What do you think?
Rate this book
They Found a Cave
Some adventurous children run away from unpopular guardians to live in a cave in the Tasmanian bush, where they meet a bushman they nick-name "Mad Dad" and discover an unusual treasure.
188 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
About the author
Nan Chauncy
32 books10 followersEmigrated to Tasmania, Australia in 1912. The family settled in the rural community of Bagdad in 1914. Chauncy died of cancer in 1970.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
October 19, 2015
Written in 1947 THEY FOUND A CAVE is a story of four children, Nigel, Cherry, Brickenden (Brick) and Anthony (Nippy) who have been sent from war-torn England by their parents to live in safety with their Aunt Jandie in rural Tasmania in 1939. Their arrival is greeted with enthusiasm by young farm boy Tas, whose mother (Ma Pinner) and step-father (Pa Pinner) work on Aunt Jandie’s property as the housekeeper and general hand. Tas is not well treated and he loves having kids near his age to interact with. While the children all have chores to do on the farm there is plenty of time to explore the surrounding bush and enjoy themselves. The four siblings get upset over the way the Pinner’s ill-treat Tas, and them if their aunt is not around, and soon learn to keep out of their way
Then Aunt Jandie has to go into goes to hospital, and leave the children in the care of the despised Pinner’s. It only takes a day or so for the children’s lives to be made unbearable so Tas help them move to a nearby cave up in the hills overlooking the farm and they set up a home away from home there while they wait for their aunt to return. They all thrive in the rough conditions; complimented by raids on the farm for extra supplies, then they discover the Pinner’s are out to swindle their aunt the kids decide to expose them.
This is a really good adventure story and I loved the old fashioned fun the kids had, and how they managed to thwart evil adults.
Then Aunt Jandie has to go into goes to hospital, and leave the children in the care of the despised Pinner’s. It only takes a day or so for the children’s lives to be made unbearable so Tas help them move to a nearby cave up in the hills overlooking the farm and they set up a home away from home there while they wait for their aunt to return. They all thrive in the rough conditions; complimented by raids on the farm for extra supplies, then they discover the Pinner’s are out to swindle their aunt the kids decide to expose them.
This is a really good adventure story and I loved the old fashioned fun the kids had, and how they managed to thwart evil adults.
August 29, 2008
This is the first book I can ever remember reading. I got it from the Glen Dhu Primary School library on my first day of grade 3 in 1965 and I have been hooked on reading ever since. A great story about kids in the Tasmanian bush.
February 5, 2015
‘Hollow Tree was a fine mark on the landscape.’
Four children, Nigel, Cherry, Brickenden (Brick) and Anthony (Nippy) have been sent from England to live with their Aunt Jandie in rural Tasmania after war broke out in 1939. They make friends with Tas Pinner, whose mother (Ma Pinner) and step-father (Pa Pinner) work on Aunt Jandie’s property. For now, it’s the summer holidays, and while the children have chores to attend to around the farm, they have plenty of time to explore the bush with Tas.
But Aunt Jandie has to leave the farm for medical treatment - she hopes to be back in a week - and leaves the children in the care of Ma and Pa Pinner. Ma and Pa Pinner are simply awful people, and the five children make plans to leave the farm and set up home in the cave they found up in the mountain near the farm. Once in the cave, with supplies augmented by raids on the farm, the children are marvellously self-sufficient. They meet ‘Mad Dad’ Williams avoid recapture by Pa Pinner, and make some interesting discoveries. When Nigel makes a trip to town to try to collect mail, they uncover a plan by the Pinners to steal from Aunt Jandie and abandon the farm. Will the Pinners be foiled? Will Aunt Jandie return?
I first read this novel (and then saw the film) during the 1960s. I loved it. An adventure story for children set in Tasmania. A story in which resourceful children removed themselves from a difficult (and possibly dangerous) situation, took care of themselves (and Aunt Jandie’s goats) really appealed to me. Revisiting the novel 50 years later was fun. While most aspects of the story are timeless, the children’s discussion around the discovery of aboriginal human bones in a cave may strike some readers as culturally insensitive. Despite that, the novel is well worth reading (or rereading).
It’s bonza, mate.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
Four children, Nigel, Cherry, Brickenden (Brick) and Anthony (Nippy) have been sent from England to live with their Aunt Jandie in rural Tasmania after war broke out in 1939. They make friends with Tas Pinner, whose mother (Ma Pinner) and step-father (Pa Pinner) work on Aunt Jandie’s property. For now, it’s the summer holidays, and while the children have chores to attend to around the farm, they have plenty of time to explore the bush with Tas.
But Aunt Jandie has to leave the farm for medical treatment - she hopes to be back in a week - and leaves the children in the care of Ma and Pa Pinner. Ma and Pa Pinner are simply awful people, and the five children make plans to leave the farm and set up home in the cave they found up in the mountain near the farm. Once in the cave, with supplies augmented by raids on the farm, the children are marvellously self-sufficient. They meet ‘Mad Dad’ Williams avoid recapture by Pa Pinner, and make some interesting discoveries. When Nigel makes a trip to town to try to collect mail, they uncover a plan by the Pinners to steal from Aunt Jandie and abandon the farm. Will the Pinners be foiled? Will Aunt Jandie return?
I first read this novel (and then saw the film) during the 1960s. I loved it. An adventure story for children set in Tasmania. A story in which resourceful children removed themselves from a difficult (and possibly dangerous) situation, took care of themselves (and Aunt Jandie’s goats) really appealed to me. Revisiting the novel 50 years later was fun. While most aspects of the story are timeless, the children’s discussion around the discovery of aboriginal human bones in a cave may strike some readers as culturally insensitive. Despite that, the novel is well worth reading (or rereading).
It’s bonza, mate.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
September 29, 2021
In his introduction to this children's novel, an introduction provocatively entitled "A Child's First Primer of [sic] Subversion", alleged children's author John Marsden sings the praises of this very minor work as only an adult who has made it his life's ambition to set up a farm where children are encouraged to run with sticks and call it a school could.
We all know that it is a much vaunted and beloved trait of what was once recognised as the Australian character - a concept now long since rendered meaningless by multiculturalism - that "we" (Australians) were scofflaws, people who spoke to power with dignity and defiance, who questioned authority where it was found wanting.
We were once subversive.
In this children's handbook on surviving in the bush after running away from your parents, a group of children - all bar one of which are Brits who have fled the consequences of the war in Europe - have run away from home, because two adults - the parents of the one local boy - have been simply beastly to them.
Yes, run away from home.
This isn't a spoiler, because it's in the title: They found a cave, and they set up house in that cave, living a life of freedom liberated from those meany-beany parents... of that one boy.
In this introduction Marsden makes this claim:
"We do not find this level of subversion in the works of that mass-market phenomenon of the 1940s and 50s, Enid Blyton."
Stirring, nationalistic stuff right there, cor blimey!
If it were true.
It's not.
Presumably Marsden had not read "Five Run Away to the Seaside" before writing this introduction. If he had, then he might have had to take a different angle.
Because that book and this book are basically the same story.
Not in the "Star Wars and Seven Samurai are basically the same story" way, but in the "whoever wrote this first, their lawyer has some calls to make" way.
[From this point on, there are bunches of SPOILERS, so you might like to read the book and then come back... up to you]
Marsden notes that in this three-hour wonder,
"There is something quite extraordinary about [Tas]; an aspect of his life that is almost unknown in children's books prior to the publication of They Found A Cave. It is this: Tas has a mother and step-father who are simply awful. They are bullies, liars, and thieves. They have no redeeming qualities."
Which is exactly the description you could give of the Sticks from the Enid Blyton book.
Here are the differences between the books:
- The awful parents belong in this book to one of the protagonists, whereas in the Blyton book they have a son whom the Famous Five bully and torment
- The children have a cat (Fluffles) rather than a dog (Timothy)
- There is a skeleton of an Aboriginal that is the treasure, rather than a kidnapped child
- That's it. Those are the differences.
Here are the similarities:
- Their preferred adult carer becomes sick, leaving them to go and spend a long time in hospital far away
- They are left in the care of awful adults in loco parentis who the children take a dislike to
- The awful adults are from a different caste or class to the children
- One of the children is locked in a shed as a punishment
- The children run away
- They live in a cave
- The girl in the group takes on the role of the housekeeper in the cave
- They sustain their runaway lifestyle by stealing from the people they have run away from
- There is a treasure to be had
- The awful adults turn out to be criminals who are brought to justice
- The sick preferred-adult-carer is finally reunited with the children
Read them back-to-back if you don't believe me.
Which is the better one?
If anything, Blyton actually makes a better case for the Sticks to be hated by the children than Chauncy does for the Pinners. It takes Blyton half the novel to make it seem that there is a good reason for the Sticks to be seen as not just a lower class than the Famous Five, but that there are also other reasons why they should be hated. In this book, the Pinners are just... well, parents of their day, really. Mean, scratchy, undemonstrative, taunting.
You know, olden days parents.
And while Marsden goes on about how brave and Australian it is to run away from problematic parents, it has to be said that the children do not really effectively confront the Pinners with their beastliness in such a manner as might bring about change. Like the Five, they just turn their backs on them as a lost cause.
That would be actual subversion: to try to bring about change.
So why would you read this pale imitation of a terrible Enid Blyton book rather than the Enid Blyton book itself?
Certainly, Nan Chauncy has added in little useful tips for living in the Tasmanian bush for MONTHS, such as how to use the sap of bracken ferns as an antidote to ant bite, and how to make tea leaves settle in a billy (you tap it on the side), but really, these are the same story. You'd have to suspect that Chauncy had a copy of the Blyton novel that she was "adapting" to suit her own background and new environment as a British migrant to Tasmania.
Surely no self-respecting subversive child would have run away to live in the bush for MONTHS without packing this in amongst their bags of flour and meat and tea and sugar and axes and hammers and nails and cement (yep, they do some masonry work on the cave) and flour and...
Did I mention that they live in this cave for MONTHS?
They drink from a tarn (a good Aussie word if ever there was one) that they also wash in. This tarn is apparently a neverending supply of clear fresh water that does not need to be boiled, possibly because it has reeds growing in it. She makes a big deal about the reeds, so they must have something to do with it.
They live on native birds that they eat, as well as rabbits and, of course, copious supplies of Sunday Dinner Roasts that they steal from the people they have run away from (just as the Famous Five do).
They live about 200 yards from the homestead, up a hill, in this cave. They regularly hear Pa Pinner - the male adult they've run away from - chopping wood. As anyone who has ever been in the rurals and heard someone chopping wood, you'd know that you can hear it for miles.
The children also chop wood.
So, they live just there, they chop wood, they cook odorous meat, they sing loud songs...
The thing that gives their location away?
Well, on the first day they were moving in all the stolen supplies, they dropped some flour on a rock. They tried to wash it away, but, unfortunately, after MONTHS of exposure to the elements, the flour was still there, pointing to the cave they were living in.
Just stupid writing.
The children - all bar one being Brits (remember) who've come to Tasmania to escape the bombing of London rather than ducking through the back of a wardrobe - all feel quite at home in the bush pretty much straight away, and fall in love with it. All they need to truly fit in completely is to learn the lingo ("lollies" is the word for "Sweets") from Tas (short for Tasman, if you can stomach that), and find out some yarns about the "old Blackfellows" who died out "about sixty years after the Europeans first arrived".
Blytonesque.
The attitudes to the Aboriginal people in this are just shocking on so many levels... and apparently Chauncy was fully woke to the plight of the Tasmanians, so she has no excuse.
Most disturbingly, there is one child called Nigel whose name is shortened to "Nig", which just stabs me in the eyes everytime I see it. Presumably it's pronounced "NY-j" (to rhyme with "FLY-j"), but on the page it is "Nig", and it's on half the pages.
And there's no mention of the Convictism that the colony was built on.
All in all, a bad show, really.
Speaking of which, it was made into a film, in 1962, which was before I was even born, so don't blame me.
https://youtu.be/TVOc800xMfk
Music by Peter Sculthorpe, if you can believe that.
We all know that it is a much vaunted and beloved trait of what was once recognised as the Australian character - a concept now long since rendered meaningless by multiculturalism - that "we" (Australians) were scofflaws, people who spoke to power with dignity and defiance, who questioned authority where it was found wanting.
We were once subversive.
In this children's handbook on surviving in the bush after running away from your parents, a group of children - all bar one of which are Brits who have fled the consequences of the war in Europe - have run away from home, because two adults - the parents of the one local boy - have been simply beastly to them.
Yes, run away from home.
This isn't a spoiler, because it's in the title: They found a cave, and they set up house in that cave, living a life of freedom liberated from those meany-beany parents... of that one boy.
In this introduction Marsden makes this claim:
"We do not find this level of subversion in the works of that mass-market phenomenon of the 1940s and 50s, Enid Blyton."
Stirring, nationalistic stuff right there, cor blimey!
If it were true.
It's not.
Presumably Marsden had not read "Five Run Away to the Seaside" before writing this introduction. If he had, then he might have had to take a different angle.
Because that book and this book are basically the same story.
Not in the "Star Wars and Seven Samurai are basically the same story" way, but in the "whoever wrote this first, their lawyer has some calls to make" way.
[From this point on, there are bunches of SPOILERS, so you might like to read the book and then come back... up to you]
Marsden notes that in this three-hour wonder,
"There is something quite extraordinary about [Tas]; an aspect of his life that is almost unknown in children's books prior to the publication of They Found A Cave. It is this: Tas has a mother and step-father who are simply awful. They are bullies, liars, and thieves. They have no redeeming qualities."
Which is exactly the description you could give of the Sticks from the Enid Blyton book.
Here are the differences between the books:
- The awful parents belong in this book to one of the protagonists, whereas in the Blyton book they have a son whom the Famous Five bully and torment
- The children have a cat (Fluffles) rather than a dog (Timothy)
- There is a skeleton of an Aboriginal that is the treasure, rather than a kidnapped child
- That's it. Those are the differences.
Here are the similarities:
- Their preferred adult carer becomes sick, leaving them to go and spend a long time in hospital far away
- They are left in the care of awful adults in loco parentis who the children take a dislike to
- The awful adults are from a different caste or class to the children
- One of the children is locked in a shed as a punishment
- The children run away
- They live in a cave
- The girl in the group takes on the role of the housekeeper in the cave
- They sustain their runaway lifestyle by stealing from the people they have run away from
- There is a treasure to be had
- The awful adults turn out to be criminals who are brought to justice
- The sick preferred-adult-carer is finally reunited with the children
Read them back-to-back if you don't believe me.
Which is the better one?
If anything, Blyton actually makes a better case for the Sticks to be hated by the children than Chauncy does for the Pinners. It takes Blyton half the novel to make it seem that there is a good reason for the Sticks to be seen as not just a lower class than the Famous Five, but that there are also other reasons why they should be hated. In this book, the Pinners are just... well, parents of their day, really. Mean, scratchy, undemonstrative, taunting.
You know, olden days parents.
And while Marsden goes on about how brave and Australian it is to run away from problematic parents, it has to be said that the children do not really effectively confront the Pinners with their beastliness in such a manner as might bring about change. Like the Five, they just turn their backs on them as a lost cause.
That would be actual subversion: to try to bring about change.
So why would you read this pale imitation of a terrible Enid Blyton book rather than the Enid Blyton book itself?
Certainly, Nan Chauncy has added in little useful tips for living in the Tasmanian bush for MONTHS, such as how to use the sap of bracken ferns as an antidote to ant bite, and how to make tea leaves settle in a billy (you tap it on the side), but really, these are the same story. You'd have to suspect that Chauncy had a copy of the Blyton novel that she was "adapting" to suit her own background and new environment as a British migrant to Tasmania.
Surely no self-respecting subversive child would have run away to live in the bush for MONTHS without packing this in amongst their bags of flour and meat and tea and sugar and axes and hammers and nails and cement (yep, they do some masonry work on the cave) and flour and...
Did I mention that they live in this cave for MONTHS?
They drink from a tarn (a good Aussie word if ever there was one) that they also wash in. This tarn is apparently a neverending supply of clear fresh water that does not need to be boiled, possibly because it has reeds growing in it. She makes a big deal about the reeds, so they must have something to do with it.
They live on native birds that they eat, as well as rabbits and, of course, copious supplies of Sunday Dinner Roasts that they steal from the people they have run away from (just as the Famous Five do).
They live about 200 yards from the homestead, up a hill, in this cave. They regularly hear Pa Pinner - the male adult they've run away from - chopping wood. As anyone who has ever been in the rurals and heard someone chopping wood, you'd know that you can hear it for miles.
The children also chop wood.
So, they live just there, they chop wood, they cook odorous meat, they sing loud songs...
The thing that gives their location away?
Well, on the first day they were moving in all the stolen supplies, they dropped some flour on a rock. They tried to wash it away, but, unfortunately, after MONTHS of exposure to the elements, the flour was still there, pointing to the cave they were living in.
Just stupid writing.
The children - all bar one being Brits (remember) who've come to Tasmania to escape the bombing of London rather than ducking through the back of a wardrobe - all feel quite at home in the bush pretty much straight away, and fall in love with it. All they need to truly fit in completely is to learn the lingo ("lollies" is the word for "Sweets") from Tas (short for Tasman, if you can stomach that), and find out some yarns about the "old Blackfellows" who died out "about sixty years after the Europeans first arrived".
Blytonesque.
The attitudes to the Aboriginal people in this are just shocking on so many levels... and apparently Chauncy was fully woke to the plight of the Tasmanians, so she has no excuse.
Most disturbingly, there is one child called Nigel whose name is shortened to "Nig", which just stabs me in the eyes everytime I see it. Presumably it's pronounced "NY-j" (to rhyme with "FLY-j"), but on the page it is "Nig", and it's on half the pages.
And there's no mention of the Convictism that the colony was built on.
All in all, a bad show, really.
Speaking of which, it was made into a film, in 1962, which was before I was even born, so don't blame me.
https://youtu.be/TVOc800xMfk
Music by Peter Sculthorpe, if you can believe that.
April 16, 2015
I really wish I'd read this as a kid. How did I not know about it? I would have loved the adventure, and longed for my own secret cave. Still enjoyed the read, but not as much as my younger self would have!
December 17, 2025
I remember reading this from one of the many Tasmanian libraries I frequented as a child who moved around. Apart from the 'of their time' attitudes to the first Tasmanians, it was still a cracking read today. I remember visiting Chauncy Vale where Nan Chauncy lived where this is set, as a child. She's an excellent writer, on a par with British mid 20th century childrens writers. It's a gripping adventure and children surviving on their own novel.
November 5, 2021
One of my all-time favourite books. My favourite story theme as a child was children fending for themselves in an adventurous setting.
A great Australian author.
A great Australian author.
January 16, 2024
An excellent adventure story. Made all the better for having visited Chancyvale where Nan Chauncy wrote her stories. Could imagine the scenes clearly. I want to live in a cave!
March 8, 2024
Delightful
December 8, 2012
The rating I have given this book is in comparison to the five stars I gave "Tangara" by the same author. Yes, I guess it may also reflect the fact that I read the book only recently in a fit of nostalgia or that Chauncy may have intended it for an audience largely of boys.
I loved the retro feel of life in a simpler time and I know it is asking too much of a writer in the fifties to be seen as politically correct in the 21st Century, but there were moments where I felt uncomfortable with the cultural insensitivity in relation to the remains in the cave.
I have recently re-read all the Famous Five books by Enid Blyton and have forgiven for her sexism and other isms. Maybe I hold Chauncy to a higher standard because the issues she treats of are issues I am familiar with. I can imagine that English Gypsies would be more critical of Blyton than I am. The similarities between Chauncy and Blyton are many. They both allow their children to be heroic and, by today's standards, frighteningly unsupervised. Not that this is a criticism... Children these days are, in my opinion, somewhat over nannied. I wonder if Chauncy styled herself as an Australian Blyton. However it is, Is clear that Chauncy was much more culturally aware and sensitive than Blyton. I just wanted her to go one step further.
January 24, 2017
‘Another Australian treasure from the Text Classics series…The story is a cracking one.’
Weekend Herald
‘This is a good read. As an adult, rediscovering this book, I enjoyed it…for the pleasure of Chauncy’s descriptions, and the reminders that attitudes have changed.’
M/C Reviews
Weekend Herald
‘This is a good read. As an adult, rediscovering this book, I enjoyed it…for the pleasure of Chauncy’s descriptions, and the reminders that attitudes have changed.’
M/C Reviews
August 7, 2013
I wish I'd had this to read as a child.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews