From Amazon.com:
Mary Poppins tells the story of the world's most beloved nanny, "who brings enchantment and excitement with her everywhere she goes. From the moment Mary Poppins arrives at Number Seventeen Cherry-Tree Lane, everyday life at the Banks house is forever changed.

The story of Mary Poppins is delightful and magical, imaginative and bewitching - a true classic of children's literature! P.L. Travers is a fantastically witty storyteller, and has written an adventurous story for children of all ages. Mary Poppins is light hearted and fun to read. ( )

My mother read this story to me as a child, but I don't recall it. I am in love with the film, of course, so I do need to read the books. I need to see Travers's Mary, not Julie Andrews - and there is a great difference. Andrews doesn't quite portray the vanity, airs, or scolding v. well. She's too nice. I can see why Travers hated the film so much.
The story is, of course, delightful. It is everything I love in British children's literature. Properness and whimsy. I will be seeking out the rest of the series. I will always be devoted to Disney's adaptation, because of the songs, Julie Andrews, and the place it holds in my heart. But I think I rather like the snippier Mary. Not sure why.

I originally began reading another edition - a revised edition from 1981. Curious as to what was revised, I sought out a version from the year it was first published - 1934. As I'd expected, the changes had to do with racial ideas of the time. People from the four corners of the world (outrageous caricatures of people, really) were replaced with animals. This is not surprising. The southern people (a horrific cross of Southern American blacks with Islanders and Africans, all in a v. sambo presentation) alone are insulting even to a white girl like me, but not surprising. This is how a white person, particularly an Aussie and Brit, would see the world. ( )

still need to read, films ok, bit long, fave part is scene with pigeons ( )

Another case of "the book is better than the movie." Sacrilege? Maybe. The book doesn't have Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, the book's Mary Poppins isn't quite so perky (possibly bordering on the stern), Bert isn't a chimney sweep, the parents are much less visible, and there are twin babies included. But there was something warmer and more touching about the book, a bit more real-life in spite of the magic. And I liked it better. ( )

My earliest remembrance of watching the Disney adaptation of Mary Poppins is from when I was quite young - young enough that I didn't even understand the story fully. As such, when I found out that not only was there a book about the whimsical and beloved character, but that the book came long before the movie, I was somewhat ashamed that I hadn't known and had let myself be ignorant for so long.

When I did finally acquire and read the book, it was quite a shock. While there are elements of the movie that were carried over from the book, it seems like the movie diverged a great deal from the story that P.L. Travers actually wrote. I assume that she was alright with the changes as she and Walt Disney apparently discussed plans for the movie, but that doesn't lessen the shock.

Mary Poppins in text is more vain, more snappish and considerably more strict than I was expecting, while at the same time indulging in the kind of fantasies and fancies that the Banks children (four in all, rather than the two in movie-land) can come up with, while not letting them get too carried away so as to have them thinking these kinds of events will happen all the time.

To be perfectly honest, Mary Poppins is perfectly perplexing. I enjoyed the book, despite its divergences from the beloved movie (or rather, the movie's divergences from it). I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good, youthful story with a touch of the unusual mixed in. ( )