The CBB :: View topic - Blame and guilt

through

#1: Blame and guilt Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:39 pm
—
Just following on from the discussion in FD about Josette's accident, there seems to be a rather contradictory attitude in the books over this - just wondered what people thought about it.

There are various occasions on which people are, probably quite rightly in most of our opinions, assured that they mustn't blame themselves for accidents in which they were involved, e.g. Herr Laubach when Naomi falls and hurts herself and Hilda Jukes when Nina sprains her wrist. Sometimes this happens even when the person concerned was slightly more culpable, e.g. Emerence with Mary-Lou's accident (although the accident probably wouldn't have happened if Mary-Lou hadn't been being a busybody!).

Then there are other occasions on which, in the spirit of forgiveness or whatever, it's tacitly agreed that incidents in which people were clearly blameworthy will not be mentioned again, e.g. Deira chucking a stone at Grizel and Margot chucking a bookend at Betty Landon. Margot in particular seems to get off very lightly.

On the other hand, there are cases where people are made to feel very guilty over things that were either genuine accidents or where the results of their actions, however careless, couldn't possibly have been foreseen. The 3 most obvious ones (unless I've forgotten anything really obvious!) are:

1. Sybil being made to feel permanently guilty for Josette's accident. OK, she was disobedient and careless, but she was very young at the time and it was a complete accident - she never meant to hurt anyone.
2. Stacie being made to feel that it would be her fault if Robin developed TB, because Robin was worried when the school party was delayed due to an avalanche which they might have avoided had Stacie not accidentally pushed Nell. That really is stretching it Confused

!
3. Thekla being told, by the headmistress, that if Mrs Linton had died at that point then she (Thekla) would have been a murderess! OK, Thekla shouldn't have tried to get Joyce into bother, but there's no suggestion that it ever occurred to her that Joyce's mum might be upset - and the salient point that Mrs Linton had been suffering from a life-threatening illness for some time just didn't get mentioned.

Sorry about the long waffle Embarassed

. Just wondered what other people's thoughts on the subject were.

#2: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:15 am
—
There are also cases where the blame seems disproportionate to the offence. In Three Go, when Verity refuses to sing German and is publicly defiant, several of the middles give a 'suppressed splutter' in shock. Their punishment is a thorough dressing down that leaves them in tears, formal written apologies to Mr Denny, an evening spent doing mending and losing two conduct marks each. This, for a ten year old who is unable to restrain from an involuntary sound of surprise!

Then there is poor Jane, who is dressed down for either allowing Jack to attack her after prolonged bullying, or for defending herself from physical attack, I'm not sure which. Or Betty, whose tactlessness cause Margot to throw the bookend.

The case with Eustacia is even worse, as they would have been stranded in the storm anyways, and the foot injury merely delayed their rescue in the morning. She was perhaps responsible for Miss Wilson's foot, but the person to blame for Robin was Madge and Jem and her father, for allowing such a frail child to go on the expedition.

Or Anne Seymour, who is demoted from her promised Head Girl position for reaching for flowers in a perilous place and almost falling, having to be rescued.

Or Michael, who at eight (the same age as Sybil in the accident), slips while going for a birds' nest, causing his mother to faint. He is then shunned by his father after being made aware that he has hurt his mother, and is allowed to cry himself sick, and banished from the family for most of the summer. He gets no reassurances after nearly being seriously hurt, no blame to his parents for not teaching him better behaviour - all the blame is his, and all the concern Joey's.

Or Lydia and Bob Maynard being blamed for the death of Rolf through deliberate disobedience, because if they had raised him better he would have lived - and being *told* this to their faces. But Joey isn't blamed for not raising Margot or Mike better, and with a slight slip of fate, Mike could have died in the mountains, or Margot in Lake Lucerne.

I haven't been able to figure out the logic, although it would appear if you are Margot or Joey you aren't to blame. I suspect it may have had to do with EBD's internal view of the character - spoiled brat who deserved to be punished, person who needed reforming, or favourite character.

#3: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:06 pm
—
I would have thought that the portion of blame to be dealt out would be particular to the person involved but reading all of the examples you have given, I'm not so sure! Sometimes it does seem though as if blame is being given for something (ie given to Stacie for Robin's anxiety->TB) when it's actually being given for something else (ie given to Stacie for the way she has been behaving ever since she came). So lots of the reasons for the blame are just excuses for something else. Which is unfair, and a bit against the CS ethos of fairness, I would think.

Second (and last!) thought on the subject - how much of the blame/guilt issues stem from EBD's religious views I wonder. Especially after she became Catholic, with all the confessional ideologies that come with that. Forgiveness for serious incidents seems strong to her - ie Margot (but then Margot did spend her life atoning for her inherent badness by becoming a nun?). Maybe you could say that Sybil also spent her life atoning for the accident with Josette by becoming the reserved, sidelined character who has big issues with how she looks. Confused

#4: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:05 am
—
For me it isn't possible to generalize about the blaming patterns in EBD, since each instance is unique. In general, I do find both some reasons for apportioning blame and, almost always, the levels of punishment, over the top. Within the school, it sometimes reminds me of my parents' concept that there must be guilt on all sides of a sibling spat, but taken to ridiculous lengths, as in the case of the involuntary gasps, poor bullied Jane, or Blossom locked in the art room. However, it's the ostracizing behavior of EBD's male role models that seems most shocking to me. I sometimes wonder whether EBD had suffered enough physical abuse to consider extreme applications of "I'm too angry to talk with you" the preferable option.

There are probably some instances in which I disagree with the majority view. For example, I don't think that Sybil was blamed all her life for Josette, though it is true that the accident was a life-changing event, the point at which it struck home that behavior can have very real consequences. It seems quite realistic to me both that it would become her touchstone when tempted elsewhere, and that the family would mark it as the beginning of her transformation. I think that Jo's statement that she felt most sorry for Sybil after the accident was not meant negatively at all, but as a statement of true empathy: an understanding of how much Sybil had suffered 'knowing' that she was at fault -- even though yes, it was largely an accident.

In the case of Stacy, I don't think EBD meant to condone the way Jo and the others behaved after the accident at all. Rather, she makes it clear that such behavior is totally immature, though perhaps realistic.

Róisín wrote:

Second (and last!) thought on the subject - how much of the blame/guilt issues stem from EBD's religious views I wonder. Especially after she became Catholic, with all the confessional ideologies that come with that. Forgiveness for serious incidents seems strong to her - ie Margot (but then Margot did spend her life atoning for her inherent badness by becoming a nun?). Confused

I don't think the idea of being a nun as atonement fits EBD's theology very well. Rather, Margot and her struggles fit the standard trope of someone who has been resisting the call. Think St. Augustine, for example. To put it in medieval terms, Satan gets a particular thrill out of interfering with a vocation. By overcoming "her devil" -- literal or figurative -- Margot is meant to become both a stronger and a more compassionate nun.

(Not that I'm denying there's such a thing as "Catholic guilt." *can be guilted into almost anything*)

#5: Re: Blame and guilt Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:28 am
—

Alison H wrote:

Sybil being made to feel permanently guilty for Josette's accident. OK, she was disobedient and careless, but she was very young at the time and it was a complete accident - she never meant to hurt anyone.

Yes she was made to feel guilty but certainly not by Madge. Madge was the only one who forgave her straight away and defended her when Miss Bubb asked how she could forgive her and Madge said something to the effect Sybil was as much her daughter as Josette and she didn't mean to hurt her sister and has felt terrible about it. The only person who brought it up was Joey when Madge wrote and asked if Joey could break it gently to Sybil that the Russells had to stay in Canada and Jem who took a lot longer to forgive. I feel sorry for Madge during that time as she needed to be with Josette who potentially was dying at the time (they do say she nearly died) and with her older daughter who everyone else was shunning for the accident with Matey as her only ally for getting Jem to see sense.

Alison H wrote:

Stacie being made to feel that it would be her fault if Robin developed TB, because Robin was worried when the school party was delayed due to an avalanche which they might have avoided had Stacie not accidentally pushed Nell. That really is stretching it Confused

I don't think anyone but Joey blamed Stacie for that. Madge tells her off for having such an unchristain attitude and Marie is troubled by Joey blaming Stacie. Even Joey when the worry is past realises and acknowledges she was unfair and it wasn't the cause. I think Joey was wanting to focus her anger and worry about Robin's health onto someone and Stacie was the target. Unreasonable but very realistic. I think she was blamed for causing Miss Wilson's accident and her sprained ankle but if the books were consistent Joey would be as much to blame as Jane is for defending herself from Jack or Betty for causing Margot to throw her bookend at her.

Alison H wrote:

Thekla being told, by the headmistress, that if Mrs Linton had died at that point then she (Thekla) would have been a murderess! OK, Thekla shouldn't have tried to get Joyce into bother, but there's no suggestion that it ever occurred to her that Joyce's mum might be upset - and the salient point that Mrs Linton had been suffering from a life-threatening illness for some time just didn't get mentioned.

True but she would have died sooner as proved when Mrs Linton heard through gossip that Joyce had been expelled. Yes Joyce contributed by her own behaviour but Thekla wasn't supportive of Joyce trying to rectify that

#6: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:56 pm
—
I always read it that Jack avoided seeing Mike for some days after he'd upset Joey so badly because he was afraid he'd be unnecessarily harsh with him if he did see him - so it was for Mike's own protection.

Jack seems to have had a worse temper even than Margot!

#7: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:32 am
—
Hmmm, can't agree with those that felt neither Eustacia nor Sybil were blamed

Quote:

"...Oh, Eustacia. If only you had learned self-control, all this need never have happened."

This from Miss Stewart - she's definitely blaming only Eustacia for the accident. And later it seems that she's also being blamed for Robin's illness as well, with Dr Jem, Mademoiselle and the entire School blaming Eustacia for the accident and for Robin's illness. It's only in the next book that it is only Jo who is blaming her for Robin's illness.

Quote:

"...After all," she (Sybil) added with a sigh, "it was my fault in the beginning."
"Josette's illness certainly was," Jo agreed. "I was desperately sorry for you, Sybs, during that time - sorrier for you than anyone else, even your mother. It was hard for her to see Josette suffer, and know that there was a chance that she mightn't live; or even if she did, she might never be well again. Madge had nothing to blame herself for. She's a wonderful mother, and she'd done everything she could to help you all. If anything dreadful had happened, you would have known it was your fault. Now, my lamb, you can forget all that. It's finished. Josette is going to be as sturdy as any of you. So promise me not to think of it any more."

Hmmm, perhaps Joey does mean to be kind - but confirming to the child that Josette's accident was solely her fault, no-one elses, rather than saying that it was an accident, isn't really likely to make her feel any better about it, is it? As far as I can see that speech will just confirm to Sybil (who has just been told her parents won't be home from Canada as soon as expected) that the entire reason Josette nearly died was solely due to her. Nothing about the fact that there were no adults around to supervise an eight year old and a four year old in a kitchen, with a boiling kettle on a lit stove. Nothing about the fact that the reason Sybil dropped the kettle was because Josette ran into her. Surely, had Joey wanted just to comfort she could had said that it was an accident - that it wasn't deliberate, that she knew Sybil never intended any harm. Instead she's just confirmed the fact that Sybil holds full responsibility to a child of, what, 13? Not very impressed with Joey there - with all her supposed empathy for others she could have found a better way to put it.

#8: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:16 pm
—
Having just read Eustacia and being half way through And Jo I've been thinking about the whole Eustacia being to blame for Robin's possible illness.

I agree in Eustacia it does seem that everyone is blaming her and I don't get that. The storm would have whatever and they were going to be stranded overnight anyway. The only way they could have stopped the Robin worrying was the morning after when the guide leaves to get help. If they were worried about the Robin worrying then couldn't he have made contact somehow when he got back to civilisation somehow, before he came back with helpers to get the party down the mountain? Or would that not have been practical - would it have made him much later rescuing the stranded schoolgirls? If that is the case then I suppose that the accident did make them later. But it’s still the storm that keeps them out overnight.

In And Jo I think Jo’s pretty restrained. And when they have decided Robin doesn’t have TB she tells Stacie not to blame herself.

Stacie: “I think I must have suffered quite as much. If anything – had – gone wrong. I should always have felt that it was my fault you see.” Jo tells her “Never say that again,” and makes it clear that she doesn’t think it was her fault for which Stacie is immensely grateful.

Personally, I find it a bit much Stacie telling Jo it would have been worse for her than for Jo. I know she only trying to explain her guilt but Jo’s the one who loves the Robin. I’d be tempted to come back with a “You can’t possibly understand how awful it was for me, you don’t love her like I do”.

#9: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:25 am
—

Mrs Redboots wrote:

I always read it that Jack avoided seeing Mike for some days after he'd upset Joey so badly because he was afraid he'd be unnecessarily harsh with him if he did see him - so it was for Mike's own protection.

Jack seems to have had a worse temper even than Margot!

I think it's pretty easy to figure out where Margot got her temper from. Joey is impulsive and has poor self control, but is generally not prone to either wild rages or holding grudges.

#10: Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:24 am
—

jennifer wrote:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

I think it's pretty easy to figure out where Margot got her temper from. Joey is impulsive and has poor self control, but is generally not prone to either wild rages or holding grudges.

But mix a temper with poor self control then that is a bad combination.n She inherited Jack's temper and Joey's poor self control.

#11: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:53 am
—
Yes, that makes sense - surprising that Joey, in Jo to the Rescue can't see that! Though we none of us recognise our own faults very well!

#12: Author: LizzieC, Location: Canterbury, UK

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:35 am
—

Fiona Mc wrote:

jennifer wrote:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

I think it's pretty easy to figure out where Margot got her temper from. Joey is impulsive and has poor self control, but is generally not prone to either wild rages or holding grudges.

But mix a temper with poor self control then that is a bad combination. She inherited Jack's temper and Joey's poor self control.

I would agree with this. Jack has the temper, but if anything is clear from the passages in Joey and Co (to me anyway) that he has learned at least enough self control to know when he should not be in a situation, for the good of him and of his children/whoever he is supposed to be having dealings with. I can't help feeling that there might be a very interesting story there - I doubt Jack was born with self-control or learned it overnight.

#13: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:19 pm
—
What I noticed recently when re-reading Jo to the Rescue is that the triplets, who are three, already have what seems to me to be a somewhat skewed attitude to guilt/blame/responsibility for bad behaviour.

Leaving aside for the moment that EBD can't really write small children at all convincingly - I've yet to meet an 'enchantingly courtly' three-year-old! - Margot already has an alarmingly entrenched sense that she has it harder than Len or Con because she has a worse temper. After the picnic scene where she pitches a fit because she wants someone else's playhouse, and Jack sees her throwing a tantrum for the first time, she mentions several times the fact that 'the others' don't get furious the way she does. I suppose we can either read this as more evidence that EBD's sense of what a three-year-old might be like is astonishingly unlikely - no child barely out of toddlerhood has that sense of themselves as a character with flaws, compared to the virtue or self-control of others - or of EBD's theory of character, which is that it's innate or inherited, like red hair (Margot of course remaining the most red-headed of the three).

Perhaps Margot's already absorbed this from her parents - who appear to believe entirely in inherited traits, and continually discuss their children in terms of which talent/flaw etc they've inherited from which side of the family. Certainly EBD appears to believe at times in character as innate, which reads oddly against other bits in CS books where people change virtually overnight, as signalled often by a new hairstyle (Ted Grantley, Eustacia). Certainly, one already sees in Margot a small child who has a strong sense of herself as a flawed personality (aged three!), compared to her triplets, and in them you can see strong mechanisms whereby they attempt to take the blame on themselves.

What I find unattractive in the way EBD characterises both Margot and her family's treatment of her is that it both involves labelling due to a perceived innate trait (Margot's temper) and then pity from the adults (along the lines of 'poor dear - she has a hard time ahead of her, but will be all the finer a woman for it when she conquers it') which becomes self-pity in Margot. I can entirely see the seeds of the kind of self-splitting that reappears later as Margot's 'devil', something the entire family goes along with. I suppose it makes a warped kind of sense - if there is a distinct part of you that everyone discusses as an innate negative trait, why not separate it from 'you' and call it something else?

Maybe, as someone suggested above, it has something to do, less with Catholicism as a set of doctrines, but with EBD's version of Catholicism. Certainly Jo to the Rescue is one of the books where religion is most discussed between Jo and her friends, and it's true that Catholicism does see small children as morally responsible from a young age - I made my first confession and first communion at the age of six. And Joey already has a mini-confession situation going nightly with her children, with her as priest hearing confessions. I remember us all ahead of our first confessions trying to come up with a plausible list of sins for the priest, but it sounds as though Joey's children would have no such troubles.

The parental ostracism thing also resonates strongly of the kind of thing we were taught as children by the nuns - that sin makes God's face turn away from you, and that sins hurt the Baby Jesus etc.

#14: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:57 pm
—

Quote:

Certainly EBD appears to believe at times in character as innate, which reads oddly against other bits in CS books where people change virtually overnight, as signalled often by a new hairstyle (Ted Grantley, Eustacia).

I would question whether or not EBD presents Eustacia’s character as changing from innately bad to good overnight. I see it more as her parents trying out their misguided child-rearing approach that made her appear the way she did when she arrived at the CS. EBD talks of “a thick veneer of selfish priggishness“ (don’t have the exact quote) and it is this that is hiding the true Stacie, who is not an unpleasant person. So it seems to me that Eustacia is consistent with this “character as innate” theory; she is a decent person who is acting the way she is due to her upbringing. Happily when the CS steps into reform her they reveal the true, nice person underneath.

Maybe the same can be said for Ted; her mother brings her up badly and treats her unfairly. This makes her unhappy and leads to her bad behaviour. When treated properly by the school she becomes a much nicer person – the ‘real’ Ted?

#15: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:05 pm
—
Upbringing is - quite reasonably - cited as a factor in explaining the "inappropriate" (in some cases it's not "bad" as such) behaviour of Stacie, Ted, Emerence, Thekla, Mary-Lou, Verity and to some extent Joan, and maybe to a slight extent Betty Wynne-Davies whose guardian hasn't really shown much interest in her and Grizel who has been unkindly treated by her stepmother ... and yet when Sybil plays up we're told (admittedly by Madge's sister) that Madge has absolutely nothing to blame herself for, and when Margot does some really horrendous things there's not the slightest suggestion that Jack and Joey could be in any way to blame Rolling Eyes

#16: Author: Alex, Location: Manchester

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:32 pm
—

Alison H wrote:

... and yet when Sybil plays up we're told (admittedly by Madge's sister) that Madge has absolutely nothing to blame herself for

But there is a lot of implication that other people are to blame for constantly praising Sybil's good looks and making her conceited. Perhaps Jem is due some blame? Maybe she is Daddy's Little Girl?

#17: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:10 pm
—

Alex wrote:

Alison H wrote:

... and yet when Sybil plays up we're told (admittedly by Madge's sister) that Madge has absolutely nothing to blame herself for

But there is a lot of implication that other people are to blame for constantly praising Sybil's good looks and making her conceited. Perhaps Jem is due some blame? Maybe she is Daddy's Little Girl?

But then surely, if that were to be true, Robin would be the most conceited person ever - everyone is always praising her looks and comparing her to an angel.

#18: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:11 am
—
Doesn’t it say that it would have spoilt some children but not the Robin To be fair you do have to treat different children differently. I can well imagine that some of the ‘bad parenting’ in the books would have had less of a bad effect on different children.

#19: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:08 pm
—
Hmm. The more one considers this, the odder it gets. EBD seems to have complex mechanisms for shifting blame about so that she can exonerate whichever characters the reader is encouraged to identify with. The parents are only really blamed when they are offstage - like, say, the way Emerence Hope's permissive parents are held fully responsible for her, or Eustacia's - or, even more offstage (and rather savagely), Bob and Lydia Maynard are blamed for spoiling their son and causing his death by not having taught him to obey. Yet, as everyone else was noting above, other than a blanket condemnation of people in general for their over-admiration of Sybil's looks, and the occasional suggestion that Margot's frailty may have made her family easier on her, Joey or Madge and their husbands are seen as in no way to blame for their offspring's various brushes with death/violence/blackmail. Does Margot's devil trump her upbringing, which the books presents as ideal?

#20: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:12 pm
—
I don't see the Russells or the Maynards as bad parents, but they certainly aren't perfect ones. Madge laughs off Joey's objections to Sybil at various point before the accident in a "oh, but what can we do" sense, and has other habits that seem odd, like her repeated desire to have a nice, sweet domesticated daughter, which is odd, given that Madge wasn't particularly that way, and that the older Sybil *is*. Jem is very authoritarian and has a nasty temper when he gets riled. Joey and Jack have other not so nice habits, like labelling their kids at birth and sticking them with the label, piling too much responsibility on both Len and Stephen, Jack's temper, Joey's perpetual need to be a friend of school girls, rather than a mother figure and so on.

In particular, Jack and Joey don't seem to handle strong willed, spirited, independent children who don't have much self control. Both Margot and Mike are labelled bad children very young, and their parents seem totally helpless to help the children learn to work with their natural weaknesses. Margot may be naturally quick tempered and impulsive, but that doesn't mean that she should, at age fourteen, be blaming her bad behaviour on 'her devil', or at age three thinking that she has it so much harder than her siblings based on inherent character flaws. The fact that she was spoiled, made the centre of attention, and not expected to do much as a young child, again, is not seen as her parents fault.

Mike never seems more than an active, energetic, normally mischevious boy, unlike sober, responsible Stephen, or quiet, well behaved Charles. His parents, however, throw up their hands in horror, pawn him off on the neighbours, and expect much more than a child his age really should be able to manage.

#21: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:30 pm
—

Quote:

Mike never seems more than an active, energetic, normally mischevious boy, unlike sober, responsible Stephen, or quiet, well behaved Charles. His parents, however, throw up their hands in horror, pawn him off on the neighbours, and expect much more than a child his age really should be able to manage.

Mike was probably thoroughly bored, even lonely, most of the time, stuck in the nursery at Freudesheim with no companions his own age. He'd have been much better at a dayschool from the time he was five. Stephen went to the village school at Howells (or was it at Carnbach?) for a while, but Jo and Jack never seem to have thought of sending Mike to the local school on the Platz - presumably there was one.

#22: Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:24 pm
—
In regards to Jack, I'm sure I've never heard him label his kids. In fact Joey seemed to shield him from any unpleasant behaviour as seen in Rescue and her frineds all say to her that Jack needs to be involved. Jack handles Margot's temper tantrum with ease and won't let her get away with it something both Len and Joey were trying to do. In fact Jack tells Len not to worry and he will deal with it and run along and play and listens to Con and she doesn't get told off for not allowing Margot her own way. Jack comes accross as a firm father who also seems fair in that. Len is told it's not her fault and not to worry, Con isn't told off for speaking the truth and Margot isn't allowed to get away from bad behaviour.

The only time I can remember really seeing Jack temper let loose is around Geoff's and Phil's birth. The triplets are all told not to worry their Mother as she is unwell while pregnant; the only pregnancy where we are ever told throughout the pregnancy Joey is unwell (I wonder if there was a threat with her life) and Margot behaves horrendously during that term to the point she commits an expellable act something guarenteed to break Joey's heart. Jack then has to deal with it on his own as Joey is so unwell. Then on top of it Mike heedlessly goes after an birdsnest on the side of a cliff and gets stuck and Joey colapses for two solid hours and Jack is wondering if he can revive her. Which as a doctor mean he's gone beyond the usual remedies. i don't know how many people would stay calm and unemotional throughout all that. Jack is emotional and angry and scared and rather than lash out stays away until he calms down. That to me does show restraint. It also showed he knew his limits Would people rather he beat Mike senseless. i do think sending Mike away for the summer was harsh but Jem and Madge were both suggesting it as well and I think in large part Jack needed a break after a stressful couple of months. Both Madge and Jem were extremely worried about Jack. Its only really after this the kids are told more and more not to worry their mother rather than to just be good and help their mother as most parents say when one is going to be away.

That said it is also the only event that we truly see Jack lose his temper to that extent and for the most part when he's home he does do an awful lot for and with his kids. I think most parents are imperfect and are human and Jack seems to be judged so harshly for one time when he does lose his temper so wholeheartedly and at a time when someone close to him becomes extremely ill/close to death. All other times he stays calm and impervious to others bad moods/tempers.

In regards to Madge. Madge never says she's a wonderful mother and realises her mistakes before Sybil/Josette's accident and does start pulling up Sybil for being conceited (see Lavender) and perhaps thats why she manages to forgive Sybil straight away whereas Jem and Joey don't want to see their mistakes or the mistakes of other such as Joey with Madge, tend to blam an eight year old child for it. Madge may see her own mistakes and so doesn't blame Sybil. It never seems to be acknowledged that Madge never blamed Sybil and forgave her straight away. And that its others that continually remind Sybil of that time, not Madge.

In regards to my earlier comments about Stacie I had forgotton all that was written in Eustacia and was thinking more of CS and Jo. Perhaps the others (as in Jem and the mistresses) reacted so angrily and blamed Eustacia because they themselves were at fault for allowing Robin to go and knew it. So there reaction though appalling was realistic. Joey was just flat out angry and didn't like Eustacia to begin with

#23: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:38 am
—
Mind you, a couple weeks after fainting at the beginning of Tirol, Joey is bounding around the Alps adopting random teenagers.

I think the thing that gets me about the dynamics of Jack, the children, and Joey's health is that everyone else is responsible for Joey's well being *except* Joey. The maintenance of her health is all external - we never see Joey saying that she is really tired and needs to take it easy for a while, or that she is taking on too much and needs to back down, or that she is worked up and needs to control herself. It's always Madge and Jem (at first) and later Jack that make her go to bed, send the children away, or Joey to somewhere relaxing, give her a calming dose, and so on.

In the same book as the bird's nest incident we see fourteen year old Len medically tending her brother in the middle of the night. He's in intense pain with acute appendicitis, but his first reaction is to go to his sister, not his parents, and her reaction is to treat him and medicate him rather than waking them up either.

Quote:

"Mamma!" he sobbed. "I d - did try n - not to wake you-"

This isn't Joey's insistence, it's the fact that Jack has impressed apon his children that Joey's well being is paramount, even when they are in intense pain.

#24: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:21 am
—

Fiona Mc wrote:

In regards to Jack, I'm sure I've never heard him label his kids. ...

I think most parents are imperfect and are human and Jack seems to be judged so harshly for one time when he does lose his temper so wholeheartedly and at a time when someone close to him becomes extremely ill/close to death. All other times he stays calm and impervious to others bad moods/tempers.
...

This debate is beginning to sound as heated as though we are attacking and defending actual real people! I, for one, am only interested in the whole 'guilt and blame' debate - which I think is hugely interesting - as a way of teasing out EBD's sort-of moral philosophy on personal responsibility etc. It's fun to poke around different instances of who gets blamed for some form of damaging act - I'm certainly not pointing the finger at any character's parenting. These people are the fictional creations of EBD, after all.

What interests me is what she sets up as an ideal (say, in parenting terms - which is very obviously Jo and Jack), what she sets up as negative, where she points the finger of blame at bad parenting, or whether good parenting doesn't appear to be able to eradicate innate character flaws - and where she appears to contradict herself. I suppose it's the nature/nurture debate as EBD understood it. I don't think we can extrapolate any kind of consistent position from the CS novels, but the ways in which we see her dealing with it are really interesting.

Incidentally, I think Jennifer's point about Joey's illness and its effect on the dynamics of the family is absolutely right. It's a good example of something EBD clearly didn't consciously intend - Jo is set up as EBD's her ideal woman and mother, and her fragility is a kind of sign of her creative talents, her girlishness and the sensitivity that makes her a champion 'butter-in' - we are supposed to be charmed by her. But in fact, we can also read Joey as a kind of drain on her own family, because everything must be sacrificed to her health, even though she won't take responsibility for it herself. I think the fact that Joey is satirised or written as a monster in so many drabbles recognises this side of her, which is unackowledged by EBD.

And this is not me attacking Joey, only pointing out that we can also read the books against the grain!

#25: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:56 pm
—

Fiona Mc wrote:

Jack is emotional and angry and scared and rather than lash out stays away until he calms down. That to me does show restraint. It also showed he knew his limits Would people rather he beat Mike senseless.

Your point that all this happens around the time of Joey's pregnancy with Geoff and Phil and that this is the first time we hear of Joey having a very difficult pregnancy is a good one. Jack was entitled to be disgusted with Margot over the Theodora affair. I can understand that he was scared and worried at Joey's prolonged faint.

But I think that if a man in his forties dare not go near his seven year old son for days for fear of losing control and hurting him, he has a serious problem. And we're told it will take around three weeks for him to get over his rage. I don't think that's normal or healthy.

jennifer wrote:

I think the thing that gets me about the dynamics of Jack, the children, and Joey's health is that everyone else is responsible for Joey's well being *except* Joey.

Yes - one could argue that the bird's nest incident was the result of Joey taking all eleven children out with inadequate adult supervision. They are all children, after all, and it's unfair to expect them all to be perfectly responsible all the time, and then to blame them when they behave like normal children. As well as the blame for Mike, there's also the implication that Steve, who is only eleven or twelve himself, should have stopped Mike.

Not getting heated here by the way, just pursuing the deabte.

#26: Author: JackieP, Location: Kingston upon Hull

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:41 pm
—

JayB wrote:

Following on from that last point - In Theodora ML tell's Len that she's got to stop looking out for her siblings, yet the responsibility for her siblings is something she's been told she has ever since she was small...

JackieP

#27: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:24 pm
—
Don't get me started on OOAO in Theodora!

But yes, at the end of Theodora, Joey is saying:

Quote:

I can see that Len is leaving her sisters to look after themselves and is going all out for her friendships with Rosamund and Ted. I’m more than thankful for that last!

Then at the beginning of Joey & Co, it's

Quote:

the girls are most helpful with the small fry. That’s the beauty of a long family. The older ones help with the younger.

And Steve, at eleven or so, is becoming just as burdened as Len:

Quote:

Steve can generally keep Charles and Mike in order and Felix admires his eldest brother so much that he’s no trouble to anyone so long as Steve will take charge of him.

#28: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:52 pm
—

JayB wrote:

Jo and Jack never seem to have thought of sending Mike to the local school on the Platz - presumably there was one.

There may or may not have been a local school, but the teaching would not have been in English. If you remember, they start up St Nicholas so that the English-speaking kids have somewhere to go.

When they send Mike to spend the week with the Embury boys and share their tutor, it's largely so he can have companionship his own age. Also, children in Switzerland don't start school until the year they are 7, although most of them go to nursery when they are 5 or so.

In a later post you point out the discrepancy between Joey's being thankful that Len is leaving her sisters to look after themselves, and elsewhere where she says that in a long family the older ones help with the younger. I think that's the point - with the younger children! Len was trying to take responsibility for the actions of Con and Margot, who were, after all, the same age as her. And in school, she needed to let them go their own way and to find her own way, too - in the holidays, with everybody at home, it was rather a different matter!

#29: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
—

Mrs Redboots wrote:

JayB wrote:

Jo and Jack never seem to have thought of sending Mike to the local school on the Platz - presumably there was one.

There may or may not have been a local school, but the teaching would not have been in English. If you remember, they start up St Nicholas so that the English-speaking kids have somewhere to go.

I don't think this would have bothered Jack and Jo. The CS was only 1/3 English-speaking. Joey spoke in whichever language came handiest when she was at home - English, French or German. When they were in Austria, there is no language barrier to Biddy attending the local school, although she would have had less exposure to German than Mike.

#30: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:49 pm
—
I don't think EBD stopped to think that Biddy wouldn't have spoken German! Unless the idea was that Miss Honora and Biddy's mum and stepdad had been living in Austria for a while so Biddy'd picked up some of the language?

Doesn't it say in one of the holiday books that Joey and Jack were shocked to realise how little German their sons spoke? In that case it might've done Mike the world of good to go to a local school and learn the language! Or was the bit about the boys not speaking much German in a drabble and I'm getting confused Embarassed

#31: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:10 pm
—
I don't know if it comes up anywhere else, but there's this in Future, when Melanie is worrying about having to speak German at school:

Quote:

Felicity, snuggled up beside her eldest sister, looked up with an angelic smile. “I’ve thought of something. Let’s all talk German every third day for the rest of the time we’re here. It’ll help you and by the time school begins you’ll be able to understand some and even talk a little, too.”
“It’s an idea,” Len said thoughtfully. “It would help the boys, too. Mamma was just saying yesterday that it’s a pity they can’t keep up their languages in termtime.”

#32: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:29 am
—
But the school at the Platz would probably be a village school, where the boys would pick up bad habits.

#33: Author: Miss Di, Location: Newcastle, NSW

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:20 am
—
I've nothing really to add on guilt, I really just wanted to say what interesting points you've all raised.

Wouldn't Anna speak mostly German? So the boys would have a certain level of skill, just not necessarily the same fluency as their sisters who speak German all year, not just at home.

#34: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:00 pm
—

Róisín wrote:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

There may or may not have been a local school, but the teaching would not have been in English. If you remember, they start up St Nicholas so that the English-speaking kids have somewhere to go.

Mike may have been brought up speaking German - but the dialect of German they speak in Switzerland is very different, and even native German speakers have trouble understanding it at times!

#35: Author: roversgirl, Location: France

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:15 pm
—
Although I thought that somewhere in Richenda, although it says the triplets [Len and Con in this instance] can understand patois [the dialect] they're not that strong in it. and yes, Swiss German is a completely different language!

#36: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:55 pm
—
But surely the 'not sending your child to the 'local' school' trope (which comes up several times in the CS, including the Armishire period when language wouldn't have been an issue) is as much about class as education/language? There are multiple references across the whole series to not sending the middle-class children of the CS characters to local schools because they'll pick up bad habits or bad language (or non-standard English), as well as references to the inadequate education perceived to be on offer there.

Biddy O'Ryan is initially sent to one of the Tiernsee local schools because she is the daughter of a domestic servant, therefore her class makes it OK, even if she hasn't much or any German.

And isn't there a Guernsey character (who it is escapes me, sorry), who does go to a local school before the CS, but is surrounded by unsuitable girls there - there's some reference to them having a 'very different outlook' on life, and her parents being relieved at the arrival of the CS?

The only reference I can recall to a central character unproblematically sending a child to a local school is - I think Joey sending Stephen to a school in Carnbach, when he's still quite little.

#37: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:57 pm
—

Sunglass wrote:

That's Beth Chester Very Happy

#38: Author: roversgirl, Location: France

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:58 pm
—
Hi - the Guernsey character is Beth Chester! see the discussion in Formal Discussions on the Chester Family. Smile

Edit - beaten to it Smile

#39: Author: Catherine, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:56 pm
—
I think perhaps the issue with the boys and German was that before they went to school in England, they could speak and understand German with a greater or lesser degree of fluency ... but spending the majority of the year in England meant that they had no need to use it and therefore lost a lot of it.

#40: Author: Rosie, Location: Land of Three-Quarters Sky

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:13 pm
—

Sunglass wrote:

And isn't there a Guernsey character (who it is escapes me, sorry), who does go to a local school before the CS, but is surrounded by unsuitable girls there - there's some reference to them having a 'very different outlook' on life, and her parents being relieved at the arrival of the CS?

The only reference I can recall to a central character unproblematically sending a child to a local school is - I think Joey sending Stephen to a school in Carnbach, when he's still quite little.

Isn't Beth's school a dodgy private one, not a state/village/council one? And I think Joey says something about Stephen being safe from bad habits at that village school - something to do with the teacher?

#41: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:32 pm
—
IIRC, she said something like the teacher was very good with the little ones. Jack said Stephen might pick up bad language, and Jo said she could deal with that.

As for Beth, she'd have probably been better off at the local High School than the seemingly rather second rate private school she was going to before the CS arrived. But maybe there wasn't a High School near enough. Or maybe Anne, being so proud, didn't want people to think they couldn't afford to send Beth to a private school.

#42: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:41 pm
—

Rosie wrote:

Isn't Beth's school a dodgy private one, not a state/village/council one?

I'm not sure that's stated in Exile, although I could be entirely wrong - maybe it is elaborated on in the La Rochelle books, which I haven't yet read. The bit I seem to remember from Exile was something about her schoolmates 'having a very different outlook on life', which I suppose could mean anything from 'they are man-hunting aristocrats' to 'they are Joan Bakers going to leave school at fourteen'.

#43: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:42 pm
—
It says:

Quote:

The education was good enough of its kind, but the girls of a very different class, with an outlook on life of which her parents disapproved

I've always taken that to mean than Beth's parents thought the girls were beneath them: presumably "suitable" girls would have attended the sort of school that the Chesters couldn't at that time afford.

Even worse are Polly and Lala Winterton's parents, who arrange for their daughters to be taught by an utterly useless governess because otherwise

Quote:

it would have meant the village school where you learnt nothing - except broad Yorkshire

- that is one of the most irritating lines in the whole series, especially coming from someone (Lala) who'd been so badly educated that she ended up in a form with girls much younger than her Evil or Very Mad

!

To get back to the original point about Mike, in Exile David and Rix attended classes at the Chalet School when it was at the Sonnalpe, as the only 2 boys in the school! Would Beth and Maria have taught Mike as part of their duties as "mother's help"? It's never mentioned, and the idea of Carla taking over when Maria left to get married seemed to go by the board.

#44: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:31 am
—

Alison H wrote:

Even worse are Polly and Lala Winterton's parents, who arrange for their daughters to be taught by an utterly useless governess because otherwise

Quote:

it would have meant the village school where you learnt nothing - except broad Yorkshire

!

.

I suppose that was the Realpolitik of its day - it was less damaging in the marriagability stakes for a middle-class girl to be half-educated to the point of idiocy than to have a regional accent!

I don't know whether a mother's help would have taught elementary lessons - perhaps so. It is noticeable that those who are Joey's mother's helps are all ex-CS girls - Maria Marani, Beth Chester, Carla von Flugen (though as you say, she doesn't appear to show up) - and not characters distinctly marked as servants like Anna and Rosli - which maybe suggests that teaching the younger children is involved?

#45: Author: Mona, Location: Hertfordshire

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:41 am
—
I'm fairly sure that Beth's role is described as Mother's help and nursery governess when it's discussed (in Barbara?). Certainly I always had the impression that she did some basic lessons with at least the younger children.

#46: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:05 am
—

Mona wrote:

I'm fairly sure that Beth's role is described as Mother's help and nursery governess when it's discussed (in Barbara?). Certainly I always had the impression that she did some basic lessons with at least the younger children.

I seem to remember her doing their darning too.

The CBB -> Anything Else

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Page 1 of 1