The CBB
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

What EBD meant when she used the term 'cripples'
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4603
Author:  Laura V [ Sat May 31, 2008 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  What EBD meant when she used the term 'cripples'
Having just read Coming of Age and Catherine's post a Mlle Le Pattre I am intrigued to find out what exactly was wrong with the people who were classed as *cripples*. Jessica Wayne's stepsister is classed as one but we're told very little about her condition, the same with Deira's daughter. Do we know exactly what is wrong with them?
Author:  abbeybufo [ Sat May 31, 2008 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
I always thought probably polio, as it was quite prevalent in the interwar years and before the mass inoculations - which started in the 1950s [I think] - came in.

If people got through it, they were usually left with at best a 'gammy leg' and at worst full wheelchair-bound paraplegia. Some improvement could happen over the years as they recovered, hence Cherry Christy eventually being able to ditch her leg brace.

There was also ricketts, which was a vitamin D deficiency, but tends to be thought of as a disease of poverty.
Author:  Jennie [ Sat May 31, 2008 12:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
I always thought it was a spinal problem that handicapped these girls.
Author:  Alison H [ Sat May 31, 2008 12:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm never quite sure: what confuses me is that they both seem to have a disability that is permanent but not life-threatening, and then they both (admittedly to suit EBD's storyline) suddenly deteriorate and die, apparently of the same condition that caused their disability :? .

My great-aunt, like Cherry Christy, had polio as a child, but eventually made a fairly full recovery.
Author:  evelyn38 [ Sat May 31, 2008 1:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ian Drury, I think, died relatively young from ill-health related to polio - but I can't imagine Rosamund Sefton shared his rock n roll lifestyle, which presumably did not help
Author:  Kathy_S [ Sat May 31, 2008 1:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Polio is certainly a possibility. For example, my 6th grade teacher still wore a leg brace as a result of her run-in with the disease. However, given the specialization of the San, I would also expect quite a few cases of spinal tuberculosis, "tubercular hip," etc. Patmac's Village Boy has some good period detail on this.
Author:  patmac [ Sat May 31, 2008 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kathy_S wrote:
However, given the specialization of the San, I would also expect quite a few cases of spinal tuberculosis, "tubercular hip," etc. Patmac's Village Boy has some good period detail on this.


'Billy' who died in 1946 in VB part 12, was based on a boy who died in exactly that way in 1953. Most of the children stayed awake silently through the night, waiting - I was one of them. The details are very accurate, right down to the surgeon's wife keeping the vigil with them. The room he was in had a window covered by a curtain but we could see the shadows of the occupants of the room and so saw the periods of stillness, punctuated by frantic action. When the boy's parents were led from the room in tears, it was dawn and we all pretended to be asleep.

Canning was based on a girl I shared a cubicle with in 1954. She had the same operation.

There were also people like Phoebe from Rescue who had rheumatoid arthritis and the heart could be affected. Even today, relapses are not uncommon after years and scientists are still trying to understand the mechanism by which the heart is affected.

Certainly polio (or infantile paralysis as it was known) was not uncommon in the UK, 45,000 cases are reported.
Author:  Jennie [ Sat May 31, 2008 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
In 'Dulcie Captains the School' there is an example of tubercular hip, as well as a report of a case of scoliosis.

This sort of thing must have been quite prevalent.
Author:  Lulie [ Sat May 31, 2008 6:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Just be completely random, I always thought that "cripples" such as Rosamund Sefton and Deira's daughter had muscular dystrophy!!! Lord alone knows where I got that idea from? :lol:
Author:  Elder in Ontario [ Sat May 31, 2008 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting idea, Lulie - as a matter of fact, I have always thought that Rosamund Sefton might have had muscular dystrophy or something similar, given the descriptions, such as we have, of her gradual loss of strength and ability to do things such as sewing etc.
Author:  Jenefer [ Sat May 31, 2008 7:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Spinal Muscular Atrophy is similar. Also there are some rare nasty genetic conditions where the child's condition deteriorates over several years.
Author:  Fiona Mc [ Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
patmac wrote:
There were also people like Phoebe from Rescue who had rheumatoid arthritis and the heart could be affected. Even today, relapses are not uncommon after years and scientists are still trying to understand the mechanism by which the heart is affected.


I came accross this in the Northern Territory in the Aborigines and a lot of that depends on getting the right antibiotics when the have rheumatic fever like Phoebe. if they do then they should be fine later in life.

Anyone with a broken back I could well conceive dying young mainly cos of all the internal organs that would be affected by the lack of nerve supply. Consider Christopher Reeve who ended up dying from a pressure sore that developed into something worse, which is more easily done than realised (having had a patient who died of just that because they refused to stop lying on their backside). And if they are bed bound then they are also more likely to get blood clots, from not moving
Author:  JayB [ Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
And isn't it also the case that a person who isn't very mobile can easily develop pneumonia? That was almost invariably fatal before antibiotics, wasn't it, and is still a very serious condition in someone who is already in poor general health.
Author:  patmac [ Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
JayB wrote:
And isn't it also the case that a person who isn't very mobile can easily develop pneumonia? That was almost invariably fatal before antibiotics, wasn't it, and is still a very serious condition in someone who is already in poor general health.


Good point! I've been looking at the stats for drug-resistant TB for some time see here for some good info on the history of TB treatment which may explain some of the CS associated San's philosophy as a bonus.

A friend of mine died last year from multi drug-resistant pneumonia, leaving three children - I wonder if the next generation of CBBers will wonder at the current generation's assumptions that TB and any associated diseases were 'conquered' by antibiotics. :cry:
Author:  Sugar [ Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think EBD was deliberately vague. Possibly for a number of reasons: she might not have had much first hand experience of chronic neuro muscular conditions. She might have felt that diagnosing her characters would mean she couldn't mould them and their health into a character plot as people would expect them to behave in a specific way. Admittedly she does this with Phoebe and Phil Maynard but RA can be such a varied condition and IP was extremely common and its likely most children would have come across it in their community. Also Phil was a small child and EBD may have written about her having a weakness in later life but we never get to see this.

Alison H wrote:
I'm never quite sure: what confuses me is that they both seem to have a disability that is permanent but not life-threatening, and then they both (admittedly to suit EBD's storyline) suddenly deteriorate and die, apparently of the same condition that caused their disability


Alot of people with congenital chronic conditions often have additional conditions BECAUSE they have X and it is often those conditions that debiltate them and cause their overall condition to deteriotate. Eg. Down's Syndrome - heart defeat. Spina Bifida - Hydrocephalus - hydrocephalus - Epilepsy. I know those aren't skeletal but they are conditions people would know.

NB: Would it be possible to change the title of this thread, I find it quite alarming that the word "cripple" is being used to discuss disabled characters. EBD might have used it but at the time it was common practice. It isn't now. Fair enough if it was being used in a discussion about language change or as a direct quote from EBD herself but in the context I think there are better terms could be used.
Author:  Mia [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Sugar wrote:
NB: Would it be possible to change the title of this thread... in the context I think there are better terms could be used.


Yes, could we please?
Author:  Jennie [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:06 am ]
Post subject: 
At the very least it needs to be in inverted commas so that it becomes a quotation. Please.
Author:  Sunglass [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
I support other commenters's requests that the term either be changed to something less offensive to contemporary sensibilities, or at least put in quotation marks to make it clear it's EBD's term. Mind you, it's hard to know how to characterise people suffering from systemic or chronic illnesses that she doesn't tell us anything about - I suppose today we'd say of someone that they were a wheelchair user or specify they had muscular dystrophy/polio/some specific illness or injury.

I'd also be astonished if she'd had specific illnesses or conditions in mind for those characters and minor characters who have something other than the 'General Fragility Shading into Either TB or the Fear of It Syndrome' she often defaults to for plot purposes. The disabled EBD character I always rather enjoy is Naomi Elton in her earlier days at the CS - she's misanthropic, hates being patronised because of her difficulty getting around, is pissed off to have had to shelve her career as a dancer, and isn't the picture of pious resignation someone like Phoebe Wychcote is. I find her anger and atheism easier to deal with than some of the 'God's Will' stuff. You could entirely see her as a modern wheelchair user protesting the lack of accessibility on public transport, and shooing OOAOML off as a do-gooder busybody.

Actually, one of EBD's interesting contradictions in relation to treatment of serious illness/disability comes up in relation to this. On the one hand, you have continual plot lines of heroic doctors curing people with serious illnesses and wrenching them out of the teeth of death or longterm pain and virtual immobility - and EBD does have a touching belief in medicine. Yet we get a different perspective in relation to Rosamund Sefton, when it looks as though she may be dying in 'Coming of Age'. Jessica Wayne is understandably sad, and Mary-Lou, herself recently recovered from a potentially serious spinal/head injury, says:

If what you fear is coming to pass, won’t it be best for Rosamund? She has only half a life as it is, and she’s just a girl—only our age, you said. Whatever else you feel, don’t be afraid. Try to make yourself feel glad for her if it is really—that. Don’t grudge her her happiness.”

Which seems like both a big, fairly offensive assumption on Mary-Lou's part, particularly given she doesn't even know Rosamund - even if we grant that M-L is speaking from a deeply religious perspective which assumes a happy afterlife, who gets to decide that this death is OK, or what 'half a life' is for someone else? - and also slightly odd in relation to EBD's belief in the powers of the medical profession. Or is that she treats TB and general potential TB-related fragility entirely differently to other illness or injuries?
Author:  Jennie [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've always mentally tagged that as EBD's 'There Is A Happy Land' syndrome- a medical condition found only in the pages of the CS.
Author:  Catherine [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Sunglass wrote:
Mary-Lou, herself recently recovered from a potentially serious spinal/head injury, says:

If what you fear is coming to pass, won’t it be best for Rosamund? She has only half a life as it is, and she’s just a girl—only our age, you said. Whatever else you feel, don’t be afraid. Try to make yourself feel glad for her if it is really—that. Don’t grudge her her happiness.”

Which seems like both a big, fairly offensive assumption on Mary-Lou's part, particularly given she doesn't even know Rosamund - even if we grant that M-L is speaking from a deeply religious perspective which assumes a happy afterlife, who gets to decide that this death is OK, or what 'half a life' is for someone else?



But, isn't it only to be expected that she would think Rosamund only had half a life? To Mary-Lou, a school girl, a full and happy life represented lessons, friends, playing Games, running around, being generally active and sporty, having lots of hobbies etc. That was the life she knew and loved and when she was lying flat on her back, she must have felt that if she lost all that, it would mean she only had half a life.

She may never have met Rosamund, but she'd heard lots about her from Jessica, and from their point of view, Rosamund was to be pitied because she couldn't do all the things that they did. And isn't that how most children - EBD's intended audience - would have perceived the situation? Would they not have struggled to see how a girl of their own age, could live a happy and full life when she couldn't do most of the things that kept them busy and happy?

Mary-Lou was only comparing what she had heard and imagined about Rosamund's life to the life that she knew and experienced first hand.
Author:  Laura V [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:06 am ]
Post subject: 
thread title is now changed, sorry for any offence I caused
Author:  Cel [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Catherine wrote:

But, isn't it only to be expected that she would think Rosamund only had half a life? To Mary-Lou, a school girl, a full and happy life represented lessons, friends, playing Games, running around, being generally active and sporty, having lots of hobbies etc. That was the life she knew and loved and when she was lying flat on her back, she must have felt that if she lost all that, it would mean she only had half a life.

She may never have met Rosamund, but she'd heard lots about her from Jessica, and from their point of view, Rosamund was to be pitied because she couldn't do all the things that they did. And isn't that how most children - EBD's intended audience - would have perceived the situation? Would they not have struggled to see how a girl of their own age, could live a happy and full life when she couldn't do most of the things that kept them busy and happy?

Mary-Lou was only comparing what she had heard and imagined about Rosamund's life to the life that she knew and experienced first hand.


And wouldn't this have been, to a certain extent, the prevailing attitude at the time? This was an era before people with disabilities were encouraged and assisted in leading full lives, going out to school and work, etc; or (I imagine, but could be wrong here) before there were laws about accessibility of buildings, equality legislation and so on.

I know it's half a century earlier, but it brings to mind Katy Carr who, despite having the use of a wheelchair, almost never left her bedroom during the four years she was unable to walk; and Cousin Helen, who gave up her engagement almost as a matter of course after her accident.

(My first post, after lurking here for the last few months - was ecstatic to find the forum while browsing one Saturday afternoon - hi all!).
Author:  Róisín [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think there's a clear difference drawn between acquired disability and disability from birth, in girlsown stuff.

A really interesting book when talking about the latter is the first/second Farm School book, where Kenneth has (I think!) Down's Syndrome and the family, although they love him, keep him a secret (although this is mainly due to his twin's wishes) because they/she believes that if people knew about him, people would assume that there was some kind of 'bad blood/gene/strain' in the family.

Acquired disability, like Katy Carr (physical) or Dimsie's mother (mental), is seen more as a challenge sent from God - they deal with it bravely, using their faith as a source of strength, and it can be overcome, or dealt with, in a positive way.

Then, somewhere between the two, is the 'delicateness' like Robin's, which might restrict what she has to do, and might be there from birth, but isn't a real disability in the sense of the other two categories.

Edited to add: And there's the disabled person in literature who is the angel of the house. Cousin Helen is one example, so is the little brother in EJO's Rocklands series (can't think of his name right now) -> basically (a bit like Robin, except she was more mobile) the household revolves around, and is devoted to, a pure-minded invalid who is at the centre. This 'angel' is almost a metaphor for the conscience of the other household members, steering them on a clearer moral path etc.

Edit two: Rosamund Sefton's case, and the boy in the Rocklands series, sound like very similar illnesses, going by the descriptions.

Edit three: Welcome to the forum Cel!
Author:  JayB [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hi Cel, and welcome!

Quote:
And wouldn't this have been, to a certain extent, the prevailing attitude at the time? This was an era before people with disabilities were encouraged and assisted in leading full lives

And also many things weren't possible for disabled people because the technology wasn't available - powered wheelchairs and scooters, stairlifts, hoists for lifting people in and out of bed. Rosamund's quality of life was dependent on Mrs Sefton's ability to lift her or push her in a wheelchair, assuming her particular disability allowed her to use a wheelchair. Or her father's ability to do those things, when he was at home.
Author:  Sunglass [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Róisín wrote:
I think there's a clear difference drawn between acquired disability and disability from birth, in girlsown stuff.



I think this is a good observation, and one that had never struck me before.

Rosamund Sefton would certainly have had a more limited life than a teenager in the same situation today - that's certainly fair to say, and our contemporary notions of disabled rights, as well as technology, the possibilities for treatment and educational opportunities etc have come on a lot since EBD wrote, as have representations of disability. Thank God we no longer have literary Beth Marches and Cousin Helens (I find the latter particularly toxic.) T

All that I appreciate, and I would have had no problem with Mary-Lou saying (as she does back when Jessica Wayne first arrives and resents Rosamund) that Jessica has access to all kinds of activities which are not possible for Rosamund, and a potential future that R can never expect, and that R deserves her sympathy and help.

What I have a problem with in the bit I orginally quoted is Mary-Lou deciding that Rosamund's life, such as it is, is not really worth living and that Jessica, desperately upset that her stepsister is dying, is 'grudging' Rosamund the 'happiness' that is death. I genuinely find that quite horrifying. Even given a belief in a happy afterlife, I think Mary-Lou is making huge assumptions about what makes a life worth living, and is being remarkably high-handed on Rosamund's behalf. For all we know Rosamund is desperate to live, even in the physically limited way she can live, particularly now she has a stepmother and stepsister she loves. I don't think Mary-Lou gets to decide that death constitutes 'happiness' for someone else or that being bedridden does not constitute a life worth living.
Author:  Emma A [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sunglass wrote:
What I have a problem with in the bit I orginally quoted is Mary-Lou deciding that Rosamund's life, such as it is, is not really worth living and that Jessica, desperately upset that her stepsister is dying, is 'grudging' Rosamund the 'happiness' that is death. I genuinely find that quite horrifying. Even given a belief in a happy afterlife, I think Mary-Lou is making huge assumptions about what makes a life worth living, and is being remarkably high-handed on Rosamund's behalf. For all we know Rosamund is desperate to live, even in the physically limited way she can live, particularly now she has a stepmother and stepsister she loves. I don't think Mary-Lou gets to decide that death constitutes 'happiness' for someone else or that being bedridden does not constitute a life worth living.

Given that Mary-Lou was trying to comfort Jessica, it may well have been her attempt to show Jessica that Rosamund's passing may not have been completely bad. In the context of the time and EBD's own faith, it's probably what a lot of people would have thought about Rosamund's situation. Doesn't Joey say something similar to Nina when she's brooding about a young man who dies in an accident, and she makes the outrageous (to us) assumption that he would be happy to die because he would meet his dearly loved mother, who had just died, again?

Still, I'd be cheesed off if anyone said this to me about a relative!
Author:  Sunglass [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Emma A wrote:
Still, I'd be cheesed off if anyone said this to me about a relative!


Indeed. I'd deeply enjoy a drabble in which Jessica retorted 'I'm glad you find my stepsister's impending death so easy to countenance' and dropped her trunk on OOAO's toe.
Author:  Emma A [ Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sunglass wrote:
Emma A wrote:
Still, I'd be cheesed off if anyone said this to me about a relative!


Indeed. I'd deeply enjoy a drabble in which Jessica retorted 'I'm glad you find my stepsister's impending death so easy to countenance' and dropped her trunk on OOAO's toe.

Giggling... Might write that...
Author:  tiffinata [ Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:10 am ]
Post subject: 
What about spina bifida?
Or Cerebral Palsy?
Author:  patmac [ Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:27 am ]
Post subject: 
As late as the 60s, common medical advice was to 'put' handicapped children in a home where they would be cared for with others 'like them'.

(I've put quotes in there because I wouldn't want anyone to think those are words I would use today.)

The justification was that they would be happier not realising what they were missing and also that they would restrict the lives of siblings. A friend of mine had a child who was mentally 'retarded' and she and her husband kept her at home till her younger sister was a toddler and then gave in. As JayB has already pointed out, the living aids we tend to think of as standard were not available at that time and the sheer physical strain on the mother was very tiring.

Also, the idea that institutional living was not a good thing had not come into play. Dr Barnado's moved from care of unwanted children to care of disabled children at around this time see URLhere

I was a Guider at one of them and any trips out into public places drew stares and comments - derogatory ones, not in the least sympathetic as a rule. We've come a long way since then, thank goodness.
Author:  linda [ Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
I had polio as an infant of 15 months. I had to attend a special school for handicapped children as my consultant refused to sign a form to say that I could go to the local primary school, even though I was able to walk, albeit with a caliper. When my mum wanted me to take my 11plus exam, the headteacher told her that even if I passed I would not be allowed to leave the special school and go to the grammar school, and he also said that "After all, we don't really need to educate these children, they are never going to work and only need to learn to read so that they can occupy their time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" This was in the late 1950s!

Fortunately my parents were made of sterner stuff and, although it was a big struggle for them financially, managed take me out of the state system, paying for me to attend a commercial college for four years from the age.

Needless to say, I have worked from the age of sixteen, and achieved my ambition by completing a BA degree with the Open University the year I turned 40. I would love to have been able to go back and show that to my old headteacher.
Author:  jennifer [ Sun Jun 08, 2008 5:15 am ]
Post subject: 
There was an interesting article in the New York Times recently about the challenge facing modern families when severely disabled children reach adulthood. Until recently, many children with debilitating diseases or congenital defects wouldn't life to adulthood. As in CS land, they'd die in late childhood or adolescence.

Now, with advances in medical science, there is a better chance for survival. While they are minors, there is a fairly well established system for care for children who need 24 hour medical care, or have issues that can't easily be dealt with at home. At age 18 this stops, and for some kids, the only choice is a nursing home, in the old-folks-home style, and the prospect of a life spend, essentially, in a hospital room with occasional visits from family members.
Author:  KB [ Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:24 am ]
Post subject: 
patmac wrote:
I was a Guider at one of them and any trips out into public places drew stares and comments - derogatory ones, not in the least sympathetic as a rule. We've come a long way since then, thank goodness.


Do you really think we have? I once took out a group of guides with a variety of mental and physical disabilities, and the comments we received had to be heard to be believed! I'm sure some people would not have expected to be overheard, but some people were just plain rude!
Author:  patmac [ Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:51 am ]
Post subject: 
KB wrote:
patmac wrote:
I was a Guider at one of them and any trips out into public places drew stares and comments - derogatory ones, not in the least sympathetic as a rule. We've come a long way since then, thank goodness.


Do you really think we have? I once took out a group of guides with a variety of mental and physical disabilities, and the comments we received had to be heard to be believed! I'm sure some people would not have expected to be overheard, but some people were just plain rude!


I guess I was a little too optimistic. :( That's sad.
Author:  Mia [ Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
What I have a problem with in the bit I orginally quoted is Mary-Lou deciding that Rosamund's life, such as it is, is not really worth living and that Jessica, desperately upset that her stepsister is dying, is 'grudging' Rosamund the 'happiness' that is death. I genuinely find that quite horrifying. Even given a belief in a happy afterlife, I think Mary-Lou is making huge assumptions about what makes a life worth living, and is being remarkably high-handed on Rosamund's behalf. For all we know Rosamund is desperate to live, even in the physically limited way she can live, particularly now she has a stepmother and stepsister she loves. I don't think Mary-Lou gets to decide that death constitutes 'happiness' for someone else or that being bedridden does not constitute a life worth living.


Rosamund's described as being in severe pain, though, so probably she wasn't that desperate to live. Also I always think EBD was referencing her brother here. He must have died in pain, poor little mite, though I suppose we don't know for sure how much she was involved.
Author:  MaryR [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
patmac wrote:
As late as the 60s, common medical advice was to 'put' handicapped children in a home where they would be cared for with others 'like them'.

We adopted our daughter as a tiny baby in 1978. Six months later it was discovered she had congenital dislocated hip, which, due to bad management by her first surgeon, resulted in ten ops and many complete body plasters over the years. We were asked by the adoption society if we wanted to put off the adoption hearing until it was sorted out - obviously the answer was No, as she was ours!! - but, later on, when we aked what would have happened if it had been discovered at birth, we were told she would not have been put up for adoption! :shock: In 1978!?! For such a minor disability? I found that chilling in the extreme.

KB wrote:
Do you really think we have? I once took out a group of guides with a variety of mental and physical disabilities, and the comments we received had to be heard to be believed! I'm sure some people would not have expected to be overheard, but some people were just plain rude!

Quite, KB! When we took Helen out in her complete body plasters - which extended from her chest down to her toes, and included the plasters being such that her legs were set almost as though she was doing the splits - we would get the weirdest disapproving stares, and we even overheard comments from passing strangers wondering what we had done to our child for her to look like that! Grr! I used to feel like a child abuser! :roll:
Author:  Rachel [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mia wrote:
Rosamund's described as being in severe pain, though, so probably she wasn't that desperate to live.


Excuse me?!? Plenty of people live with, and in, severe pain every day of their lives. I know, I'm one of them! Ok, I maybe don't have whatever condition Rosamund Sefton was meant to have, but I know what constant, shronic pain is like to live with. That doesn't mean I would happily roll over and die!

Something that people who don't live with pain every day of their lives often fail to understand is that you adjust. You don't have to like it, but you accept it. If you can, you go to your GP and get medicines to help you cope, but sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and get on with life!
Author:  Róisín [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rachel wrote:
Mia wrote:
Rosamund's described as being in severe pain, though, so probably she wasn't that desperate to live.


Excuse me?!? Plenty of people live with, and in, severe pain every day of their lives. I know, I'm one of them! Ok, I maybe don't have whatever condition Rosamund Sefton was meant to have, but I know what constant, shronic pain is like to live with. That doesn't mean I would happily roll over and die!

Something that people who don't live with pain every day of their lives often fail to understand is that you adjust. You don't have to like it, but you accept it. If you can, you go to your GP and get medicines to help you cope, but sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and get on with life!


It's very possible that EBD *didn't* understand how to live with chronic pain, as she (AFAIK) never went through that herself, so to that end she could have portrayed Rosamund (or Mary-Lou's reaction) differently. Or she, as author, purposely portrayed Mary-Lou as someone who *didn't* understand. Or perhaps she was basing her experience on her brother, who might have been able to adjust his daily life (or he might not have). Probably we'll never know her motivations, but it is interesting to speculate.
Author:  Rachel [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mia wrote:
OMGWTFBBQ Drama !!

I wasn't talking about you. I was posting about A FICTIONAL CHARACTER and the circumstances surrounding her. I don't see what that has to do with you and your circumstances to be quite frank. And how do you know I don't have/know anyone in chronic pain? You don't know anything about me.


Perhaps your choice of words could have ben more tactful then? When dealing with a subject such as this, personal experiences will often come into play - I never implied you have no first hand knowledge of this subject, I merely pointed out as a long term sufferer of pain, I wouldn't describe *myself* as "not desperate to live".
Author:  Sugar [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mia wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Mia wrote:
Rosamund's described as being in severe pain, though, so probably she wasn't that desperate to live.


Excuse me?!? Plenty of people live with, and in, severe pain every day of their lives. I know, I'm one of them! Ok, I maybe don't have whatever condition Rosamund Sefton was meant to have, but I know what constant, shronic pain is like to live with. That doesn't mean I would happily roll over and die!

Something that people who don't live with pain every day of their lives often fail to understand is that you adjust. You don't have to like it, but you accept it. If you can, you go to your GP and get medicines to help you cope, but sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and get on with life!


OMGWTFBBQ Drama!!!!

I wasn't talking about you. I was posting about A FICTIONAL CHARACTER and the circumstances surrounding her. I don't see what that has to do with you and your circumstances to be quite frank. And how do you know I don't have/know anyone in chronic pain? You don't know anything about me.


Two comments

A)
Liss wrote:
Please note that rudeness will not be tolerated on this board


Mia, if your post wasn't rude then I don't know what is!

B) Nowhere in her post did Rachel suggest you WERE talking about her and nowhere did she suggest you had no experience of it although from the comment you made it does seem highly unlikely and I say that having met you and being someone who lives in chronic constant pain. And I happen to agree with her.

Rachelwas just using herself as an example as many of us do when talking about the clothes characters wear or the language they use. There have been recent threads describing both where members have replieds using personal experience and they weren't treated to such an outburst.

What right do you have to suggest that any post on this board has nothing to do with her? Are we from now on not draw on our own knowledge and experiences?
Author:  Mia [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rachel wrote:
Mia wrote:
OMGWTFBBQ Drama !!

I wasn't talking about you. I was posting about A FICTIONAL CHARACTER and the circumstances surrounding her. I don't see what that has to do with you and your circumstances to be quite frank. And how do you know I don't have/know anyone in chronic pain? You don't know anything about me.


Perhaps your choice of words could have ben more tactful then? When dealing with a subject such as this, personal experiences will often come into play - I never implied you have no first hand knowledge of this subject, I merely pointed out as a long term sufferer of pain, I wouldn't describe *myself* as "not desperate to live".


As I said, it is not about a description of *yourself*. People consider euthanasia an option, which was what I was implying in my post. Jolly hooray for you that you don't.

I don't think opening a post with
Quote:
Excuse me?!?
is particuarly tactful either to be honest - so let's let it lie, yes? I don't think this is particularly productive.
Author:  Róisín [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
*stepping in with mod-hat on*

"What EBD meant when she used the term 'cripples'" is, and was always going to be, a sensitive topic. May I ask that any further posts in this thread address this topic, and not the exchange between Rachel and Mia. If you have a complaint, suggestion or observation in relation to that exchange, please PM either me, Alison H or Carys. Your point *will* be acknowledged and dealt with. I'd like to keep this thread for what it was intended. Thanks :D
Author:  Alex [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:48 am ]
Post subject: 
I think the conversation between Stacie Benson and Jem parallels the Cousin Helen and Katy situation. Except that where Cousin Helen is kind of soppy, Jem is more matter of fact about it, telling Stacie that she musn't fret because it will delay her progress. I think that what Jem says about emotions affecting recovery (IIRC, as I don't have the book here) is very interesting what is now known about depression and pathophysiological disease. Also Stacie and Katy are both considered (by the authors) to have brought their injuries on themselves, and the illness offers them the possibilty of redemption. For other characters who haven't brought their own injuries upon themselves, they seem to offer this redemption for other characters. For example Jessica Wayne becomes a good CS girl after learning to love Rosamund. Naomi doesn't really fit this distinction, in that her accidents are not her fault, but it is she that becomes a good CS girl.
Author:  Alison H [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think that Stacie's story is very reminiscent of Katy's.
Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
linda wrote:
I had polio as an infant of 15 months. I had to attend a special school for handicapped children as my consultant refused to sign a form to say that I could go to the local primary school, even though I was able to walk, albeit with a caliper. When my mum wanted me to take my 11plus exam, the headteacher told her that even if I passed I would not be allowed to leave the special school and go to the grammar school, and he also said that "After all, we don't really need to educate these children, they are never going to work and only need to learn to read so that they can occupy their time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" This was in the late 1950s!


And yet the headmistress of my brother's pre-prep school, also in the late 1950s, had had polio and wore a caliper and used a crutch. The headmistress of my junior school also walked with a pronounced limp, and after an operation, used crutches, although I don't know whether this was caused by polio or by rheumatoid arthritis or a similar condition. And at my senior school, one girl had had polio and had a withered leg - she later had it amputated and used a prosthesis, which worked better for her.

Sadly, polio was very much a fact of life until the first vaccines came in in the mid-1950s; I think anybody who grew up then knew at least one, if not more, people who had suffered from it. One of the best-loved, and sadly no longer with us, people in our village had it as girl and was confined to a wheelchair, but it wasn't really a village function without Eileen - and how we miss her now she's gone! And another friend had it as a baby, but more or less got away with it, other than a weakened back....

I'm glad you were able to overcome the short-sightedness of your particular doctors/teachers and get your degree.
Author:  Rachel [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Most people who have made comments in earlier posts about quality of life have made the point that they are referencing EBD's opinions/writing. EBD did write such things, and does seem to hold the opinions that she expresses through Mary-Lou (and other characters at different points in her books) - quoting and referencing this isn't an issue. When I read the books, I snort through such paragraphs and accept them for what they are - products of a completely different time and society.

After the request that the word "cripples" be used in quotes rather than wthout was addressed, this thread seemed much better! I hapily refer to myself as a crippple, a flid or any number of other words that I wouldn't accept from somebody else - it's one of those very grey areas, a bit like different terms for people of particular race, colour or sexual persuasion - what you call yourself and what you accept from others is always going to be different.

Anyway! This whole thread is full of personal stories and experiences, which is one of the things that make it so fascinating to read. I don't have any first hand knowledge of what life was like back in the 1950s, 60s or even parts of the 70s, so reading other peoples stories is good. I feel this thread shows quite positively how far medical opinions/societies views of less able bodied people has come. Yes, there is still plenty of room for improvement, but on the whole, disabled persons have far more options open to them these days than disabled girls during EBD's time would have had.

This subject is an interesting one to many people. I know there are quite a few disabled members of the CBB and think getting insights into how other people with various disabilities view the same subjects from the books is excellent. I think the thread is also educational to non-disabled people as it lets people take a moment to pause and think about the different problems affecting people now and considering how their friends would have been treated during EBDs era.



And I've just noted something else - I tend to refer in this thread to people as being "disabled" or "non-disabled" - does this mean I am minoritorising people without disabilities based on my own first person perspective? :wink:
Author:  Travellers Joy [ Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:31 am ]
Post subject: 
Rachel wrote:
And I've just noted something else - I tend to refer in this thread to people as being "disabled" or "non-disabled" - does this mean I am minoritorising people without disabilities based on my own first person perspective? :wink:


We all have our own views - indeed, even on what is a disability, at times. I was recently reading someone's account of living with multiple personality disorder and was intrigued by the fact that she felt sorry for people who are 'singles'. 'Multiples' have a lot more fun, as far as she's concerned!
Author:  Mia [ Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rachel - To clarify my earlier comment. When I was referring to Rosamund 'not being desperate to live' I was specifically referencing and quoting! a previous post about Mary-Lou speaking to Jessica about Rosamund's life expectancy and how (in pure EBD terms) that it was better for her to be in Heaven. I would imagine this is a case of what is known as a 'kind lie' and was in disagreement with the poster who felt this was inappropriate in the context of the previous discussion.

I understand from Liss that you are still upset about this, so therefore I apologise for my posts.
Author:  tiffinata [ Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:37 am ]
Post subject: 
The advice in EBD's time was to institutionalise many people with various disabilities and forget they exist. Nowdays there are very few institutions.

With today's medical advances we can often extend life and relieve suffering.
As someone said in an earlier post many disabled children did not live beyond teenage years. Often now (depending on their condition)many live to their 40's or 50's or older! Hopefully their quality of life has improved as well as it's length. If it hasn't then have we gained anything? And the only person to know that is the person themself.

So, what happens now?
Many parents are left caring for an adult who is unable to care for themself. There is next to no respite care or special accommodation for when the parent gets too old or ill to care for offspring.

If Rosamund Sefton had been born into today's society she would not have been kept at home and hidden. She would probably have attended at the very least a special school, been given an electric wheelchair and been on the best medication possible!
Author:  Róisín [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Found this in Dimsie the other day and thought it very relevant to this thread. So, it's the fourth Dimsie book (Dimsie Among the Prefects) and the publication date is 1923.

Quote:
[Dimsie has been in an accident, where she reached over the cliff to save a junior and wrenched her back doing so... so far so GO...]
"...he can say nothing definite for a day or two."
"You mean - whether she'll live - or - or - "
"Oh no! It was never as bad as that. But she has strained her back badly, and he says she is suffering from shock as well. What he can't decide yet, is whether a lot of her lethargy is due to shock only, or to other injury. If it's shock, then that will right itself."
"But if it's the other?" Her three companions pressed around her. "Quick, Mabs! If it's the other - what then?"
"Well, he says - but mind! he's very hopeful; he's almost sure it's shock - she mightn't be able to walk again!"

There was a dead silence while the girls looked at each other with blanched faces and trembling lips. Not one of them but realized what that would mean to Dimsie, lithe and active, with quicksilver in every vein. To lie still all her life, never to dance in the schoolroom, nor run on the playing-field, nor swim in the bay on summer days - Dimsie, of all people! It was unbearable, unthinkable! Dimsie, always the first to help others, would be herself dependent on those others for the rest of her life.

A groan broke from Pamela.
"She'd far better die - oh, I hope God will let her die!"
"Let's pray that He will!" sobbed Jean.

Then Erica spoke firmly, though her voice was shaking.
"Certainly not! I never heard of such a thing! What's the use of praying at all if we can't do better than that? Every one of us must pray straight on without stopping - yes, underneath whatever else we may be doing at the time - that God will make her perfectly well and strong again. Remember that, Pam and Jean! and you too, Mabs. If prayers can save Dimsie from becoming a cripple, she shan't suffer for loss of ours."


They all then go on to blame the junior for falling over the cliff in a very similar manner to how Joey blamed Eustacia for Robin when Miss Wilson hurt her ankle, but that's another issue! :lol:
Author:  Lulie [ Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
What strikes me about the quote from Dimsie is the difference between being paralysed by an accident, so knowing what you are missing, rather than never being able to walk and accepting that fact. I work with disabled people and those that ask me "Why can't I walk like everybody else?" are those who were born with some mobility and have lost it. Those who were born without very much mobility seem to find easier to accept that this is the way that they are, although I'm sure if somebody offered to wave a magic wand and enable them to walk they'd jump at the chance (pun not intended :roll: )


I hope that makes sense, I find it hard to explain what I mean without ending up at a War and Peace length essay.
Author:  Róisín [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes! Makes perfect sense. I knew there was something *different* about the attitude in that quote since I found it a few weeks ago, and I've been thinking about it since but haven't been able to put my finger on it.
Author:  Alison H [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
The timing of it's interesting, given that in the early 1920s there would have been an awful lot of young and previously able-bodied men left with missing limbs, severe lung damage or other permanent disabilities as a result of the war.
Author:  Honor [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
That is a really good point Alison. I would have thought that the atrocities of the 'Great' War and the disabled men who were the result would have had a big impact on people's view of disability in the 20s and 30s.
All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/