Yes, I really massively do appreciate how German publisher Oetinger often puts entire Astrid Lindgren series into one single and all encompassing tome; all of the three main "Emil" novels in one, I absolutely just love this. But why, pray, is Lindgren's Emil called Michel in German? It is not as though Emil is not a commonly used and seen German first name. And truly, I therefore have always rather wondered at this seemingly arbitrary silliness (although I now tend to think that maybe the name was changed to Michel because the publisher, because Oetinger thought readers might get this Emil confused with Erich Kästner's Emil of Emil und die Detektive fame, who knows, but frankly, I find it both rather irritating and not at all necessary). And in my opinion, the moniker Michel (for Emil) not only sounds so ultimately and wholly overly German as a name (while Emil's story is clearly depicted to be taking place in Sweden), Michel as a name itself also has a rather checkered past and negative historical connotations at best. For especially in the 19th century, the appellation of Michel was used in both German language literature and song as a negative depiction of Germany, and of the Germans, or rather of those self-satisfied Germans happy with and supportive of the authorities and willing to accept even their most undemocratic regulations (basically those afraid of rocking the proverbial boat).
Imaginative, mischievous, but generally never deliberately mean or nasty, this is why I have always liked and actually majorly adored Astrid Lindgren's Emil (and no, I will NOT ever now call him Michel, even if I am reading and love reading the German translations). For while Emil does tend to often get himself (and his sweet and compliant younger sister Ida) into trouble, he generally engages in his little misdeeds because he wants to have fun and does not think of the consequences until it is a bit too late. Therefore Emil should be considered as a spontaneous child, an often thoughtless child, but really never a deliberately bullying, vicious or sneaky child. And sometimes, Emil's so called pranks are not even this at all (well, at least in my own humble opinion), but purely just really horrible bad luck. It is, for example, simply unfortunate that Emil's father steps into the mousetrap that Emil has set (and he is truly just trying to be helpful, as the farmhouse is being overrun with and by rodents) and Emil also does not get his head stuck in the soup tureen out of malice but because he wants to slurp out the last bit of the delicious soup his mother has cooked.
And indeed, one of my absolute favourite episodes in Michel aus Lönneberga is when Emil (when Michel) invites all of the residents of the local Poor House for Christmas dinner at the family farm (after they had been unfairly cheated out of their own Christmas dinner by the gluttonous and bullying, scheming matron of the Poor House). And I for one, will never, ever consider this escapade of Emil's even remotely a prank, but yes and instead a wonderful and caring, socially conscientious gesture, one which demonstrates that above all, Emil is a sweet and kind boy with a huge and loving, socially wide and open heart. And I have always been rather annoyed (both as a child and now as an adult) that Emil actually ends up being punished for using up much of the food stored in the pantry (for a family Christmas reunion) to feed the local poor (and personally, I firmly believe and have always believed that Emil does right to make use of that food to feed the miserable and starving inmates of the Poor House, as his family's relatives are not in any manner starving, and they all still manage to get a more than decent Christmas meal). Thus and for me, that feast for the poor is a truly heroic gesture and shows that Emil cares deeply, and that a goodly number of his so-called misdeeds are thus not "pranky" at all, but rather the opposite so to speak.
But while I therefore do love and appreciate the characters and anecdotes of Michel aus Lönneberga as much as I did when I was a child (and on a thematic and contents based level), I have to say that as an older adult, I now tend to find the anonymous narrator (or more precisely, the voice of said narrator) both distracting and perhaps even rather patronising and annoying this time around. Now I never noticed this when I was a child, so perhaps children would tend to have no or at least less of a problem with this, but it was actually kind of interfering with my reading, distracting me, keeping me aloof, and not as engaged as I would like to have been. And no, I did not at all mind the narrator when I was a child, but to my adult self, he/she just seems rather like a total and massively frustrating know-it-all, who is constantly interrupting and distracting me, for I do not like having everything explained and commented on (and while Michel's, or rather Emil's story and his many exploits and such are still very much and sweetly enjoyable, rather a bit of the Astrid Lindgren's textual magic has now unfortunately somewhat dissipated due to my current and present annoyance with the patronising and to me somewhat artificial narratorial tone of authorial interference and its somewhat pedantic lecturing).