The CBB :: View topic - Sexuality and reader interpretation

EBD tries to steer clear of them - she doesn't even like girls to have best friends rather than being part of a gang.

It was a nasty shock for Tom. She had heard her father speak of the “silly fashion of schoolgirl sentimentality”, and had imbibed from him a strong sense of disgust for anything of the kind. She had been thankful to find that most of her kind had as little use for such things as herself. As a whole the Chalet School was remarkably free of such nonsense, though deep, true friendships were often born there and were encouraged – such friendships as lay between Gay Lambert and Jacynth Hardy... But there was no sentimentality in any of them. Gay and Jacynth never squabbled, Gay being too insouciant and Jacynth too self-contained...

...and she presents Tom, not merely as a tomboy, but as more or less male! She even gives her mother a 'manly salute' from the train, and makes poor Rosalie read a boys' comic to stop her crying

As an adult, I find it hard not to read Tom as potentially transgendered. I don't believe gender identity is something that is easily altered by outside forces, and so because Tom responds so positively to her father treating her as a boy - i.e. she takes on a masculine identity which apparently goes beyond tomboyishness, or a simple development of socially 'male' interests - my interpretation is that she does actually see herself as male.

I think Tom's dad had a serious problem! He seems to have brought Tom up to believe that there was something wrong/inferior about being female: she arrives at the CS thinking that most girls are silly and even that most girls are dishonourable and tell lies. Having interests which are not traditionally feminine, e.g. Jack Lambert's interest in cars and engineering, is fair enough, but thinking that there's something generally wrong with members of your own gender is something totally different.

...I grew up thinking something very similar and I certainly wasn't taught that. I loathed all girls as silly, weak creatures and remember being monumentally irritated by all female characters in children's stories, apart from witches (in general) and Nancy from Swallows and Amazons.

One of the reasons I loved Nancy as a kid (and still do!) is because even though she's tomboyish, she never says "I wish I was a boy". I may have enjoyed some boyish things as a girl, but I was always perfectly happy being female. I always hated George in Famous Five, because she was always complaining that she wanted to be a boy. Unfortunately, in that series, there's such a strong dividing line between "what boys do" and "what girls do" that she couldn't be a girl and still do the things she wanted to do. Nancy never had that problem; everyone accepted who she was, and (apart from the GA) didn't try and dictate to her what she should be.

I've only recently acquired Changes and the beginning of Margot's and Emerence's friendship is described very much in terms of a crush - think Joey actually says Margot has "got it good and hot" for Emerence or something along those lines. There's also an interesting snippet later on when Emerence becomes momentarily transfixed by Con and how different she is from Margot - OK, this wouldn't have struck me without the earlier bit about Margot: I think as an adult reader there's so much more scope for interpretations of this kind!

I don't think it was patriarchy in my case, as I was absolutely brought up with the idea that girls and boys were not at all different and that both had equal abilities and were equally capable in all areas. I think it was more that the girls in the stories never lived up to this, and always relied on boys to help them out, or were drawn as weaker, somehow - afraid of the dark, or thunder, or some such. Even Nancy failed to triumph over John, which really irritated me - couldn't an author for once, just for once, let a girl win?

That's the magic of patriarchy! The very fact that "girly" is an insult explains so much. A lot of stereotypical "girl" things - the colour pink, playing with dolls - are seen as inferior to "boy" things. This reaches into adulthood, too - there's meant to be something shameful about liking chicklit and romances, while liking action and adventure books and movies (manly entertainment!) is fine for either sex.

You can see this in Tom Tackles, too - EBD shows that girls are as good as boys because they spurn emotion and GPs, the same way that boys do. Tom doesn't learn that femininity has as much merit as masculinity; she learns that she can be a girl and still be masculine. The latter is actually a pretty good lesson, but combined with the former it's once more telling readers: men are greater than women.

Finally, Tom revolted. “I’m not answering another question!” she snapped. “... You’re a lot too cheeky, and unless you pipe down a bit, your crowd will give you the dickens of a time if I know anything about them! Now shut up, and let someone else do the talking!”
Gay, attracted by the tone of Tom’s voice, had overheard part of this. 'But you’ve been asking ever since Tom and what’s-her-name joined us. Give your tongue a rest and other folk a chance until we get to Crewe.”

Ah, but it is Titty who captures the Amazon, all by herself, not John.

I think EBD tries to have it both ways sometimes, though! CS girls, when in contact with third parties, are meant to be girly as well as not being girly, if that makes sense. As soon as the Maynards meet Ruey, Joey suddenly starts going on about how girls should take an interest in their clothes and their appearance and the triplets suddenly develop an interest in making homes look "pretty"; and dainty Peggy is presented as a role model for scruffy Polly and Lala.

Even Nancy failed to triumph over John, which really irritated me - couldn't an author for once, just for once, let a girl win?

I do not think that EBD meant it that way.
On GPs and crushes. There was a senior girl in my school whom I liked. And I wanted approval from her. She was editor of our school magazine and I would write poems( not on her ) and articles and give it to her for publishing in the mag and would feel happy when she smiled at me. It made my day.
Would this come under GP or crush?
I actually like the idea of encouraging the juniors to admire the seniors. It instills a sense of responsibility in the senior who will think twice before doing something bad which she does not want her junior to do.

I like this, mohini. It's interesting that in our highly sexualised society that we might put meanings where there weren't meanings, especailly as they were written in times very different to our own. I had a femaile friend who I admired enormously, years ago. Someone asked me if my admiration had a 'lesbian' element to it, and no, it didn't. I think it says more about our times that situations innocent of any sexual element can be questioned in this way.

Where we use to talk about 'doing a line' - and my niece fell around the place laughing at that one

It's interesting that in our highly sexualised society that we might put meanings where there weren't meanings, especailly as they were written in times very different to our own. I had a femaile friend who I admired enormously, years ago. Someone asked me if my admiration had a 'lesbian' element to it, and no, it didn't. I think it says more about our times that situations innocent of any sexual element can be questioned in this way.

I also think that often when it comes to teenagers, it's hard to define when something is sexual and when it isn't. Everything when you're a teen is so very intense (all those hormones fizzing round your body, I guess) and sometimes platonic admiration can be confused with sexual attraction, and vice versa. That goes for same-sex and inter-sex relationships, too. I mean, I think it's perfectly possible to have romantic feelings for another girl as a teen without having to identify as a lesbian, or even bi, forever after - that might be the only same sex crush you have in your entire life. (Not saying that this applies to you, julieanne! I'm speaking from personal experience

)

On Tom
I can understand Tom preferring to work with boys.
In my class in school there were girls who always talked about dressing up or makeup or they would read passages from Mills and Boon books and giggle and gossip.

But isn't that the odd thing with Tom's fanatical preference for 'boyishness' - because no CS girls are remotely like this? EBD would think it was unbelievably vulgar and unhealthy!

On the 'reading meanings that aren't there into books' - I think this expression isn't helpful, as it suggests readers are wrong to do so, and that the purpose of reading books is to restrict yourself only to meanings the original author consciously included in the text. Whereas, it doesn't matter what EBD intended, really - and of course, we don't know, as she isn't here to tell us. Books escape the conscious intentions of their authors all the time.

A large proportion of the most long-running and interesting discussions on here are about things EBD didn't consciously mean, but which still found their way into her novels!

I simply meant what I wrote without any value judgement on the statement, and a 'meaning' has been imposed on it which isn't actually there. Do you see what I mean? I hope I'm coming across OK ...

I find this interesting too - the thought that there might be subconscious themes. Relating this directly to the idea that Elinor didn't mean Tom to be seen as gay (despite her name!!!!), if we allow that she might have subconsciously meant this is another example of very modern thinking. Someone will correct me on this, but as far as I know Freud was just beginning his theories on the subconscious at this time. I know that his theories were very new and were quickly picked up by the general public at the time, but I wonder if Elinor knew about them? If she did, did she then 'use' them consciously to suggest an idea that might find its way into the subconscious of the reader?

people always mention the term 'modern thinking', as though homosexuality and extra-marital sex didn't exist before 1967

Whenever these debates come up relating to sexuality in the CS, people always mention the term 'modern thinking', as though homosexuality and extra-marital sex didn't exist before 1967

(soggy biscuit anyone?)

KathrynW wrote:

(soggy biscuit anyone?)

Oh please, please add this to 'Lines unlikely to be seen in a CS novel' :lol:

(soggy biscuit anyone?)

Whenever these debates come up relating to sexuality in the CS, people always mention the term 'modern thinking', as though homosexuality and extra-marital sex didn't exist before 1967.

Are there any examples of CS people being really keen on teachers? Someone - is it Elaine Gilling speaking to Mary Burnett in Rivals? - makes a comment about Mary being "keen" on a teacher, and it clearly isn't what Mary means and is just Elaine being unpleasant but I can't think of anywhere else where the subject's raised :roll:

Clearly, it is possible to have an intense nonsexual longterm caring relationship with someone, and I suspect that is what EBD was intending to portray, especially with Hilda/Bill.

The absolute horror of entering another girl's cubicle, especially at night, indicates to me EBD's semiconscious fear of Relationships forming. And Jo, expressing thanks to Prunella for saving Margot's life but at the same time warning her off from establishing a close friendship with Len, seems to have similar concerns..

I agree with whoever it was suggested that Tom is asexual, despite being written as out-of-gender. Had she been Catholic, EBD probably would have made her a nun instead of a missionary.

I am not sure what construction to put on EBD giving Tom the surname "Gay"!

When the first books featuring Tom were published 'gay' was not a synonym for homosexual among the general public, The terms used then were mainly much less pleasant and it was a good 20 years or more after before 'gay' in that sense became mainstream.

It was, however, part of the 'polare', the coded language used in those times when male homosexuality was illegal and both male and female homosexual relationships could lead to public disgrace, dismissal and violence if they were discovered.

Did EBD know this? Doubtful, but you never know!

I don't think Tom is meant to show anything at all about sexuality. Rather, it's the more obvious: that girls -- at least CS girls :lol:

-- are just as honorable as boys, no matter what Tom's father (and, by extension, the segments of society he represented) thought. It's actually rather subversive.

When reading the books as a child, I never read any of this into them, and I always try not to now. For me, they are beautifully simple, a school story and little more - and while I do psychoanalyse some literature, often to too much depth (thinking of a dreadful exam paper here), I try not to with children's books. Because they are aimed at a certain reader, it just doesn't seem very plausible to me that any argument could be given for sexual overtones unless this is blatantly what the author intended; possibly this says a lot about my unconscious, but there we are!

I suppose I've always just mentally classed Tom along with EB's George Kirrin and Bill from Malory Towers, and LMA's Jo March etc.

Back on the subject of Tom: it strikes me that in her EBD found a way of essentially introducing a young male character to a girls' school series. She could show all the positive aspects of maleness while still operating in a female environment, and without having to worry that she was leading girls astray by showing close boy/girl friendships :lol:

what's interesting to me is how readers' perceptions of characters and events differ due to differences in culture, experience, current social mores etc. For instance, I've never bought into Ju Gosling's analysis why EBD et al never mentioned puberty, because it just isn't relevant to the books and wasn't something that authors would have written at the time. But I do think that exploring how we interpret characters and what might be implicit rather than explicit in an author's writing is a valid topic for debate.

Author:	Nightwing [ Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Sexuality and reader interpretation
While I don't think, for a moment, that EBD meant to portray her characters as anything other than heterosexual, part of the fun of being a reader is seeing things in characters that the author did not intend. Recently there's been discussions over whether the "eccentric" Mr Denny is gay, and whether Tom could be read as a lesbian. Kathie and Nancy are a popular pairing in drabbles, while other drabblers have explored the sexuality of more peripheral characters. Personally, I've always read Margot as gay - despite her upbringing, and despite being pretty and popular, she never quite fits in with the rest of her family or settles down to being the perfect CS girl. There's a quality of "outsider-ness" about her which to me feels like someone who knows they're different but hasn't quite worked out why. Are there any characters who you read as gay, or bi? As a modern reader, how do you think EBD handles the subject of "crushes" on older girls, and Grand Passions?

Author:	Alison H [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
The ideas of both Grand Passions and passionate friendships were much more common in the past than they are now, because our society's so obsessed with sexual relationships, and they're a major theme in the Dimsie books, some of Angela Brazil's books and to some extent the St Clare's books, but EBD tries to steer clear of them - she doesn't even like girls to have best friends rather than being part of a gang. She does start off with Simone developing a "violent affection" for Jo, but at that point I think she was still feeling her way with how the CS was going to turn out. The one time she does really tackle the subject is in Tom, when we get Rosalie being obsessed with Tom and Tom with Daisy. Tom's thing about Daisy seems to be seen as a good thing in that it teaches Tom that it's OK to be soppy sometimes, which doesn't fit in with the general attitude! & we're supposed to think that Eustacia's a bit obsessed with Jo, but I think that was more a case of EBD being obsessed with Jo! The one I find interesting is Jack's obsession with Len. Any suggestion that Jack's being soppy is shouted down, and I think that EBD was trying more to show Len as a Mary-Lou-esque leader whom younger girls would look up to than anything else, but Jack is obsessed with Len to the extent that she takes an immediate dislike to Jane Carew just because Jane's in Len's dormitory and she isn't. The first time I read Reunion, I thought at first that Grizel was jealous that Deira was getting married, rather than that Tony was getting married, but that was just me misreading it - in Exile I always thought that Grizel was interested in Jack. However, although EBD doesn't really tackle GPs with the girls, she does show two very close friendships amongst the staff. Nancy gets very emotional when Kathie collapses in Challenge, and calls her "darling" - a word which CS people, apart from Jane when she's being a luvvie, very rarely use - in front of everyone. & then there are Hilda and Nell: I don't think of them as a couple as much as I do with Nancy and Kathie, but they seem to become all in all to each other: maybe that was an old-style passionate friendship. The whole idea of a virtually all-female society's interesting. I went to an all-girls' school, where most of the teachers were women, but there was an all-boys' school across the road and we travelled to and from school with the boys so it wasn't really the same thing, and anyway it was a day school so we weren't in that society all the time, whereas the CS people are.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Alison H wrote: EBD tries to steer clear of them - she doesn't even like girls to have best friends rather than being part of a gang. That's actually what interests me in EBD's treatment of the GP - the fact that she almost pathologises it as abnormal, very much not the kind of thing they go in for at the CS, thank you very much! Whereas other school story writers write regularly about it as a predictable facet of school life, and get a lot of comedy and plot out of it. For EB, there's a certain amount of allowable admiration from younger girls for prefects, but characters like Alison at St Clare's are seen as silly for their regular crushes on rich, pretty, titled new girls or new teachers. But AF doesn't seem to find it strange in the least, to the point where she doesn't feel the need to explain clever, sensible Miranda West's very longterm strong feeling for Janice Scott, or Esther Frewen's for Nicola. That doesn't stop Miranda talking disdainfully about other girls' crushes on seniors, in terms of them giving them flowers and 'sleeping with their kirbygrips under their pillows'! But EBD is utterly disapproving, although I'm never entirely sure what she means by 'sentimentality' in the context of friendships. Sometimes she seems to suggest that the test of whether a friendship is 'deep and true' is whether or not the friends 'squabble'...? Quote: It was a nasty shock for Tom. She had heard her father speak of the “silly fashion of schoolgirl sentimentality”, and had imbibed from him a strong sense of disgust for anything of the kind. She had been thankful to find that most of her kind had as little use for such things as herself. As a whole the Chalet School was remarkably free of such nonsense, though deep, true friendships were often born there and were encouraged – such friendships as lay between Gay Lambert and Jacynth Hardy... But there was no sentimentality in any of them. Gay and Jacynth never squabbled, Gay being too insouciant and Jacynth too self-contained... I always think 'disgust' is a very strong word here - it's the kind of word you hear from homophobes today - for something so entirely harmless, unless EBD really believed schoolgirl GPs weren't harmless. (And if so, why not? What did they lead to...?) Rosalie Way's feeling for Tom never makes a great deal of sense to me as a GP, because EBD slightly over-anxiously 'explains' it away as Rosalie being silly, clingy and a new, homesick mother's girl just latching onto Tom because she looked after her on the train. But then EBD keeps insisting on Rosalie being 'a very feminine little person' and going on about her curls and babyish, pretty face, and she presents Tom, not merely as a tomboy, but as more or less male! She even gives her mother a 'manly salute' from the train, and makes poor Rosalie read a boys' comic to stop her crying - so EBD sort of sexualises their differences in a way that seems to me to colour Rosalie's crush, and move it slightly away from the original scenario of 'homesick new girl latches on to confident sheepdog'. Not quite sure what's going on there, other than that their relationship in a way seems to replicate the hetero courtships - strong male 'looks after' female (Rosalie even faints!) - with the difference that here it's the 'female' half of the duo who's the one in pursuit of the 'man'...? And admit I laugh every time I read the bit where Tom says she wants Rosalie to pair up with her, lend her her jodhpurs, and go as a cowboy and cowgirl to the fancy dress party! You expect someone to start singing 'Once I had a Secret Love'!

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
I actually think that Margot and Emmy might class as a GP - we see Margot wanting to stop the other trips from having friends, almost as if she refuses to recognise that Emmy is her friend, she seems to think of her as something more. And, of course, EBD has to have that end badly! In a way, it's refreshing to have a series where there isn't a GP around every corner; by the end of, for example, MT I was thoroughly sick of Gwen falling in love with every new girl! (Could EB never think of a different storyline for her?) At the same time, I do wish that EBD had had a couple of stronger, smaller friendship groups; by the end of the series, it gets very difficult to keep track with everyone! I've never consciously read the series as having characters who are homo/bi-sexual, but I can see how people read that into some of the passages in the books.

Author:	bonnie [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
One of the things I love about CS (and presumably, from other comments, all GO books, though it's not a genre with which I am familiar) is that characters can be depicted as emotionally attracted to both sexes. As one who hates strict categories and pigeon-holing of such things as gender and sexuality, this pleases me greatly - I really need to get hold of the books with Tom Gay in! No constructive point to make, just happy

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

Sexuality and reader interpretation http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8007

Author:	RroseSelavy [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Cosimo's Jackal wrote: ...and she presents Tom, not merely as a tomboy, but as more or less male! She even gives her mother a 'manly salute' from the train, and makes poor Rosalie read a boys' comic to stop her crying As an adult, I find it hard not to read Tom as potentially transgendered. I don't believe gender identity is something that is easily altered by outside forces, and so because Tom responds so positively to her father treating her as a boy - i.e. she takes on a masculine identity which apparently goes beyond tomboyishness, or a simple development of socially 'male' interests - my interpretation is that she does actually see herself as male.

Author:	bonnie [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Quote: As an adult, I find it hard not to read Tom as potentially transgendered. I don't believe gender identity is something that is easily altered by outside forces, and so because Tom responds so positively to her father treating her as a boy - i.e. she takes on a masculine identity which apparently goes beyond tomboyishness, or a simple development of socially 'male' interests - my interpretation is that she does actually see herself as male. I think I agree with you here - or at least she seems to be breaking out of the gender binary, whether or not she is actually trans. I shall have to read the books with her in - they start with Tom Tackles, don't they? I do love reading queerness into books/characters, especially if the author didn't intend it - it makes the character more real, to me, to read in these little bits the author doesn't explicitly state. That's why Joey doesn't activate my imagination as much as many other characters - we are told so very much about her life that trying to let her develop in my own imagination is nigh on impossible, which makes her a rather dull character to read (IMO), at least once she gets older.

Author:	MJKB [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
bonnie wrote: As an adult, I find it hard not to read Tom as potentially transgendered. I don't believe gender identity is something that is easily altered by outside forces, and so because Tom responds so positively to her father treating her as a boy - i.e. she takes on a masculine identity which apparently goes beyond tomboyishness, or a simple development of socially 'male' interests - my interpretation is that she does actually see herself as male. It's difficult not to see this, particularly as an adult. That's why I often wondered what Tom's news was, and even as a child reader who knew next to nothing about homosexuality (honestly!) I was taken aback when Tom gives that hint in her letter about having something to tell everyone. I jumped to the conclusion that it was an engagement, but an engagement that I didn't expect. Nancy and Kathy's relationship seems decidedly lesbian, but I wonder if EBD was conscious of it. Women in those days did have strong relationships which may not necessarily have been lesbian. A cousin of my mother's, a devout Catholic divorcee (he divorced her) had an extremely close friendship with another woman who was married, and seemingly happily married. Her husband was accepting of their relationship and they often went out as a threesome. Even as a small child I was aware of the strength of the friendship, and my cousin's two sisters were often irritated by it. There was no point in asking Bridie, my mother's cousin, out anywhere, because she automatically included Eileen in the invitation. I don't honestly think the resentment or irritation was to do with what they saw into the relationship, I just think they found her very annoying, and, from my memory of her, she was. Extremely annoying. My memory of their relationship goes back to when I was about 10 or 11, and I was quite perceptive as a child so I'm sure I'd have picked up the vibes if my mother and her cousins were disapproving of their relationship. Perhaps we were all, adults and child alike, naive.

Author:	Alison H [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
I think Tom's dad had a serious problem! He seems to have brought Tom up to believe that there was something wrong/inferior about being female: she arrives at the CS thinking that most girls are silly and even that most girls are dishonourable and tell lies. Having interests which are not traditionally feminine, e.g. Jack Lambert's interest in cars and engineering, is fair enough, but thinking that there's something generally wrong with members of your own gender is something totally different.

Author:	Lesley [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Also not impressed with Tom's mother - that she would allow her daughter to be brought up to regard her own gender as inferior and 'silly' - wonder what that says about the relationship between Tom's parents?

Author:	bonnie [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Quote: I think Tom's dad had a serious problem! He seems to have brought Tom up to believe that there was something wrong/inferior about being female: she arrives at the CS thinking that most girls are silly and even that most girls are dishonourable and tell lies. Having interests which are not traditionally feminine, e.g. Jack Lambert's interest in cars and engineering, is fair enough, but thinking that there's something generally wrong with members of your own gender is something totally different. That said, Alison, I grew up thinking something very similar and I certainly wasn't taught that. I loathed all girls as silly, weak creatures and remember being monumentally irritated by all female characters in children's stories, apart from witches (in general) and Nancy from Swallows and Amazons.

Author:	Nightwing [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
bonnie wrote: ...I grew up thinking something very similar and I certainly wasn't taught that. I loathed all girls as silly, weak creatures and remember being monumentally irritated by all female characters in children's stories, apart from witches (in general) and Nancy from Swallows and Amazons. That's the magic of patriarchy! The very fact that "girly" is an insult explains so much. A lot of stereotypical "girl" things - the colour pink, playing with dolls - are seen as inferior to "boy" things. This reaches into adulthood, too - there's meant to be something shameful about liking chicklit and romances, while liking action and adventure books and movies (manly entertainment!) is fine for either sex. You can see this in Tom Tackles, too - EBD shows that girls are as good as boys because they spurn emotion and GPs, the same way that boys do. Tom doesn't learn that femininity has as much merit as masculinity; she learns that she can be a girl and still be masculine. The latter is actually a pretty good lesson, but combined with the former it's once more telling readers: men are greater than women. One of the reasons I loved Nancy as a kid (and still do!) is because even though she's tomboyish, she never says "I wish I was a boy". I may have enjoyed some boyish things as a girl, but I was always perfectly happy being female. I always hated George in Famous Five, because she was always complaining that she wanted to be a boy. Unfortunately, in that series, there's such a strong dividing line between "what boys do" and "what girls do" that she couldn't be a girl and still do the things she wanted to do. Nancy never had that problem; everyone accepted who she was, and (apart from the GA) didn't try and dictate to her what she should be.

Author:	Josette [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
I've only recently acquired Changes and the beginning of Margot's and Emerence's friendship is described very much in terms of a crush - think Joey actually says Margot has "got it good and hot" for Emerence or something along those lines. There's also an interesting snippet later on when Emerence becomes momentarily transfixed by Con and how different she is from Margot - OK, this wouldn't have struck me without the earlier bit about Margot: I think as an adult reader there's so much more scope for interpretations of this kind! The part in Challenge where Kathie is ill and Nancy is frantic definitely seems to imply Nancy is in love with Kathie, and that the girls realise this - though I agree that it's very unlikely EBD meant it that way. It's this sort of thing, rather than any suggested "masculine" or "feminine" tendencies, that make me inclined to read a character as potentially gay. Tom and Rosalie are interesting, though, as they are among very few characters who are allowed to develop GPs while being likeable characters (unlike, say, Mary Woodley's adoration for Vi, or Francie's desperation to be Margot's best friend, which disappears round about the time she reforms). EBD often seemed to explore a new theme for a couple of books before dropping it - this seems to be one of those occasions. Interesting points Nightwing - I think a man writing about relationships (Nick Hornby for example? not my strong subject though) tends to receive more respect than a woman doing the same thing - presumably because she's confirming a stereotype and he's going against it?

Author:	MJKB [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Nightwing wrote: One of the reasons I loved Nancy as a kid (and still do!) is because even though she's tomboyish, she never says "I wish I was a boy". I may have enjoyed some boyish things as a girl, but I was always perfectly happy being female. I always hated George in Famous Five, because she was always complaining that she wanted to be a boy. Unfortunately, in that series, there's such a strong dividing line between "what boys do" and "what girls do" that she couldn't be a girl and still do the things she wanted to do. Nancy never had that problem; everyone accepted who she was, and (apart from the GA) didn't try and dictate to her what she should be. Which Nancy? I agree with you, by the way, about this "I wish I was a boy" lark. I could never stand George in the Famous Five (actually, I couldn't stand the Famous Five, much preferred the Five Findouters, especially Fatty who could be really funny) either. I resented the idea that boys were superior to girls and couldn't understand why EB seemed to subscribe to it through George considering the self sufficient female world of Malory Towers and St. Clare's. Even in the Naughtiest Girls books where you have a co ed establishment, and quite progressive too, Elizabeth is represented as very much the equal of the boys. I regard Mr. Gay (interesting choice of name) as a disgrace to the C of E for promoting such anti woman views and for bringing up his daughter to be ashamed of her sex. As someone has already mebtioned, Mrs.Day doesn't come out of it too well for allowing her husband to show so clearly to his daughter that he is so disappointed that she is a girl that he is determined to mould her into the son he so desperately wanted. Tom's upbringing is what we would regard nowadays as seriously dysfunctional.

Author:	Sarah_G-G [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Nightwing wrote: That's the magic of patriarchy! The very fact that "girly" is an insult explains so much. A lot of stereotypical "girl" things - the colour pink, playing with dolls - are seen as inferior to "boy" things. This reaches into adulthood, too - there's meant to be something shameful about liking chicklit and romances, while liking action and adventure books and movies (manly entertainment!) is fine for either sex. Annoying, isn't it? I think you've made that point very well, Nightwing, and I absolutely agree so I won't go on. It drives me mad though that it seems as though the only way to be equal is to be equal on men's terms- it's cool for a girl to want to play football but "girly" (i.e. weak, petty, dull) if she wants to dance anything but street, and woe betide the small boy who wants to learn ballet. Nancy and Peggy from Swallows and Amazons were great characters, tomboy-ish but still defiantly female. S&A is pretty good for that considering when it was written, from what I remember. Susan is allowed to be feminine while still doing pretty much everything the boys do and Dorothea is very much Dick's equal. I do like Tom, but their family dynamic must have been very weird! Josette wrote: I've only recently acquired Changes and the beginning of Margot's and Emerence's friendship is described very much in terms of a crush - think Joey actually says Margot has "got it good and hot" for Emerence or something along those lines. There's also an interesting snippet later on when Emerence becomes momentarily transfixed by Con and how different she is from Margot - OK, this wouldn't have struck me without the earlier bit about Margot: I think as an adult reader there's so much more scope for interpretations of this kind! I'd forgotten about that, but I do think there's a case to be made for Emerence at least to be inclined to crushes, whether you read that as strong admiration for another girl or the prelude to romantic feelings. There's another quote to the effect that she's stunned by Verity's looks in Shocks, I think. Something about being silenced by Verity's silvery fairness and petite stature, though I forget the exact quote.

Author:	bonnie [ Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
I don't think it was patriarchy in my case, as I was absolutely brought up with the idea that girls and boys were not at all different and that both had equal abilities and were equally capable in all areas. I think it was more that the girls in the stories never lived up to this, and always relied on boys to help them out, or were drawn as weaker, somehow - afraid of the dark, or thunder, or some such. Even Nancy failed to triumph over John, which really irritated me - couldn't an author for once, just for once, let a girl win? But I definitely appreciated the blurring of the gender lines in S&A, as Nancy in particular represented my own feelings about myself at the time - a girl, but not a stereotyped scaredy-girl like so many of them seemed to be.

Author:	mohini [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Until I read an essay on Chalet school on the net I never thought of all the things discussed. As a child I never knew about gay or sexual relations. I lived in a world of my own. I accepted facts. I think it was when I was in my 20s that I came to know about all these thing because I was a voracious reader. But even now since the thought of Hilda and Nell relationship was put in my head by the essay, I did not find anything odd on the books. I do not think that EBD meant it that way. On GPs and crushes. There was a senior girl in my school whom I liked. And I wanted approval from her. She was editor of our school magazine and I would write poems( not on her ) and articles and give it to her for publishing in the mag and would feel happy when she smiled at me. It made my day. Would this come under GP or crush? I actually like the idea of encouraging the juniors to admire the seniors. It instills a sense of responsibility in the senior who will think twice before doing something bad which she does not want her junior to do.

Author:	Llywela [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
bonnie wrote: I don't think it was patriarchy in my case, as I was absolutely brought up with the idea that girls and boys were not at all different and that both had equal abilities and were equally capable in all areas. I think it was more that the girls in the stories never lived up to this, and always relied on boys to help them out, or were drawn as weaker, somehow - afraid of the dark, or thunder, or some such. Even Nancy failed to triumph over John, which really irritated me - couldn't an author for once, just for once, let a girl win? Ah, but it is Titty who captures the Amazon, all by herself, not John.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Nightwing wrote: That's the magic of patriarchy! The very fact that "girly" is an insult explains so much. A lot of stereotypical "girl" things - the colour pink, playing with dolls - are seen as inferior to "boy" things. This reaches into adulthood, too - there's meant to be something shameful about liking chicklit and romances, while liking action and adventure books and movies (manly entertainment!) is fine for either sex. You can see this in Tom Tackles, too - EBD shows that girls are as good as boys because they spurn emotion and GPs, the same way that boys do. Tom doesn't learn that femininity has as much merit as masculinity; she learns that she can be a girl and still be masculine. The latter is actually a pretty good lesson, but combined with the former it's once more telling readers: men are greater than women. Absolutely on all this. (Instructive to look at the vitriol which greeted the new Sex and the City film, when surely it's only about as vapid, lazy and platitudinous as the average macho action flick - and has the added advantage of containing female characters who don't get killed off over the opening credits...?) I agree entirely also that Tom assimilates into the CS because of the way in which it promotes sentimentality-spurning notions of femininity. I have actually noticed in Rosalie that Tom being a central character seems to make EBD write the other characters with whom she's in contact behave in a more stereotypically 'boyish' and gruff manner. So we see Tom, Gay and Josette both sharply squashing the inquisitive new Junior in a rough and quite un-CS way: Quote: Finally, Tom revolted. “I’m not answering another question!” she snapped. “... You’re a lot too cheeky, and unless you pipe down a bit, your crowd will give you the dickens of a time if I know anything about them! Now shut up, and let someone else do the talking!” Gay, attracted by the tone of Tom’s voice, had overheard part of this. 'But you’ve been asking ever since Tom and what’s-her-name joined us. Give your tongue a rest and other folk a chance until we get to Crewe.” It's quite unusual to be this rough in suppressing a new girl, and very unlike a CS prefect to call another new girl, to whom she's been introduced 'what's-her-name'! And lots of other things like the girls in general looking down on 'pretty' or fanciful costumes for the fancy dress party and calling them 'soppy' (although EBD usually loves pretty ways of dressing up), and everyone calling crying 'howling' or 'bawling', and the fact that the moment at which Rosalie becomes a 'true CS girl' is in cheering at a cricket match! The one thing that feels odd about Tom's extreme boyishness (and which makes her stand out from other tomboy heroines like George in the Famous Five, or Jo March) is that tomboyishness is perfectly acceptable at the CS, and being keen on games, tearing your clothes, not caring about your appearance, being interested in cars and engines, and being bad at sewing are all very much a part of being a normal CS girl! So it's not like the Famous Five, where being a girl limits you to making homes in caves, while the boys get on with the good stuff - you can entirely understand George's desire to not be a girl in the circumstances. There are CS girls who like dainty sewing etc, but the majority are seen as tomboyish and approved of for it. So there's nothing in the CS ethos of girlhood that pushes Tom towards trying to be an actual boy, because the school legtimates a free, athletic, honourable, getting-into-scrapes version of being a girl. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that she still finds maleness so distinctly preferable, unless you start to think of her in relation to being trans - as someone said up the thread.

Author:	Alison H [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Does it change as time goes on? In the early days, Simone gets rather soppy about Jo, and although she's put in a separate dormitory that's more because Madge thinks she's doing Jo's head in than because there's a problem with soppiness. Grizel collects postcards of the Prince of Wales and famous sportsmen and, whilst she had a genuine interest in sport and may for all we know also have been an ardent royalist , I think that that might have been frowned on in later years, and for that matter so might Simone's making paper dolls out of pictures of celebrities. Even early on, though, we see the girls going off climbing mountains and rowing boats, making a mess of their attempts at cooking, sewing and laundry, getting covered in hay, etc: there isn't really anyone who sits on the side saying that they don't want to get their clothes mucky or get all hot and sticky playing sports, or fussing about the sun giving them freckles like Claudine in the St Clare's books does. Marie von Eschenau, the stunningly beautiful one of the Quartette, who ends up marrying a count as soon as she leaves school, is still the one of her group who's best at sports (that was very badly put but you know what I mean!). & all the "school codes" which Tom associates with boys apply at the CS too. So, as you say, I don't know why Tom still seemed to think that boys were better than girls, or why she seemed so determined to work with boys rather than mixed gender groups. I think EBD tries to have it both ways sometimes, though! CS girls, when in contact with third parties, are meant to be girly as well as not being girly, if that makes sense. As soon as the Maynards meet Ruey, Joey suddenly starts going on about how girls should take an interest in their clothes and their appearance and the triplets suddenly develop an interest in making homes look "pretty"; and dainty Peggy is presented as a role model for scruffy Polly and Lala.

Author:	bonnie [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Quote: Ah, but it is Titty who captures the Amazon, all by herself, not John. Very good point, Llywela! I stand corrected

Author:	Cel [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Alison H wrote: I think EBD tries to have it both ways sometimes, though! CS girls, when in contact with third parties, are meant to be girly as well as not being girly, if that makes sense. As soon as the Maynards meet Ruey, Joey suddenly starts going on about how girls should take an interest in their clothes and their appearance and the triplets suddenly develop an interest in making homes look "pretty"; and dainty Peggy is presented as a role model for scruffy Polly and Lala. I think that's quite age-dependent, though. The younger girls aren't expected or encouraged to have any interest in looks/clothes/boys or anything typically girly, yet suddenly when they hit about 15 it's seen as acceptable and even desirable to care about being dainty and start to powder one's nose and so on . There's a passage in (I think) Richenda where Joey says something along the lines of not expecting younger girls to be bothered about the clothes they wore, but now that Ricki is older it's time she started to take an interest.

Author:	Chelsea [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
bonnie wrote: Even Nancy failed to triumph over John, which really irritated me - couldn't an author for once, just for once, let a girl win? Interesting - I always think of the Swallows as the underdogs in that contest. And, being a "rooter for the underdog" am quite happy that they won.

Author:	julieanne1811 [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
mohini wrote: I do not think that EBD meant it that way. On GPs and crushes. There was a senior girl in my school whom I liked. And I wanted approval from her. She was editor of our school magazine and I would write poems( not on her ) and articles and give it to her for publishing in the mag and would feel happy when she smiled at me. It made my day. Would this come under GP or crush? I actually like the idea of encouraging the juniors to admire the seniors. It instills a sense of responsibility in the senior who will think twice before doing something bad which she does not want her junior to do. I like this, mohini. It's interesting that in our highly sexualised society that we might put meanings where there weren't meanings, especailly as they were written in times very different to our own. I had a femaile friend who I admired enormously, years ago. Someone asked me if my admiration had a 'lesbian' element to it, and no, it didn't. I think it says more about our times that situations innocent of any sexual element can be questioned in this way. I do agree, however, with much of what is said about Tom. She is certainly more than a simple 'tomboy', but I don't think that necessarily has to be extended to include a particular sexual proclivity.

Author:	fraujackson [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
I've always seen Tom more as an asexual character - I just can't see her being bothered with anybody (male or female) in a romantic way. (And could you be a misogynistic lesbian ?) Rosalie Way I've always felt probably was homosexual, on the other hand... The only other suspiscion I've ever had was about the two girls (can't remember who it was now !) who went to Australia to set up a music shop together. If only because that always sounded like a euphemism...

Author:	Lesley [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Grizel Cochrane and Deira O'Hara

Author:	fraujackson [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Thank you, Lesley !

Author:	MJKB [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
julieanne1811 wrote: I like this, mohini. It's interesting that in our highly sexualised society that we might put meanings where there weren't meanings, especailly as they were written in times very different to our own. I had a femaile friend who I admired enormously, years ago. Someone asked me if my admiration had a 'lesbian' element to it, and no, it didn't. I think it says more about our times that situations innocent of any sexual element can be questioned in this way. I agree. And because it is seen as the 'norm' to be in some sort of relationship by a certain age, I think we've lost a degree of freedom, if that makes sense. I was talking to my niece the other day and she was filling me in on the very different terminology around relationships. Where we use to talk about 'doing a line' - and my niece fell around the place laughing at that one, now you're single or in a relationship. In my day single meant simply not being married. Obviously, there are lots of other examples. Back in the 70's and 80's it was perfectly normal in Ireland for large gangs of single women to socialise together, and the same applied to men, but now there seems to be much more of 'coupledom'. When I went to Greece in the late 80's for 6 wks one summer, you could pick out Irish singles a mile off; apart, of course, from the fact that they were likey to be blistered and sunburnt! they were usually in single sex groups. My friends and I were very much struck by the 'coupledom' of the continentals, especially the Germans and Dutch. In fact one Dutch guy commented quite seriously that when he went to Dublin he was convinced that the majority of the population was gay and into orgies!

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
MJKB wrote: Where we use to talk about 'doing a line' - and my niece fell around the place laughing at that one My mother still says this! She used to refer to me and my partner as 'doing a strong line', which used to make him cry with laughter! The only snag, from her point of view, is that a 'strong line' is supposed to end in the 'knot' of marriage, and she can't figure out why we haven't... On the 'reading meanings that aren't there into books' - I think this expression isn't helpful, as it suggests readers are wrong to do so, and that the purpose of reading books is to restrict yourself only to meanings the original author consciously included in the text. Whereas, it doesn't matter what EBD intended, really - and of course, we don't know, as she isn't here to tell us. Books escape the conscious intentions of their authors all the time. A large proportion of the most long-running and interesting discussions on here are about things EBD didn't consciously mean, but which still found their way into her novels! No, it's highly unlikely EBD intended to write Nancy and Kathie /Hilda and Bill as a couple, or to suggest Tom had some form of gender disfunction, or that Rosalie Way was gay, but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that she did. What she did do, though, in Rosalie - to take an obvious example - is very different to her first, very minor depiction of anything approaching a GP, Simone's for Joey. In Rosalie the two main characters in this 'crush' have been sexualised into one very boyish character, whose language, interests and appearance are strikingly masculine, and one ultra-feminine character, all curls, clinginess and babyish prettiness, who needs to be looked after by the strong 'boyish' character. She's replicating the dynamics of her typical mistress/doctor relationship between two schoolgirls, one of whom has a crush on the other. I think that's really interesting, but I'm not sure what it tells us...? That she couldn't imagine a schoolgirl crush without masculine/feminine gender roles? Or without the looking after/looked after dynamic she nearly always writes into her hetero relationships...? And, given that her male characters always pursue, while the female characters seem oblivious until they're actually engaged, is it interesting that in the Tom/Rosalie relationship, 'girlie' Rosalie is the one in hot pursuit of 'boyish' Tom? Why flip things round in this case...?

Author:	Nightwing [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
julieanne1811 wrote: It's interesting that in our highly sexualised society that we might put meanings where there weren't meanings, especailly as they were written in times very different to our own. I had a femaile friend who I admired enormously, years ago. Someone asked me if my admiration had a 'lesbian' element to it, and no, it didn't. I think it says more about our times that situations innocent of any sexual element can be questioned in this way. It cuts both ways, though, doesn't it? I mean, not that long ago having an intense admiration for a same-sex person could only ever be defined as that (at least in a lot of societies), and men and women were forced to suppress their real feelings, which was harmful to both them and the people around them. I also think that often when it comes to teenagers, it's hard to define when something is sexual and when it isn't. Everything when you're a teen is so very intense (all those hormones fizzing round your body, I guess) and sometimes platonic admiration can be confused with sexual attraction, and vice versa. That goes for same-sex and inter-sex relationships, too. I mean, I think it's perfectly possible to have romantic feelings for another girl as a teen without having to identify as a lesbian, or even bi, forever after - that might be the only same sex crush you have in your entire life. (Not saying that this applies to you, julieanne! I'm speaking from personal experience )

Author:	cestina [ Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Nightwing wrote: I also think that often when it comes to teenagers, it's hard to define when something is sexual and when it isn't. Everything when you're a teen is so very intense (all those hormones fizzing round your body, I guess) and sometimes platonic admiration can be confused with sexual attraction, and vice versa. That goes for same-sex and inter-sex relationships, too. I mean, I think it's perfectly possible to have romantic feelings for another girl as a teen without having to identify as a lesbian, or even bi, forever after - that might be the only same sex crush you have in your entire life. (Not saying that this applies to you, julieanne! I'm speaking from personal experience ) I agree Nightwing, I think it's very hard to be clear about the definitions and boundaries here. When I think back to boarding school life in the 1950s, when we were firmly and rigorously cut off from the opposite sex at a time when hormones "were fizzing round our bodies" as you so nicely put it, I am very sure that some of the feelings that came when one had a heavy crush on an older girl, or a member of staff, could have been identified as sexual. And indeed I am aware that there were a few relationships that did not stop at just following someone round, writing poems, hovering outside places one knew the loved one could be found, and so on. But most of what went on did not identify those involved as lesbian/bi for ever after. Considering what a large part the "crush" or "pash" played in our lives, I have always been surprised at the relative absence of it in EBD's writings.

Author:	mohini [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
On Tom I can understand Tom preferring to work with boys. In my class in school there were girls who always talked about dressing up or makeup or they would read passages from Mills and Boon books and giggle and gossip. I didnt like to sit with them. We had our own group and we preferred to play. In fact I remember that till I was 18 years old I would play with 13 - 14 years old from my neighborhood. Same thing is with my daughter. She wants to play and talk about cars and motorcycles and she finds it easy to chat with boys then with girls about all girly things like cooking and homemaking. She does like to dress up and be fashionable. So Tom would have found it easy to have common topics for discussion with boys.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:21 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
mohini wrote: On Tom I can understand Tom preferring to work with boys. In my class in school there were girls who always talked about dressing up or makeup or they would read passages from Mills and Boon books and giggle and gossip. But isn't that the odd thing with Tom's fanatical preference for 'boyishness' - because no CS girls are remotely like this? EBD would think it was unbelievably vulgar and unhealthy! (And, curiously, Tom does choose as her closest friend not another tomboy, but Rosalie Way, who is definitely at the intensely 'girlie' end of the CS scale, being good at sewing, sentimental about friendships and vain about her curls!) I think that's the thing that stands out for me about the way Tom is constructed - it doesn't really fit in with the free, physically-active, relatively tomboyish ethos of CS girlhood. All that stuff about Tom's gruff manners, schoolboy slang and tendency to give 'manly salutes' makes sense when you think of it in relation to a tomboy from a much earlier period, like Jo March - who is attracted to boyishness because of the very restricted behaviour approved of for youg women in 19thc middle-class America. Tom reads to me at times as if EBD took bits of early Jo March and moved her forward to the mid-20thc UK - only it reads quite weirdly because the sort of rules of femininity Jo was rebelling against simply aren't in force anymore at the CS!

Author:	Cel [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Sexuality and reader interpretation
Cosimo's Jackal wrote: But isn't that the odd thing with Tom's fanatical preference for 'boyishness' - because no CS girls are remotely like this? EBD would think it was unbelievably vulgar and unhealthy! But this particular quirk of Tom's was ingrained long before she ever came into the CS environment, and actually spent time in a community of women. Years of indoctrination by her father on what typical girls were like would have taken a long time to be overturned, even with evidence to the contrary before her.