesbit, so it seems worthy of comment. Does anyone have citable details? BrainyBabe 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The current editions have also re-christened Aunt Fanny as Aunt Franny. Smurfmeister 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Current editions of which books, and since when? 2001 UK editions of the Famous Five books (still in print as of 2007) say Aunt Fanny, not Franny. Don't get me wrong, I can cite some minor differences from the 1940s/1950s editions - some of which are inexplicably silly - but the idea that the books have been entirely "rewritten" is rubbish.

Also, I haven't seen any references to "a pile of coke" in any Blyton books, but I assume that the "changed meaning" refers to the branded soft drink available in supermarkets, rather the white powder beloved of workshy bankers and media executives (the likes of which are about as alien to a typical modern child reader as a 1940s childhood). AdorableRuffian (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it's more likely to be Coke (fuel) than the beverage. Murray-Mint-UK (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

New TV Series

I just added a new sub-section about the upcoming animated TV series, then realised there was already a section about it at the end of the article (doh!). However, I decided that it would be more appropriate to list the 2008 series after the 1978 and 1996 series, rather than in its own section right at the very end, even though the new series is not about the original characters. My new bit moreover contains information that I have just found on the Chorion Web site. So I have now merged the two sections and deleted the "New Series" section at the end. In doing so, I endeavoured to include as much info from the old section as possible. But I deleted the comment about it being debatable whether the TV series will be true to the spirit of the books. Just personally, I share the scepticism of many Enid Blyton fans about it, but such a comment is subjective, and it is important for Wikipedia articles to remain as objective as possible.

Nzyowie 10:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article, On the 28th August 2007, it was announced on the BBC News website that a revival of The Famous Five is being developed [7]. Julian, Dick, Anne and Georgina were all going to be in the story - now all as adults in their forties;.... This is hardly likely as the actress who played George, Michelle Gallagher, died in the early 2000s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.77.115.37 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It says THE CHARACTERS are going to be in the new series, not the original actors! Smurfmeister 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Famous.jpg

Image:Famous.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Famousfive 198.jpg

Image:Famousfive 198.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

this page needs more information about whats inside the book

famous?

why were they famous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC) They were the best in the world!!!!!

alliteration? 152.91.9.219 (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It does make a nice, snappy alliterative title, but it was hardly original. Frank Richards used the epithet "Famous Five" in his Billy Bunter stories some years earlier than the publication of Five on a Treasure Island. The five referred to in the Bunter stories were Johnny Bull, Harry Wharton, Bob Cherry, Hurree Jamset Ram Singh and Frank Nugent. Note that Bunter, ostensibly the hero of the stories, was not among them. He was probably more of an anti-hero. In the Bunter stories, the term Famous Five was never part of a title; and, as we know, there is no copyright in titles anyway. It could be argued that Blyton's Famous Five appealed to a different demographic than the Bunter stories, so the borrowed phrase never seemed to be a bone of contention. Pavel (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ages

I’m not convinced by the “if you count…” ages that have been added lately. Others have done this using the seasons pinned down by weather and specific “hols” and got much higher ages – see here [2] and here [3] (pdf pages 296-7), and it’s pretty widely accepted that the author halted aging rather than tackle it in the books. Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree they would be much older at the end if you count holidays. Apparently she had only meant to write seven books. If you look at the original dust-jackets, the children in the pictures age quite sensibly from pre-teen to mid/late teens for the first seven books. But when her readers wanted more, the characters on the jackets get young again! (If I remember correctly, this again happens over seven books, and then again for the final seven. But I could be wrong) The children do definitely mature as the series goes on. Anne particularly.

Basically it's original research - and innaccurate at that. I'll remove it. Ages are not mentioned later, as the children clearly do not age properly. 86.174.137.225 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Famous Five 1978 television series

Please dismerge the Informations of this site to the 1978 serial and the article: "Famous Five 1978 television series". In the moment this splitting looks not good. Please make comments to the article history of this article in the article subject, so that the source will be to see. By the way the Germant article site owns a similar structure, but the splitting is complete. with friendly greetings, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a first stept, gives the article a reasonable order today. And I have placed informations to the english audio dramas. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion - Kirrin Island & Kirrin Cottage

I've nominated both of the above: they are short articles with no sources, and both have been tagged for notability for a couple of years, with no substantial improvements made to either. If anyone wishes to argue in favour of keeping either of the articles, the tags at the top of those pages lead you through to the appropriate place to state reasons ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Case

We can surely take it that the new kids' dog is not Timmy's son - Timmy would have been senile by the time the original characters were married even if they were all unusually precocious, and any dog fathered by him would be elderly before the first of the children hit double figures. Captain Pedant (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Famous Five (series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I applaud you for taking on a topic like this, and I'm just claiming this now. My review will follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a real problem with the sourcing here, and until that is sorted, this simply cannot be a good article. The following are sourcing concerns:

• There are whole sections which are completely unreferenced. For instance, the "Video games" and "Comic books" sections. There are also specific facts where citations are requested; for instance, the inspiration for George.
• The lead contains a number of references, and that's indicative of a major problem with the lead; it contains information that is not found anywhere else in the article. For instance, details about the Survival Guide. The role of a lead section is to summarise the rest of the article; anything mentioned should be discussed further down in the article. While there is no ban on references in the lead, they will typically not be needed, as any information will be referenced further down the article.
• Many of the references that are cited are completely unformatted; bare urls are to be avoided. Ideally, everything should be formatted in the same way as, for instance, ref 4 (Geoghegan, Tom (5 September 2008). "The mystery of Enid Blyton's revival". BBC News. Retrieved 21 November 2011.) with author and date, if known, but certainly the title, and publisher. (And URL, if it's online). Perfect reference formatting is not required for a good article, and a few slip-ups can be overlooked, but I'm afraid that the problem here is far worse.
• Many of the references cited are of highly questionable reliability. Ideally, we'd be looking to cite information to the likes of newspaper articles and published books; for instance, the recently published biography of Enid Blyton, or books on the history of children's literature (many of which, of course, will discuss the massive impact of The Famous Five). As it is, we're seeing references to forums ("http://www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=770") and self-published blog ("Euro Comics in English: The Famous Five by Rosenzweig and Dufosse").

It is because of the sourcing concerns that I will have to close this review at this time; a lot of changes need to be made before this is ready for good article status. Please do not be discouraged, but I'm afraid this has a long way to go yet. A few more pointers of things that will need to be fixed. I have avoided mentioning wording/grammar issues, as the article will inevitably be shaken up during improvement:

• Decide if you're referring to the series as The Famous Five or The Famous Five. I think a case can be made for either, but consistency is good.
• Avoid very short paragraphs. There are a lot of one-line paragraphs. This is indicative of an article still very much under-construction; GA status is reserved for articles that have reached a level of stability.
• "The characters, as is usual in Blyton's fiction, are outlined with very few words, and there is very limited description of scenes, but this style and the fast pace of the writing keeps children's attention and is seen by enthusiasts as fuelling their imagination and encouraging them to think for themselves. Blyton's characterisation, however, has also been much criticised as being stereotyped and encouraging sexist attitudes; and the books have as a result been extensively parodied." This kind of analysis is exactly what would be wonderful to see in a good article on a topic like this; however, in this article, it is short, off-the-cuff and unreferenced.
• Further details of the Sarah Bosse novels would be excellent. While the article should focus on Blyton, these later novels are an important part of the history of The Famous Five.
• Beware of dubious images. File:Famous five 1970s dvd box.JPG will soon be deleted from Commons; it's clearly non-free.
• Careful with your italics. When referring to films or television series, the titles will definitely need to be italicised.
• There's absolutely nothing about the publication history, and only a smattering about the writing process crammed into the lead. This kind of material is important; instead, most of the article is given over to adaptations. While these are important, they also have their own articles.
• The "parodies" section includes some incredibly trivial mentions; if parody is important to the series as a whole, try to keep discussion limited to the important ones, and perhaps themes/reasons for parody.
• Avoid original research- the section on the claimed "effect" reads like original research.

In all, I'd recommend taking a look at the likes of Harry Potter; that's a very solid article on a series of children's books, and so will give an excellent idea of what this article should look like. Obviously, that would be a very long-term goal; in the mean time, work on improving the sourcing, and then look to expand some areas, and trim-back others. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo, error or oversight ?

Hello, Thank you for your great article. I have a question : In the Television - 1978 series section of your article, you wrote the following :

Of the original 21 novels, 3 were not adapted for this series; Five on a Treasure Island and Five Have a Mystery to Solve.

Now which book title is the third? Or is it just a typo and it should have been : 2 were not adapted ?

Thank you for correcting, as I'm using this infomation for my own article.

Best Regards from France, where this 1978 T.V. series is very much loved (and so are many other great British shows). --Debole (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read the complete sentence, it says "Five on a Treasure Island and Five Have a Mystery to Solve (were not adapted) because the Children's Film Foundation still had the film and TV rights to the books, while Five Have Plenty of Fun didn't fit in the production schedule." ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Survival Guide

"She also wrote The Famous Five survival guide."

Well, according to the linked sources, no, she didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.233.209 (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 'hairyass' is the name of George's dog

Michele Gallagher fate

I wouldn't know of any reliable sources regarding the whereabouts of MG. There is indication she actually died, but in the article it is presented as a fact that it isn't! Otherwise give sources please, on such sensitive topic! 91.44.229.199 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

German tabloid Bild spoke to actor Marcus Harris in Feb 2012. Marcus Harris in Bild There he confirms "Sadly she passed away a few years ago." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.159.135 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

She committed suicide in 2001. --84.45.236.96 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Low quality article

The article quality is quite low. It is not able to convey the vibrant spirit of the FAMOUS FIVE novels. Beyond that, the precedence of the listing of the names should be George, Timmy, Julian, Dick & Anne. That is how they are placed inside the novels. The stories more or less revolve around the first two characters, and the other three joining to create the FIVE.

As to the delineation of George as a Tomboy, it is a most mediocre assessment of her character. She is just trying to escape the standard definition of a girl as coy, and less capable. In fact, she is seen as quite an able persons, with good athletic, swimming and rowing skills.

The article is not able to delve deep into the stories. At the same time, unjustifiable stress and importance is given to the parodies and other frill elements. These things should be moved to another article and do not fit inside here, other than as a mere mention and link.

The article needs a definite improvement. Maybe a rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.21.100 (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is an encyclopedia article about the novel, so no it does not need to convey the vibrant spirit of the novels. And I don't know I'm pretty sure the members are usually sorted the way it's sorted in the article.--Krystaleen 13:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely feel the article doesn't quite fit the books. It seems to have got bogged down in listing every single adaptation rather than giving a feel of what the books are about (which shouldn't be hard since they're often rather repetitive). While I'm no lit-crit person or expert on Blyton's life, I think obvious candidate things to add more on if sources can be found are 1) talking about the style of a novel, 2) research process - based on specific places/characters or idealized?, 3) setting her treatment of class and crime in a modern context (it's pretty scary on rereading how often baddies are telegraphed as obvious wrong 'uns by their having 'lower-class' dialect accents written phonetically), 4) treatment of women-is George meant to be brave? the future of women? just weird? a mixture of both?). These are frankly some of the most-read British books of the pre-/post-WWII period and I think they deserve a level of detailed treatment matching that (even if that might occasionally be more than they deserve). I hope the source I added helps at least a bit. A few screenshots from the 90s TV adaptation (since it's better-shot and matches Blyton's period) would be nice if we can justify fair use on them. Blythwood (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dick's name

What is Dick's full name? I think I remember it was mentioned somewhere that it was not Richard but something like Dickins. Or probably Dick itself was the full form? Which is correct? Hellerick (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Famous Five (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080531160727/http://www.chorion.co.uk:80/chorion/brand/famfive to http://www.chorion.co.uk/chorion/brand/famfive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Famous Five/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Left as "High" priority / importance article due more to the series historical importance to children's literature. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dreadful criticism section

I would suggest that the entire 'Critical discussion' section be axed, as a) they're officially discouraged per WP guidelines, and b) it seems to be little more than some individual user's personal gripes with the series, none of which is sourced. The 'floating timeline' bit seems more reasonable and can stay in. Trilobright (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2023

Change "Country: United States", to "Country: United Kingdom"

Article states the books are set in England and Wales. Enid Blyton was an English author. Stating these books as United States origin is indisputably incorrect. 31.78.151.101 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)