Reviews for Swamp Robber, Vol. 1

The average rating for Swamp Robber, Vol. 1 based on 2 reviews is 1 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-06-25 00:00:00 Dave Scott This review is based soley on this edition, not the original work. And this review is not based on the current story, etc. This review only concerns addressing the insane and repugnant idea that the Sugar Creek Gang series needed 'updating for today's readers'. Words can hardly describe such a horrible idea. Where do we get this idea that 'today's readers' are such primitive creatures as to need 'updating'? If it were just a matter of spelling, but everyone knows spelling hasn't change dramatically over the fifty years that these books have been in existence. I have the feeling that most people who bought these books bought them because they had read them and enjoyed them as children, and wanted their children and grandchildren to have the same experience. The last thing in the world I wanted, speaking purely for myself, is a version that was 'updated for today's reader'. Gag. The publisher in response to us wrote: "Please note that the entire quote from CBD's website regarding these books is actually, "The tales and travels of the Sugar Creek Gang have passed the test of time, delighting young readers for more than fifty years". This is still true. The stories in the updated versions are the same, as are the characters. Over 1 million of these books have sold since the updates. I have offered this information to CBD and they will make the decision if they want to note that the books are updated versions on their website. The updates were done from 1997 - 1999 by Moody Publishers with the updates being written by Paul Hutchens daughter, Pauline Hutchens Wilson. Here is the preface that is in the front of each of the books, by Mrs. Wilson: PREFACE Hi - from a member of the Sugar Creek Gang! It's just that I don't know which one I am. When I was good, I was Little Jim. When I did bad things - well, sometimes I was Bill Collins or even mischievous Poetry. You see, I am the daughter of Paul Hutchens, and I spent many an hour listening to him read his manuscript as far as he had written it that particular day. I went along to the north woods of Minnesota, to Colorado, and to the various other places he would go to find something different for the Gang to do. Now the years have passed - more than fifty, actually. My father is in heaven, but the Gang goes on. All thirty-six books are still in print and now are being updated for today's readers with input from my five children, who also span the decades from the '50s to the '70s. The real Sugar Creek is in Indiana, and my father and his six brothers were the original Gang. But the idea of the books and their ministry were and are the Lord's. It is He who keeps the Gang going. Pauline Hutchens Wilson I can understand your disappointment that the books are not exactly the same as the ones you read as a youngster. It was our opinion, as well as Mrs. Wilson's, that some of the words that her father used were outdated and could easily have a different meaning in today's language. One of the updates I specifically remember is that in The Chicago Adventure some of the landmarks that Mr. Hutchens used when he wrote the book in the 30s or 40s are no longer there. Mrs. Wilson replaced some of those landmarks with current landmarks that the children of Chicago may know very well and may actually live near. " To which I replied: As you may understand, the fear that I and others of my friends have had in reading this is that these books have been made politically correct. So, for instance, on one of the first pages of the first book I read our main character saying he 'was punished'. My PC antennae started buzzing and my guess, from my age old remembrance of the original, was that the 'punishment' concerned was a little better described and very physical (ie he got 'spanked' or 'got a licking'); but that this was deemed offensive to today's readers, and changed. Regardless even with the part of the description you highlighted (which may cover you legally but I can assure you does NOT imply that there have been edits) you advertising does NOT warn people of your edits, nor their nature. And the fact that you have sold millions of copies of these books, if it is based on a false understanding of what has happened to these books, is not exactly to your credit, eh? but then we found some of the old copies and wrote: Dear Mrs. Hackler, While waiting for our postage return slip from the distributors we decided to go through the books and see what kind of edits they had undergone. I had looked at only two pages when I found the following example of political correctness: the exact kind of thing that we were worried had been done to spoil the moral message of these stories. What I assume is the original story of 'The Secret Hideout' (copyright 1942, 1968 edition Moody Publishers) has a sentence that reads (on page 57 of that edition): "The bell rang and the girls came back in, looking at us to see if any of us had gotten a licking, and probably wishing we had, as girls sometimes do, and none of us had." The 'for today's reader' that we had been shipped now reads (page 49): "The bell rang and the girls came back in, looking at us." I await anyone's statement that this is not a sop to modern political correctness, a fear of even mentioning the historical fact that children used to get 'lickings' in school (and from their parents) let alone what the original SCG actually taught, which was that that was a good thing. This is not, as you suggest in your email, an instance of minor word changes to reflect changes in place names. It is, indeed, a change in the story, and a significant one. Please express my disappointment to your staff, both for the change and for the disingenuous way you attempted to reply to us. In Him, Vaughn Ohlman

Review # 2 was written on 2016-12-02 00:00:00 Don Dutcher I've read like five books in this series. There's nothing really wrong with them. I just found them really boring. You'd think I could read a tiny book such as this. It took me two tries to get through it, I believe.