The CBB :: View topic - Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School

What interests me is the incident on the stairs, when Emerence gets told that she doesn't need to know why she should obey a rule - she should just obey it. Whereas Emerence is happy to obey the rules once she does know the 'why' of it. I have to say I sympathise with her - rules just for the sake of having rules irk me to no end!

No Emerence is not nasty, but never really gets over her disregard for rules. I'm reading Changes at the moment and love how she decides she needs a run before Prep. All she has to do is ask but no Miss Emerence prefers to just do it. But no, she's not really the naughtiest, just has lots of spunk. I really like Emerence.

That's exactly right Pado! In fact she's showing initiative. I could see Mary-Lou doing the same thing. It's actually quite normal for a child to do that, they can only see the good consequences from their actions and aren't yet able to think about the responsibility that their elders have for their whereabouts. Rather than dismiss that behaviour as naughty it needs to be spelt out to them why they would need to ask permission for something like the run.

Yes - but if the staff had allowed ignorance of the reason behind a rule to be an excuse for breaking it, they would invite a heap of trouble on themselves.
I completely agree that Emerence doesn't deserve her 'Naughtiest Girl' label, though - she's no worse than a lot of Middles. And she's never nasty, as Margot (and others) can be at times. I like her.

I think, though, it wasn't so much the going out for a quick run that got her into trouble - Bill (I think it was) seems to accept that as normal - but that she stopped to chat with Margot instead.

On the other hand, I remember reading in one of the early books about Miss Wilson being in the 'Punishment Room' with two of the Middles

Others (either here or elsewhere on the Board) often refer to 'closed study scenes' - sorry if I've not phrased that correctly - ie scenes where someone is up before the Head but we never get to see or hear what really happened. These are often accompanied by a comment to the effect that exactly what happened was never known to anyone except the heads and the miscreants.

If she were a boy I'd give her a good thrashing myself and that's what she deserves.' Commander Christy had had to waste a whole morning over clearing the drain and he had planned something quite different. He had been working up to his knees in a ditch filled with chilly rain water, to say nothing of all the work needed to get the scarecrow free, and he was in a thoroughly irritable mood.

'Oh yes; she would know it was wrong,' Miss Annersley said calmly, 'but I don't suppose she stopped to think of that. She's never been taught to think.'

'Then a good caning would go a long way to teaching her, I should say!' he retorted huffily.

'No; it would only put her back up and make her feel that all her world was against her. That's a bad mood for a child of thirteen. I know you're furious, Michael. If it had been done by anyone like Mary-Lou Trelawney or, say, your own Dickie, I should agree that a good caning was probably the best thing for her. But Mary-Lou and Dickie have had sensible training all their lives. They have known proper control from the start. There would be no excuse for them. There is every excuse for a girl who has been allowed to grow up thinking she can do just as she likes. She won't escape punishment - you may be sure of that. But corporal punishment won't do her any good.'

Obviously it wasn't corporal punishment itself that EBD was against - Jem and that boy from the Mystic M (Manuel?) for example - but corporal punishment for girls; or perhaps just in a school setting. After all, Joey says in 'Tirol', I think (sorry, left my book at home) after the Mike incident that 'Jem should have been the one to give him a good caning' instead of him just being annoyed.

Makes me wonder what the punishment for Margot would have been in the same circumstances... I think Jack would be for corporal punishment for all his children if they deserved it, but EBD seems to think that it would be bad for girls, so instead she has to punish people like Sybil (or Margot with the book-end incident? Can't remember what happened there!) with a serious illness instead?

I have another vague memory, of Joey advising Hilary Graves to give Marjorie a good spanking and saying something to the effect of it being the only thing that would keep Margot and Mike in check at their worst. (I wish I could remember in which book I read these things!)

Maybe it's only at school that EBD didn't approve of corporal punishment, particularly for girls.

Here's a question about Shocks for the Chalet School (and thereafter). Before this time, the two Heads, Wilson and Annersley, had always taken prayers - being, usefully enough, different denominations. But at this point Miss Wilson goes off to the Oberland to set up St Mildred's. So who takes her place, leading prayers for the Catholics, thereafter?

There, Lesley, Madge, Audrey, Anne and Rosalind went on to the inner drawing-room where Miss Derwent, a Catholic, would take Prayers with the Catholic girls, while the rest had them with Miss Annersley.

EBD describes it as "a big, angry man" (Jem as seen from Mario's point of view) picking up Mario and thrashing him, with Mario screaming his head off, but then informs us that Jem would never be cruel to a child and knew when "the little fellow" had had enough!

I never saw this as being really terrible simply because I think Mario as Prince Balbini's son would scream blue murder about the idea anyone would dare hit him as the Prince's son, not because it was painful.

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
'Shocks for the Chalet School' was originally published in 1952, the same year as 'The Wrong Chalet School' and 'The Chalet School in the Oberland'. It was later re-published by Armada. 'Shocks' opens when Miss Annersley and Rosalie Dene receive a surprise communication from a parent in Australia, sending his young daughter - thanks to Con Stewart, now Mrs Mackenzie - to the Chalet School poste haste, following her attempts to set fire to their summerhouse. Emerence is certainly a shock for the Chalet School, having been brought up on the principle that you should never say 'no' to a child. A further shock is delivered when Jack Maynard arrives and announces that Joey has given birth to twins. Emerence arrives and is almost immediately in trouble, with Miss Dene. She gives up her morning before she relents and climbs the stairs as ordered; but this doesn't prevent her from causing trouble with the prefects. She also gets into trouble with Commander Christy. An old well is discovered when Peggy Burnett jumps down it - literally! - which leads to an old stream being renewed. The exact course of the stream is chartered by the prefects, who find themselves stuck in the middle of what used to be an old pond, rapidly filling up thanks to bad weather and the stream now flowing again. It is eventually discovered that the outlet for the pond leads to the buried treasure of an ancestor of Commander Carey, a pirate who had his crew killed so that he could live on the island from the proceeds. Emerence, in a fit of rebellion thanks to an argument with the other Middles and a punishment from the Prefects, blocks this outlet up and causes a flood. What did you think of the book? In particular, what did you think of the obedience, or lack of? Can you understand why the characters behaved as they did? Do you think that the staff deal well with what happened? What about the discussion we see on corporal punishment - do you agree? If so or if not, why? Would you have treated the disobedience differently? And, a little question of my own, following on from the discussion recently on implausible plots, how do you think the hidden treasure plot reads? Do you find it realistic? Discuss these and any other thoughts you had on the book below! Next week: Adult Matters - Adrienne.

Author:	shesings [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
It's one of my favourites of the St Briavel's books, mainly because Emerence does not actually become tamed! It is so dull when interesting misfits became 'proper' CS girls by the end of the first book in which they appear! I read it not too long after it first appeared and was enthralled by the pirate treasure plot. After all, it's not that long ago that a major and very valuable treasure trove was found in a field so it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that a rascally great-great-great uncle would have stowed away his ill-gotten gains then died without leaving a map. I think it was a lot less far-fetched than most of the plots of Enid Blyton, an author who never grabbed me at all! I thought then, and still do, that Emmie's mother had a head that zipped up the back. I have never agreed with corporal punishment but bringing up a child to believe they can do what they like regardless of the consequences for themselves and others is wrong, stupid, dangerous and cruel. Children need the security of boundaries.

Author:	Alison H [ Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Emerence is introduced as some sort of monster and is for ever more referred to as "one of the naughtiest girls in the annals of the school", but she never really does anything that bad! She never reforms - good for her - but she never does anything absolutely horrendous either. Really, she's remarkably normal considering that her parents let her run wild and her dad apparently thinks it's OK to put a 13-year-old girl on a plane to the other side of the world without making any sort of arrangements in advance. Well, other than a telegram saying "Please correct faults" which makes it sound as if she's a manuscript full of typos . Rosalie even has to ring the airline to ask when the next flight from Australia's due in: poor Emerence would presumably otherwise have been stranded at Heathrow on her own. Obedience is a common theme in 19th century books, although usually it's associated with British or American families, usually strict Protestants, whereas EBD tends to associate it with families who are European and Catholic. Some of EBD's early books are like that, with the talk about Robin being "trained to instant obedience" - which always makes me feel uncomfortable - but by the time we get to Shocks things have moved on. Rolf Maynard's mysterious fatal accident and Sybil's accident with the kettle are the sort of punishment-for-disobedience moral stories that you get in the Elsie books or What Katy Did: what happens in Shocks are less of a tale of a morality and more of an ordinary school story. The buried treasure storyline seems much more Enid Blyton than EBD, and I don't think EBD knew what to do about it afterwards : IIRC there's a brief mention later on of Dickie and her stepmother not wanting to wear the jewellery and that's it. It would only really have fitted in if Cdr Christy had donated the money to the School or the San. & I know it's been said before but that man didn't half spend a lot of time hanging about in Hilda's study . Joey seems to have a weird obsession with the gender of babies! I know her remarks about not wanting a fourth successive son are only jokey, but they seem a bit OTT, and she also went OTT when Madge had 3 daughters in a row .

Author:	shesings [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
I always thought it was a bit of a swizz they found the treasure during the holidays, and just in time for them to able to afford to let Cherry go to Switzerland where she seemed to disappear without trace. That bit at the start of Changes has always seemed a bit of an anti-climax! Joey's reaction to the birth of Felix has always irritated me but then I've always found Joey's attitude to pregnancy, childbirth and other people's babies deeply annoying.

Author:	Nightwing [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
What interests me is the incident on the stairs, when Emerence gets told that she doesn't need to know why she should obey a rule - she should just obey it. Whereas Emerence is happy to obey the rules once she does know the 'why' of it. I have to say I sympathise with her - rules just for the sake of having rules irk me to no end! I'd disagree that Emerence never reforms - after Mary-Lou I can't think of any moments where she's truly awful again (although correct me if I'm wrong!). I think that Margot, or Prudence, are far more deserving of the labels of 'Naughtiest Girl in School'. Emerence never becomes a Good Chalet Girl, but she is a good friend to Margot and a kind and generous person, and I think it's sad she never loses that first label.

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

Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7043

Author:	Cel [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Nightwing wrote: What interests me is the incident on the stairs, when Emerence gets told that she doesn't need to know why she should obey a rule - she should just obey it. Whereas Emerence is happy to obey the rules once she does know the 'why' of it. I have to say I sympathise with her - rules just for the sake of having rules irk me to no end! Yes - but if the staff had allowed ignorance of the reason behind a rule to be an excuse for breaking it, they would invite a heap of trouble on themselves. I completely agree that Emerence doesn't deserve her 'Naughtiest Girl' label, though - she's no worse than a lot of Middles. And she's never nasty, as Margot (and others) can be at times. I like her.

Author:	Jennie [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Yes, blackmail and bookends, And in one book, Hilda reflects that Jack and Jo have trained their children well.

Author:	Kacca [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
No Emerence is not nasty, but never really gets over her disregard for rules. I'm reading Changes at the moment and love how she decides she needs a run before Prep. All she has to do is ask but no Miss Emerence prefers to just do it. But no, she's not really the naughtiest, just has lots of spunk. I really like Emerence. I think the incident on the stairs was actually handled really well. It was a really important point that EBD made that rules are there for a reason. I like kids to question rules, the whole instant obedience thing is really scary. But we also have to trust that rules are made for good reason and if we can't work out why it is a rule then we should ask. I'm sure someone explains that to Emerence too. It's interesting that Hilda suggests corporal punishment would do Emerence no good but that it's OK for boys or even for girls like Dickie or Mary-Lou who have been brought up with sensible training. I can't see the benefit of it at all. To me hitting someone shows no respect, so how can you teach someone to show respect for other people or property by hitting them? Sure it may work as a punishment, may even keep things peaceful in a school or household, but corporal punishment does nothing to raise young people to be considerate adults. The treasure bit didn't interest me because I read CS for the school and family stories. I used to read Enid Blyton for teasure hunting . I never really found it realistic TBH, even though I have no reason for that. But I find Michael Christy's response to finding it lovely. That they would be set up comfortably and send the girls to Switzerland, return church property to the Church and set up scholarships and support charity. That's realistic. Of course that entire scene in Changes becomes totally secondary and pretty much overshadowed in my memory by the image of him vaulting out the window.

Author:	Miss Di [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Kacca wrote: No Emerence is not nasty, but never really gets over her disregard for rules. I'm reading Changes at the moment and love how she decides she needs a run before Prep. All she has to do is ask but no Miss Emerence prefers to just do it. But no, she's not really the naughtiest, just has lots of spunk. I really like Emerence. That is the famous Australian dislike of rules and disregard for bosses

Author:	Pado [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
The thing is, she's going for a run so that she can better obey the rules later on. She's seen the signs in herself of being, well, hyperactive, and she's trying to do something about it so that she can conform to the norm during whatever comes next, prep IIRC. It's rather a shame that someone doesn't recognize this and give her partial credit...I'm sure it's an improvement over her previous behavior of simply going to the class and causing a disturbance.

Author:	Kacca [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Miss Di! That's exactly right Pado! In fact she's showing initiative. I could see Mary-Lou doing the same thing. It's actually quite normal for a child to do that, they can only see the good consequences from their actions and aren't yet able to think about the responsibility that their elders have for their whereabouts. Rather than dismiss that behaviour as naughty it needs to be spelt out to them why they would need to ask permission for something like the run. I'm sure that when EBD talks about sensible training this is probably some of what she means but so often that is obscured by the idea of instant obedience. Sometimes it seems that she thinks that instant obedience will just magically transfrom children into responsible citizens. We see that CS girls are expected to reason for themselves but not shown how they learn to do it. This made me feel as though I wasn't good enough or smart enough as a kid, now looking back I know it's something we develop slowly with lots of help from the adults around us.

Author:	Alison H [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
I find the "instant obedience" remarks quite creepy. A very small child needs to know that a certain tone of parental voice needs to be obeyed, because they don't know not to put their hand on a hot stove or their fingers in a plug socket so there will be times when a parent needs to shout "No!" and be obeyed at once, but in CS land unquestioning obedience seems to be required of older children too. It's not uncommon in Victorian books, but is much less common by the time of the CS books. For example, Evadne and Cornelia are sympathetic about Grizel's dad making her study music when she doesn't want to, but some of the others take the view that Grizel shouldn't question her father's orders even though she is 18 by then and studying music will make her unhappy and do no-one any good. & all the remarks about Robin being "trained" make her sound like a cross between a guard dog and a performing seal .

Author:	Mel [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Especially as the Robin is trained to 'instant obedience' by the frail and saintly Marya. It works for her, I think, because Robin is naturally a docile child. I don't think Mrs Humphries would have had the same success with Corney, Grizel or other feisty kids - or even Jo and Mary-Lou.

Author:	emma t [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Poor Emerence!One actually feels sympathy for her. I think it's because she has never learned discipline from a young age, almost always gotten her own way at home that she does not know how to conform to the Chalet way of life. Her father sends her to the school without even asking the authorities if there is a space vacant, and not going through the correct chanels, so what chance does she have if her father does things like this? Surely it is down to the parents? I suppose it was an act of desperation, which in a way, you can almost forgive him for wishing her upon the chalet school But at the same time; you can see where the staff are coming from. I agree with some of the punishments. To let her sit it out on the stairs is a good way; it's not giving into her as such - quite the opposite trying to teach her how to behave in a decent manner. How many parents sit their child on the naughty step? I know that my friend sits her step son to one side and talks to him about his behaviour if he is being disruptive in general and makes him sit there until he has learned his lesson. I can imagine it quite a shock to Emerence, that she is not going to get her own way here so to speak

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
I think that what amused me about it was that EBD at one point said that Mrs Hope could shout at Emerence when she chose - as if just raising a child on the idea that you should never say 'no' is, in and of itself, perfectly acceptable. It was being flighty and inconsistent that did it! I do like Emerence, for me she's one of the more realistic characters in the series; she grows up, but she never quite loses her originality. I think she'd have been a good candidate for coming back as a mistress. Personally, I quite like the buried treasure storyline, though the whole pirate thing seems a little odd in CS land! Though I suppose not that different to, say, finding the salt caves. It makes it more than just another 'odd new girl needs transforming', which I think is why I like it.

Author:	Mrs Redboots [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Kacca wrote: That's exactly right Pado! In fact she's showing initiative. I could see Mary-Lou doing the same thing. It's actually quite normal for a child to do that, they can only see the good consequences from their actions and aren't yet able to think about the responsibility that their elders have for their whereabouts. Rather than dismiss that behaviour as naughty it needs to be spelt out to them why they would need to ask permission for something like the run. I think, though, it wasn't so much the going out for a quick run that got her into trouble - Bill (I think it was) seems to accept that as normal - but that she stopped to chat with Margot instead. However, most schools wouldn't have allowed her to have that run anyway, any signs of individuality being most thoroughly stamped on! One of the nicer things about the Chalet School is that girls are allowed to be individuals and even (shock, horror!) to stand out from the crowd!

Author:	Lisa_T [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Seriously, Emerence had ADD. I see it so clearly now, since I live with someone who is very ADD! I always got the impression though that the 'instant obedience' thing was something that EBD must have encountered in her Tyrolean trips and she blew it out of all proportion in her mind. After all, she was a teacher, so I imagine she found herself thinking wistfully of all those little European paragons - or even plain old Victorian 'manners' - while she tried to pound some English in her pupils' heads. Her English characters hear plenty about the famed obedience, but with the exception of the Maynards, you see it actually being enforced. Even with the triplets, there's some lovely parent-child interactions in Jo to the Rescue where Jack tries to explain obedience and rules and everything else to the three year old Margot. With limited success, but he tried. It's only as the Trips get older and the kids keep coming that the parenting becomes more 2-D - although to be fair, I doubt EBD considered it terribly important when she was writing school stories. I've got to say, I've no issues with the parenting in Future CS Girl either. Joey and Co in Tirol is something else!

Author:	Llywela [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Cel wrote: Yes - but if the staff had allowed ignorance of the reason behind a rule to be an excuse for breaking it, they would invite a heap of trouble on themselves. I completely agree that Emerence doesn't deserve her 'Naughtiest Girl' label, though - she's no worse than a lot of Middles. And she's never nasty, as Margot (and others) can be at times. I like her. Agreed on both counts. I re-read this one very recently, and was completely behind the staff on the stair incident. It was important that Emerence had very firm boundaries set very early on, that she learned that she couldn't just go around breaking rules simply because she couldn't see the point of them - and it was made clear to her later that if she wanted to know the why of the rule, she only had to ask all along. But Emerence certainly does not deserve to be permanently labelled the naughtiest girl in the school! Mrs Redboots wrote: I think, though, it wasn't so much the going out for a quick run that got her into trouble - Bill (I think it was) seems to accept that as normal - but that she stopped to chat with Margot instead. nods I think it is Miss Annersley who encounters Emerence outside chatting to Josette and the triplets (Bill would be in the Oberland setting up St Mildred's at the time), but she certainly doesn't scold her for the decision to go for a run before prep - she just questions what she is doing outside chatting, and when Emerence says that she needs a run, tells her to get on with it and then hurry to prep. There's no scolding. It's a nice little interaction. Isn't this the point at which Matey gets cloned for real? I mean, EBD always got her matrons confused so that they were all essentially the same person (other than the Bad Matrons, of course). But at this point we have two books running concurrently in two different locations, and Matey is in them both - over at St Millies, Bill even addresses her as Gwyn. Yet she is very blatantly still on St Briavel's with the school proper at the same time...

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
She does the same with Karen in Mary-Lou: she ends up working at both the main school and St Mildred's at the same time . At least she never cloned Joey ... ugh, what a horrible thought .

Author:	JB [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
This reminds me of Jasper Fforde and the "generics" that are used in books in the Thursday Next universe. It's probably much more difficult (and maybe against the rules) to clone major characters. Perhaps there are hundred of Austrian cooks called Karen out there.

Author:	Sunglass [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
What I like about Emerence is that while she's not a Villainous Type like Thekla von Stift, she really stretches the school disciplinary system. CS discipline so often depends on a miscreant being cowed into behaving because Matey says she will force them to drink a tonic, or physically put them into their climbing breeches, or wilts under a prefect or mistress being sarcastic, saying, they're disappointed at such childish antics, or saying something vaguely threatening like 'Oh, I assure you, you won't like what happens if I...' But Emerence genuinely doesn't care at the start of her CS career, which is perfectly realistic - she doesn't have any experience of what rules or prefects are, and how you are meant to behave towards them, and in fact she doesn't pay any attention to what either the prefects or Matey say when she shows up in the prefects' room on her first day. For once, both the prefects and Matey have to actually lay hands on a girl to get her to do what they want, and Mary-Lou and her Gang also have to physically stop her running off to break a rule at some other point - and Rosalie Dene has to grip her by the shoulder so tightly she can't get away and frogmarch her to the proper stairs. I like that this is one 'born imp' that doesn't just accept that some things aren't done and has to be physically restrained from doing what she wants. There's also a nicely pointed little passage that was cut (I think) in the abridged version that shows that, while Emerence is supposed to be the bad girl, in fact a CS 'good girl' like Mary-Lou also behaves badly on occasion - it's the bit after the discovery of the well, after Mary-Lou has had to give up her smuggled in secateurs and take them home at half-term. Emerence suggests she smuggles them back again, and Mary-Lou crushes her, because that would be 'sneaking', but the uncut version reveals that she's touchy on this point because both the Head and Clem have pointed out at length that Mary-Lou was being dishonest and deceitful in smuggling them in in the first place. Emerence has the excuse of not having been brought up 'properly', and is new to school rules, so smuggling in something may not strike her as wrong, but Mary-Lou has no such excuse, so it contextualises Emerence a bit, I think. Though I have to say I feel sorry for Mary-Lou facing the Head, who says she didn't think Mary-Lou 'of all girls' would 'turn shifty' - which M-L takes a direct reference to her heroic father. It explains quite a bit about her later personality if her Head as well as her mother and grandmother continually hold her behaviour up against a dead hero's.

Author:	cal562301 [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
One thing I find interesting in this book is the conversation between Commander Christy and Miss Annersley towards the end, where the Commander suggests using corporal punishment on Emerence. IIRC (not got my copy to hand!) Miss A says corporal punishment would work with some people, eg Mary Lou, but not for Emerence, as she's not been brought up to be obedient - might have got the reason wrong, I think. The whole question of corporal punishment in CS puzzles me a bit, because I have a vague memory of a middle complaining to a pree (possibly Len Maynard, but that could be wrong too!) in one of the books that she wished she could be caned instead of some other punishment which had been imposed. The pree's answer is to the effect that corporal punishment had never been used at CS, nor was it likely to. On the other hand, I remember reading in one of the early books about Miss Wilson being in the 'Punishment Room' with two of the Middles, and I've always read that as being her administering some form of corporal punishment, although I could be totally wrong about that. Others (either here or elsewhere on the Board) often refer to 'closed study scenes' - sorry if I've not phrased that correctly - ie scenes where someone is up before the Head but we never get to see or hear what really happened. These are often accompanied by a comment to the effect that exactly what happened was never known to anyone except the heads and the miscreants. Perhaps that is, as others suggest, because EBD couldn't write the scene, but it makes me wonder whether we should read some form of corporal punishment into those scenes too. What was the general policy on corporal punishment in girls' schools of the time? In my school days we had the threat of the strap (mixed junior school) or cane (mixed grammar), but they were very rarely used on girls. Although one of my friends did once get the strap when we were juniors. I can't remember what she did now, but I'm sure it wasn't that bad by some of today's standards!

Author:	Emma A [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
I think it used to be very rare for girls' schools to use corporal punishment on their pupils - hence the mistresses' oft-expressed wish that they had a cane "and the right to use it"! Both Marjorie and Fiona in Lorna Hill's books take advantage of the fact that one doesn't strike a girl (or any woman) to crow over their bad behaviour. Guy, however, doesn't take any account of these notions of chivalry and dishes out all sorts of corporal punishment to Marjorie in particular. I can't imagine Miss Annersley (or even Miss Wilson) caning a girl at the Chalet School, and doubt EBD ever intended to convey that they might!

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
cal562301 wrote: On the other hand, I remember reading in one of the early books about Miss Wilson being in the 'Punishment Room' with two of the Middles Maybe it was just a classroom used for detention, but it sounds like some sort of torture chamber .

Author:	cestina [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Grr, posted this once and then connection went down and it vanished So trying again: I think it's most improbable that EBD was using some sort of code to indicate corporal punishment was being administered. In all the reading I have done about girls' schools, both fictional and real life public (ie private) schools, I have never come across a single instance of corporal punishment being used after the start of the twentieth century, or even late 19th when the earliest girls' school stories were written. I can imagine, though, that the staff and prefects often wished that they could occasionally wield a cane - I can well remember a strong desire to slap some of the juniors hard when I was a prefect!

Author:	andi [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
The only instance I can think of is Amy March in Little Women being caned for having contraband limes in her desk. (Set around the 1860s, I think.)

Author:	cal562301 [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Huge apologies to everyone (including EBD). It seems that I was reading something into this which wasn't intended.

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Don't apologise: it's an interesting subject (in a weird kind of way, anyway). Miss Wilson tells Eustacia that if someone "sneaked" at a boys' school then they'd get "a good thrashing" from one of the other boys, yet, during the same era, it evidently wasn't considered acceptable at a school like the CS for a teacher even to rap someone's knuckles with a ruler. So it's interesting in terms of different attitudes towards boys and girls. Is there some sort of class/social element to this? Corporal punishment - at least a rap over the knuckles with a ruler - was certainly used for pupils of both genders in state schools at the time. Teachers were still allowed to smack kids when I was at primary school ... I think it was only banned in the UK towards the end of the 1980s. Will just have a look on Google ... yep, 1987.

Author:	Margaret [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Quote: Others (either here or elsewhere on the Board) often refer to 'closed study scenes' - sorry if I've not phrased that correctly - ie scenes where someone is up before the Head but we never get to see or hear what really happened. These are often accompanied by a comment to the effect that exactly what happened was never known to anyone except the heads and the miscreants. I think that what is said is something like "It was never known what was said...." I must say I had always imagined one of Miss Annersley's famous gentle tellings-off which left the pupil in tears.

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Just for the record: Quote: If she were a boy I'd give her a good thrashing myself and that's what she deserves.' Commander Christy had had to waste a whole morning over clearing the drain and he had planned something quite different. He had been working up to his knees in a ditch filled with chilly rain water, to say nothing of all the work needed to get the scarecrow free, and he was in a thoroughly irritable mood. 'Oh yes; she would know it was wrong,' Miss Annersley said calmly, 'but I don't suppose she stopped to think of that. She's never been taught to think.' 'Then a good caning would go a long way to teaching her, I should say!' he retorted huffily. 'No; it would only put her back up and make her feel that all her world was against her. That's a bad mood for a child of thirteen. I know you're furious, Michael. If it had been done by anyone like Mary-Lou Trelawney or, say, your own Dickie, I should agree that a good caning was probably the best thing for her. But Mary-Lou and Dickie have had sensible training all their lives. They have known proper control from the start. There would be no excuse for them. There is every excuse for a girl who has been allowed to grow up thinking she can do just as she likes. She won't escape punishment - you may be sure of that. But corporal punishment won't do her any good.' Obviously it wasn't corporal punishment itself that EBD was against - Jem and that boy from the Mystic M (Manuel?) for example - but corporal punishment for girls; or perhaps just in a school setting. After all, Joey says in 'Tirol', I think (sorry, left my book at home) after the Mike incident that 'Jem should have been the one to give him a good caning' instead of him just being annoyed. Makes me wonder what the punishment for Margot would have been in the same circumstances... I think Jack would be for corporal punishment for all his children if they deserved it, but EBD seems to think that it would be bad for girls, so instead she has to punish people like Sybil (or Margot with the book-end incident? Can't remember what happened there!) with a serious illness instead?

Author:	cal562301 [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
ChubbyMonkey wrote: Obviously it wasn't corporal punishment itself that EBD was against - Jem and that boy from the Mystic M (Manuel?) for example - but corporal punishment for girls; or perhaps just in a school setting. After all, Joey says in 'Tirol', I think (sorry, left my book at home) after the Mike incident that 'Jem should have been the one to give him a good caning' instead of him just being annoyed. Makes me wonder what the punishment for Margot would have been in the same circumstances... I think Jack would be for corporal punishment for all his children if they deserved it, but EBD seems to think that it would be bad for girls, so instead she has to punish people like Sybil (or Margot with the book-end incident? Can't remember what happened there!) with a serious illness instead? Thanks Ariel. I have another vague memory, of Joey advising Hilary Graves to give Marjorie a good spanking and saying something to the effect of it being the only thing that would keep Margot and Mike in check at their worst. (I wish I could remember in which book I read these things!) Maybe it's only at school that EBD didn't approve of corporal punishment, particularly for girls. Could be a class thing too, as state schools certainly had the option, as Ariel says, until the 80s. Although I remember in that debate, that at least some private/independent schools held out for their right to use the cane if they chose. Regarding Miss A and Bill wielding the cane, I have to admit I can't really imagine the former doing it, but I think I could see Bill at her most annoyed, doing so.

Author:	JB [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
cal562301 wrote: I have another vague memory, of Joey advising Hilary Graves to give Marjorie a good spanking and saying something to the effect of it being the only thing that would keep Margot and Mike in check at their worst. (I wish I could remember in which book I read these things!) I think it's from Coming of Age after the Graves have been looking after Bruno for the weekend and Marjorie buries his chain. Joey is talking to Phil, not Hilary. Quote: Maybe it's only at school that EBD didn't approve of corporal punishment, particularly for girls. She certainly approves of corporal punishment for the children in the La Rochelle series.

Author:	Sunglass [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
Yes, for all the talk there is about 'wanting a cane and the right to use it' at the CS - and the idea, which comes up more than once, that corporal punishment might be suitable for girls like Dickie or Mary-Lou, who have been properly brought up and thus have no excuse for bad behaviour - the only time I can think of where we hear of a middle-class girl actually having been caned is Richenda, and that's before the start of the story. Well, I don't think we're specifically told her father caned her, but whatever he used made her hands sore for days. We do see boys being corporally punished (Jem and the male Balbinii twin, for one, and Janie and Julian Lucy's children in the La Rochelle books), but even though EBD seems open in principle to school-age girls being caned, she never actually seems to let it happen in the 'present' in the CS world. Although, if we assume that what Michael Christy says here is EBD's opinion - that if a girl has had the proper training and still misbehaves, caning is an appropriate punishment - has she changed her mind by the time the Maynard offspring take centre stage? Because Margot would seem like a prime contender for a caning, given that she's had perfect parenting from Jack and Joey, and frequently behaves remarkably badly, despite other forms of punishment? And if she was caned, who would do it - Jack? At what age does it stop being appropriate?

Author:	cestina [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Books: Obedience - Shocks for the Chalet School
There are at least two episodes in the books where spanking is obviously a punishment known to the triplets when they are small. One comes in Jo to the Rescue in the scene where Jack is confronted for the first time with Margot "in a paddy" and he tells her that although Jo may send her to bed as a punishment, if he sees it again it will mean a spanking. There is another scene, but I don't know in which book (Highland Twins perhaps?) where the triplets are telling a new friend what happens when they are naughty and one of them says "And if it's a very bad misbehave it's a spanking" but I think then goes on to say that the one time Joey had administered it she herself ended up in tears. I think they had been playing with matches..... Ah no, I think that's also Jo to the Rescue and they are talking to Phoebe because she then says that Debbie had held her hand in the flame when she did it. So corporal punishment is ok for small girls at least.....