Showing posts with label children literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children literature. Show all posts

23 October 2018

[REVIEW] The Secret of Skytop Hill

The Secret of Skytop Hill – A Thrilling Collection of Adventure Stories
Enid Blyton | 2014, Bounty Books | 352 pages
Illustrated by Pythis Ashton-Jewell
Cover illustration by Laurence Whiteley
978-0-75372-705-8
Hardcover, BBW Jakarta 2017, IDR 85000

Reading Enid Blyton made me feel nostalgic. As a person who grew up entangling in adventures with the Famous Five and Five Find-Outers, I am curious how it feels to reread or read another works of Enid Blyton now. Would I be thrilled over again by those kinds of adventure?

*

I bought this book at BBW Jakarta 2017 (technically it was not in Jakarta; it was in South Tangerang) and only in the mid of 2018 I finally read it. This book contains 13 stories; some of them link to each other, i. e. “The Mystery of Melling Cottage”, “Number Sixty-two” and “The Case of The Five Dogs” which present John the “detective” as the main character. Most of the stories, of course, was about teens trying to uncover the mysteries they found, and it can be their first time engaging in that kind of mystery-solving. (So, I, who during these years in my life of absenteeism of Blyton’s mystery books have consumed adult mystery fictions which much more sophisticated—Holmes, Poirot, Yukawa “Detective Galileo”—now needed to adjust my expectation when reading Blyton’s mystery fiction for teens in which the characters are also teens and the plot was simple enough for quick case-solving.)

For example, “The Mystery of Melling Cottage” is the story when John the “detective” was first engaged in his own mysterious case. Beforehand, he only could imagine that he was a detective. He adored his Uncle Thomas, who was an inspector in the police force, and he loved to hear the tales of catching burglars, thieves…. But, I dare say that the mysterious case didn’t happen to John out-of-nowhere; it could happen since John let it by doing what his uncle once said,
“We learn to use our eyes, our ears, yes, and even our noses, in the police force! You would be surprised if you knew how many times a very small thing has led to the capture of criminals.” (p. 90)
Whoa, indeed, this is one of the messages the author wanted to deliver to me!

Because John was eager to find something strange, the universe author granted him through small things when he ought to go to Melling Cottage to give a bundle of old clothes from his mother to Mrs Browning (who lived all alone there). But, strangely, John discovered the signs that there was another inhabitant besides of Mrs Browning in that cottage. Who could that be?

Ever since John had solved the mystery of Melling Cottage he had been on the lookout for another. But mysteries didn’t seem to come along very often—and some mysteries turned out not to be mysteries after all! (p. 145). This time, in “Number Sixty-two”, John was eager nothing like before to solve mysteries again. When he climbed and settled at a branch of a tree in Oaktree Wood, he heard two men in their (seemed-to-be) secret meeting under him. The one said, “Number 62, tomorrow” that made John thrilled. What could that mean? And then, he tried to search and solve the number of what that 62 might be.

“The Case of the Five Dogs” is the last John the “detective”’s story in this book. After solving the previous cases, John was becoming pretty well-known in his neighbourhood. One day, four kids came to him, seeking for help to prove that their dogs neither killed nor chased Farmer Warner’s sheep. Instead, it was the log-man’s black dog that did it. Julie, one of the gypsies, told them that she saw the big black dog chase the sheep and kill it, but she won’t tell the police because she was afraid of the police. But, was it true, for the log-man said that at that time when the sheep was killed, he was miles away from there. Which one was true? And, I wondered, why were the gypsies scared of policemen? (p. 248)
*

If John the “detective” gained the fame from his acts, James and Malcolm (in “Great-Grandpa’s Telescope” got a pair of real binoculars as a reward from the police for helping get the thieves arrested. And it was James’ great-grandpa’s telescope that made James spot some men on the church’s roof, and then, he with his friend, Malcolm, tried to discover what they were doing suspiciously. Meanwhile, for helping the police to arrest the smugglers, the three kids in “A Night on Thunder Rock” got a new boat as reward, for their old boat was leaking very badly and finally sank, just before they got to shore. But maybe James, Susie, and George in “The Lost Treasure” were the ones who got the most bejewelled reward—the famous family jewels, hidden treasure of their great-great-grandfather—of course, if they could find it, or if that treasure even existed. Did Blyton imply that one deserves reward for her/his good deed.

The main character did not always get the role of the detective. In “It Happened One Afternoon”, Mike, the main character, was the culprit. And the case itself was so simple. One afternoon, Mike came into his Dad’s study, saw his new golf club and swung it; accidentally it smashed a valuable vase. Mike was a coward, so he ran and hid. And, who knows that his friend, Joe, who then will be blamed?
*

Some stories have this typical plot: a bunch of teens (usually they’re in [summer] holiday, so they had plenty of times to follow their curiosity and were not in the time when everybody is engaged with their gadgets) went to an old (supposed to be empty) house, found a secret passage, and then saw mysterious things that were actually the “clues”. “The Secret of Skytop Hill” follows this pattern, in which John, Molly, and Harry went to the old ruin at the bottom of Skytop Hill. Inside the ruin, they wanted to set the fire in the fireplace but they found that something was blocking the chimney. Guess what? It was a box contained a map. They followed the map, walked down into the secret passage led towards the heart of the hill. They discovered a powerful lamp hidden inside the hill with its light shone up—what for? However there’s something I still wondered: the inspector claimed that it was actually a little nest of spies, but spies of what? What was they’re spying?

And other stories weren’t about mystery-solving at all, i.e. “The Wild West Kids”, “Caravan Holiday”, and “A Week before Christmas”. “The Wild West Kids” is a lengthy, near-boring drama about a circus. Peter and Jill loved to ride their horses, Bunter and Nuzzler, so much. They even liked to do some tricks as if they were in circus. Luckily, there was a circus camp arrived there, and they got to know Sam and Dan, “the world’s wonder riders, the real Wild West Kids”, and learn many tricks from them. But, unfortunately, before the last performance, Sam fell from the top of the tent and couldn’t perform. Blyton showed that diversity is a normal thing (in circus): each performer has their own fondness towards particular animal. Jill liked horses, Madame Lilliput loved dogs, etc. (pp. 281 – 282).

Meanwhile, in “A Circus Adventure”, two mischievous children made a scene in the circus that came to their village. They unlocked Sammy the chimp’s caravan and opened the monkeys’ caravan. They’re out to the village and their masters were frantically looking for them.

And then, “A Week before Christmas” told about three nice children, Robert, Ellen, and Betsy who agreed to look for jobs to earn money for it was a week before Christmas and sadly, Mum’s lost her purse that contained all of the money she had to prepare all the Christmas things. Robert was being a delivery-boy for the butcher; Ellen helped Mrs Harris to take her three little children for walks; and Betsy was reading and being a good company to Mrs Sullivan. They all did their jobs very well and finally could have a decent Christmas celebration. And see, what the kind words Robert told his mum,
“And what’s more, Mum, I once heard the headmaster’s wife saying to the head that she had noticed that all the nicest children were the ones that had the best mothers—so, if you think we’re nice, you’ve got yourself to thank!” (Robert, p. 345)
*

Apparently, the most interesting thing for me is the gender-based stereotypes that I found. In a game which was played by the children in “The Wild West Kids”, the girl is the one who should be rescued by boys (p. 280). In the most tiring-cum-annoying story in this book, “Caravan Holiday”, the socially constructed gender role was explicitly shown when Roddy told his sisters (Jenny and Ann) to do the packing for their holiday (p. 167) and then do the cooking when they were out caravanning, although actually Jenny didn’t like to do those things (p. 168), but she ought to do it anyway just because she was a girl. Meanwhile, towards Geoff, Roddy stated (p. 164) that “he will be all the odd jobs of getting wood for the fire, putting up the tent, and that kind of thing.” It didn’t matter if Geoff really wanted to do it or not; he must do it because he was a boy. And he was lazy; so was Jenny, so Roddy got angry easily as the oldest made them do things.

Nevertheless, I appreciate how Blyton had portrayed how four young brothers and sisters with his and her own weakness went caravanning on their holiday and in that journey, they learned from their mistakes. After they came to a turning point, the story was ended with them promising each other and decided to continuing the holiday better. Well, just a promise? Hehehe.

In “The Lonely Old House” I also found a sexist comment. Dick, Cathy, and Harry, oh, and their dog, Kim, discovered a secret underground passage which led towards the cellar of the old empty house. And then there was someone—“a real recluse”—came to stay at that house. In a night, Harry saw a light went out through the top window of that house, as if someone was trying to give signal to somebody. Cathy was indeed afraid of one’s shadow, but it’s not right for Dick to—though he meant to be kidding—say like this to her:
“Do come on. Can’t you enjoy an adventure, Cathy? Just like a girl—scared of everything.” (p. 113)
WOW, Dick, she was really a girl—not “like a girl”, and “scared of everything” was not a character built in the DNA of girls. I’m not blaming the author here, for maybe she just projected reality of gender stereotyping in the 20th century in UK. But, still. She could do better. When a writer is writing, (a part of) her/his ideology is also dwelling into the writing.

Look, this book maybe is also responsible in conserving patriarchy by teaching its young readers how to act based on her/his gender and how to throw sexist comment at their friend! And maybe someone reads this and accuses me of violating the freedom of writing of the deceased author, but hey, what can I be violating while her books have already spreaded all over the world? 

*

As a whole, this book, which was first published in 1998, didn’t give me much thrill, but it entertained me in my holiday last June with the stories of holiday too. And the nostalgia it gave me was irreplaceable. But, I am also anxious, what if the other books by Blyton (including the ones I have read when I was too naive to be aware) also include these kinds of gender stereotypes and sexist comments?

21 March 2017

[Book Review] Was the Happy Prince Really Happy?


one of english classics by gramedia

I’m not really a classics lover, but sometimes I love reading classics. The lucky thing is, classics e-books can be found easily in internet, such as Project Gutenberg which makes so many classic e-books available. But, sometimes I want to read and own the paperback version, and I can’t always found the classic paperback that is friendly enough toward my wallet. That’s why I preferred to buy Wordsworth classics. But Wordsworth can only be found in particular online shop and particular local bookstore. What if a domestic publisher publishes classics in their own original language?

Yeah, finally this year Gramedia made this happen. In early 2017, it has published four books in English classics series, and sells them with an inexpensive price, IDR 40,000 each. One of them, which I was holding right now, is Oscar Wilde’s The Happy Prince and Other Tales (the others are A Christmas Carol, Sherlock Holmes—Short Stories #1, and Daddy Long Legs). I love that the cover is cute and the book size makes my reading experience comfortable.

First published in May 1888, this story collection consists of seven tales. Now, I am about to unboxing this book’s seal. Beware, this is gonna be long. Originally, this book contained five tales, i.e. The Happy Prince, The Nightingale and the Rose, The Selfish Giant, The Devoted Friend, and The Remarkable Rocket. But, in this Gramedia’s edition, there are two additions, i.e. The Sphinx without a Secret (first published in the newspaper The World in May 1887) and The Birthday of the Infanta (first published in the 1891 anthology House of Pomegranates).

aestheticism—you’re no longer useful if you’re no longer beautiful

Previously, I have read just one of Wilde’s works, i.e. the Indonesian-translated version of The Picture of Dorian Gray. I found this tale collection’s soul in some degree, similar to the one in The Picture of Dorian Gray. It was about the aestheticism, which was booming in Europe in Victorian era. Aestheticism first emerged in the mid of 19th century in Europe as an art movement. “Art for art’s sake” is one of the principles of the aestheticists. This saying implies that art is beyond everything and that pleasure can be found in beautiful things.


When the Art Professor at the University said in The Happy Prince, “As he [the statue of the Happy Prince] is no longer beautiful he is no longer useful,” (p. 21) Dorian Gray, who sold his soul so he could be young for ever, suddenly crossed my mind. And so in The Birthday of the Infanta, when the Flowers in the garden of the Spain King’s palace sneered at the Dwarf indignantly, “He is really far too ugly to be allowed to play in any place where we are.” (the Tulips, p. 117).

Even the flowers in the garden said that he was ugly, the Dwarf, in his self-confidence, kept dancing and was not really concerned in his appearance. But then, accidentally, he looked in the mirror and was so startled. He saw a monster in the mirror! After he was aware about his ugliness, he realised that the Infanta never loved him. And so, it was the end of him. In a way, it reminded me about Eve and Adam who had realised that they were naked. They became embarrassed in front of God. Whereas, before the awareness came to them, there was no problem of being naked. Ironically, the childish Infanta kept insisting on her wanting the Dwarf to dance again.
Mi bella Princesa, your funny little dwarf will never dance again. It is a pity, for he is so ugly that he might have made the King smile.
“But why will he not dance again?” asked the Infanta, laughing.
“Because his heart is broken,” answered the Chamberlain.
“For the future let those who come to play with me have no hearts,” she cried, and she ran out into the garden.
(p. 135-136)
Oh, poor Infanta! Did she not realise that her father’s heart was broken too since years ago? Finally, the King and the little Dwarf had a similarity. And, so did the Happy Prince and the Dwarf. Both of them finally died because their hearts were broken. The Happy Prince had the Swallow as his companion and the Dwarf had the Birds who liked him.

how materialistic and hedonistic the rich or ruling class were

It was pretty obvious that Wilde brought up the social injustice issues. The ruling class were materialistic and hedonistic, while the poor suffered a lot. The humorous Wilde even used the “sans-souci” idiom as the palace where the Happy Prince used to live. “Sans-souci” itself literally holds the meaning of “no worries”. You can read at Wikipedia that “sans-souci” is also the name of royal palace built by Henry I (King of Haiti in Cap Haitian) in early 19th century, also the name of the former summer palace of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia in Postdam, Germany.

Let’s look at how [the statue of] the Happy Prince introduced himself to the Swallow,
I did not know what tears were, for I lived in the Palace of Sans-Souci, where sorrow is not allowed to enter. […] Round the garden ran a very lofty wall, but I never cared to ask what lay beyond it, everything about me was so beautiful. My courtiers called me the Happy Prince, and happy indeed I was, if pleasure be happiness. So I lived, and so I died. And now that I am dead they have set me up here so high that I can see all the ugliness and all the misery of my city, and though my heart is made of lead yet I cannot chose but weep.
(p. 9)
Thanks Wilde, at last the used-to-be ruling class could see all the ugliness and misery of his city. But, look at how the current ruling class acted, after they found out that the statue of the Happy Prince was now shabby. He became shabby after giving his ruby, sapphires, and even golden-coating to the poor people in the city through the Swallow who became his messenger. Then, the ruling class pulled down the statue and were quarrelling about the statue of whom which should be replaced the Happy Prince. And don’t forget when the Queen’s maid-of-honour in the palace sighed about how lazy the seamstresses who embroidered her dress were. Apparently, one of the seamstresses, the one who was noticed by the Happy Prince, was so worn out and so poor that she even couldn’t give anything to her son who was lying ill. Oh, I noticed that actually there is an almost-hidden narrator, who I discovered near the end of the story.
“When I last heard of them they were quarrelling still.”
(p. 21)
The materialistic character can also be found in the next story, The Nightingale and the Rose. The Nightingale heard the crying of the young Student about his love. There would be a ball given by the Prince and the young Student wanted to attend it with the Professor’s daughter as his company. But the girl would be his company if and only if he brought her a red rose. Unfortunately, there was no single red rose in his garden. The sincere and innocent Nightingale immediately became so concerned in his matter for she presumed and believed that he was a true lover. The spoiled and cry baby Student didn’t make any efforts to get a red rose. Instead, the Nightingale sacrificed her life in exchange of a red rose.

This story is so heart-breaking for Nightingale gave her life for almost nothing. The young Student apparently barely knew about Love; he knew better about Logic and Philosophy. In the other side, the Professor’s daughter was more fucked up than him for she was so materialistic. And finally, I couldn’t blame them completely for they were still so young and know nothing about Love. (Yeah, Wilde used capital to write Love, Logic, Philosophy, Life, and many others.) Ironically, a bird understood what Love is, more than the human.
Death is a great price to pay for a red rose and Life is very dear to all. […] Yet Love is better than Life, and what is the heart of a bird compared to the heart of a man?
(The Nightingale, p. 28)
The most annoying character who was also materialistic and hypocrite was the Miller in The Devoted Friend.

One day, the Linnet, the Water-rat, and the Duck discussed about the duties of a devoted friend. The Linnet told a story about the friendship between the rich Miller and the little Hans. It was claimed that the Miller was Hans’ most devoted friend, but as the reader could see, it was completely otherwise. The Miller was so good at talk about the friendship theories, but zero at real actions.
Lots of people act well, but very few people talk well, which shows that talking is much the more difficult thing of the two, and much the finer thing also.
(The Miller, p. 50)
While the little Hans did everything to fulfil the Miller’s demands, the Miller never gave anything in return. Yet, he always claimed that he himself was the best friend of the little Hans. Finally, when the little Hans died, everybody went to his funeral because he was so popular, I thought it must be because of his good deeds toward others.
There is no good in my going to see little Hans as long as the snow lasts, for when people are in trouble they should be left alone, and not be bothered by visitors. That at least is my idea about friendship, and I am sure I am right. So I shall wait till the spring comes, and then I shall pay him a visit, and he will be able to give me a large basket of primroses and that will make him so happy.
(The Miller, p. 48)
Wilde wanted to criticise the moral decadence of the society. People sometimes do bad things to others, yet strangely they still think that they’re in the right side. The morality has been flipped. The poor give what they have to the rich, when it should be done conversely. The Miller continued to live comfortably while the little Hans passed away. Yet the Water-rat couldn’t grasp the moral of the story. The moral was gone in real life; even in the story it lasted no more. Or maybe it was all about the cunning would rule the innocent.

was […] really […]?

Was the Happy Prince really happy? And, was the Swallow still could be happy even though his migration to Egypt was cancelled? Yeah, I wondered they were indeed happy finally, as they were appreciated properly by God.

As I asked myself, “was Happy Prince really happy?”, I also wondered, “was Selfish Giant really selfish?”

At first the Giant really was selfish, for he allowed nobody to play in his beautiful garden except himself. But after he noticed that the Winter was lingering in his garden even though the Spring had come in all over the country, he realised that the laughs of the children would make the Spring come. And then, he allowed them to play in his garden and he suddenly loved a little boy. So he was very sad that later the little boy didn’t come anymore. In the end, the little boy apparently was the Christ. Wilde maybe wanted to echo the Christ’s saying that, “And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.” (Bible, New International Version, Mat 18:5). Yeah, maybe.
And then, was the Remarkable Rocket really remarkable? The Remarkable Rocket told about how supercilious the Rocket was, who didn’t even realise that he was not remarkable. This thing reminded me of the Miller in “The Devoted Friend”. He was absolutely not a devoted friend, yet he claimed the opposite.

It seemed that I couldn’t help but wondering again and again, was […] really […]. When I read The Sphinx without a Secret, I also asked myself that. Was Lady Alroy really like Lord Murchison’s suspicion about her? If I’m no wrong, in the Egyptian folklore, Sphinx was a creature who loved giving riddles. Could I say that a riddle always contains secret? If so, then Sphinx should always have a secret. Wait, what if the Sphinx had no secret? Lord Murchison was interested in Lady Alroy, for she acted like having secrets. He was interested in her mysteriousness. Unfortunately, after her passing away, Lord Murchison just had known the secret that she’d never had a secret. And so, the narrator, “I”, suggested the metaphor that Lady Alroy was like the Sphinx without a secret, who then invented one.

finally

So far, I could grasp Wilde’s sense of humour. In The Remarkable Rocket for instance, I found myself chuckling on the part when the young Page did something delightful so that the King doubled his salary twice. The funniest part is, the Page received no salary at all; so, doubling his salary had no use. Hence, this good act was not really doing well at the Page at all.

Considering the moral of the stories, this tale collection can be and cannot be a children literature. For me, it is one of the my-age-lits that was camouflaged into a children-lit-like. Just like Penguin Random House’s saying, “A pleasure seeking prince, a selfish giant, and more: Wilde’s fairy tales, first published in 1888, for childlike people from eighteen to eighty.”

my rating:


book identity

Title: The Happy Prince
Author: Oscar Wilde
First published in Indonesia by: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
Published date: February 2017
Cover by: Staven Andersen
Editor: Nina Andiana
Number of page: 136 pages
ISBN: 978-602-03-3563-6
Price: IDR 40,000

bloggerwidgets