The CBB :: View topic - Siblings: The Maynard Boys

I feel sorry for Mike. I wonder if he isn't one of those intelligent kids who gets bored easily, and creates havoc as a result.

I wonder how they even got to school in the first place - there's never any mention of Joey or Jack escorting them even as far as Calais, and they were only young kids when the Maynards first moved to Switzerland

Had Joey been a child in her own family (if you see what I mean), I wonder what label she’d have been given – it certainly wouldn’t have been “sensible”.

I always wonder a bit that EBD devotes so much more time to Roger Richardson than to any of Joey's sons, though. Given that the books in general assume that Joey and her family are more interesting than any other character, it seems odd that if she's wanting to introduce male characters, she doesn't focus on Joey's sons...?

Because he can make old ladies swoon in his swimming trunks :wink:

I've got three brothers, you know - and when June actually dared to disobey Sam, he gave her the choice of being spanked twenty times with her own hairbrush or running round our paddock twenty times each day

I'd have expected more rebellion on the part of the Maynard sons against the triplets, and resentment of their authority.

Being at boarding school must have been horrible for the boys with so many famous relations!

it would be too hard to be close to everyone and very easy to avoid anyone you didn't really like

There's a bit in Three Go - sadly chopped out of the paperback :evil:

- about how Charles (who was all of 4 at the time) was the one with the most influence in the nursery. (She actually makes him sound like an incredibly annoying little brat who tells the older kids off whenever they do anything wrong, but I don't think she meant it that way - the idea just seems to be that he has a good influence on the others and that they listen to him!)

I always presumed that Charles was slated for the priesthood, probably the Jesuits.

Realistically speaking, did none of the children never think that they didn't exactly get much one-on-one time with their mother and resent it?

I suspect it was the main reason Sybil as a young child was so unpleasant to her cousins at times ... but the adults in the family seem instead to assume that it's all because she's vain because people say she's pretty.

It might have been better if Chas and/or Mike had been a girl, who could have been a leader among the Middles by the end of the series, instead of EBD having to bring in new characters. But maybe at the point she introduced them, EBD still didn't envisage the series continuing as long as it did, or didn't expect the Maynards still to be so central later on.

I suppose, as well, she might have envisaged writing about Felicity, Cecil and Phil at school later on.

It struck me that Charles is rather like Walter from the Anne series. Don't know if that rings a chord with anyone else? Both seem slightly ethereal to me and rather too good to be true - and they are both second sons...

I see some people think Charles might have a religious vocatoin later in life. Personally, I always thought he'd turn out to be gay!

ClaireK

... she did keep going on and on about how she wanted a girl after three boys. I don't recall her ever saying anything along the lines of "oh, I've got three girls so I really want a boy".

There are times, honestly, when I wonder if EBD knew how babies are made, and about sex-determination in the foetus :dontknow:

I suppose, as well, she might have envisaged writing about Felicity, Cecil and Phil at school later on. I wonder how long the series would have continued if EBD had still been around to write it?

"we're hoping for twins"

There is a bit in one of the books when (I think) Blossom discusses how "monotonous" her family is in terms of looks. A kitten would certainly liven up the Maynard family

But why was Jo so much competitive about having children.

The Abbey books are the same - EJO even uses the term "baby race"

[Incidentally, I just googled to see what the difference in dates of birth for EBD and EJO was, and have become transfixed by the Wikipedia page photo of EBD. Is that a huge dangly earring against her jaw, and what is she actually wearing (finding it hard to visualise rest of outfit)? I wish she'd look round, it's quite a mysterious photo!]

Someone wrote a very good drabble about the twelfth Maynard having Down's syndrome, and how the family coped with her birth, and all their feelings - some came to terms with it sooner than others. Can't remember who wrote it, unfortunately :oops:

.

EBD, I'm sure, wouldn't have written about a Down's child at all, especially in the Maynard family.

Perhaps EBD/Joey loved flowers. Mother Teresa said that to say there are too many children in a family/the world, is like saying there are too many flowers. Mmmmm, I'm a great admirer of Mother Teresa but.....

I've always taken those comments of Joey's as being purely tongue-in-cheek...

If someone I knew kept making the same slightly preposterous statement as a joke for ten or fifteen years, I'd think there was something going on...

No, the size isn't particularly unusual for Ireland of the period Joey is reproducing

Though I have to say I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of insecurity in Joey. Which I suppose makes sense - her parents' death came too early in her life to make an impact in that way and all she's ever known is love and affection and attention. She goes from a happy home situation into a happy school situation into a very happy marriage, and continues to be surrounded by people who adore her, even outside the family. We keep being told that about the Robin, but really, it's Joey whose 'life has only ever included love' or whatever EBD says.

Abi, I'd also say that a lot of Joey's security is rooted in the school. (I'm sure she sabotaged Plas Gwyn so that she could move to Carnbach when the school was at St Briavel's!)

And as girls married early and had children early it was possible that the mother, daughter and daughter - in law were all in hospital at the same time.

Abi, I'd also say that a lot of Joey's security is rooted in the school. (I'm sure she sabotaged Plas Gwyn so that she could move to Carnbach when the school was at St Briavel's!)

I never found Joey's family that incredible in terms of numbers either. I'm Catholic and went to Catholic schools in Australia in the mid-1990s and it was not at all uncommon to have very large families.

Alison H wrote:
I'm now envisaging Jo going to Australia to visit Madge and Jem, and meeting just this reponse.

Maybe she's actually very stoical as regards giving birth? She has more experience of it than most, apart from anything else...

Mind you, maybe EBD didn't actually know what giving birth was like...

Otherwise, I'm also struggling to think of someone who never has children - oh, Kathie Ferrars' aunt and uncle. I suppose that it might be something to do with the time she grew up in, I would guess (please correct me historians) that it was still relatively normal to have a big family as they might not all survive into adulthood.

What really annoys me is Joey's comment to Samaris Davies, who is an only child, about how her (Sam's) parents should have had more children! Joey knows nothing about Sam's family: for all she knows Sam could have had siblings who'd died in infancy, or Mrs Davies could have suffered a series of miscarriages or been unable to conceive again. Or maybe they only wanted one child - what gives her the right to criticise them if they did? It's just so rude and so tactless :evil:

Somewhere there's a mention that Charles's birth wasn't as straightforward as the earlier ones, but otherwise she's infuriatingly smug about popping out her babies. (When I was having my first I remember the midwife telling me about a woman having her 11th and whose muscles were so shot the baby slid out almost without her noticing!)

My son Luca was about three days old when the pretty nurse left a white slip of paper on my hospital bed. "What's this?" I said, confused, sitting up from the chair where I was struggling to breastfeed. The nurse smiled seductively and lowered her voice. "C'est pour votre mari," she purred mysteriously. It's for your husband.

The prescription was for a post-birth tradition in France, a procedure known as la rééducation périnéale après accouchement (perineal retraining after childbirth). I am far too puritanical and squeamish to discuss in detail what is actually involved, but it's a ritual nearly every French mother goes through. Let's just say it's like an extended course of gymnastics for the pelvic area, which also involves electric devices being used to strengthen the birth canal muscles. "It's so you can make love again!" shouted one of my very open-minded French friends. "And to get pregnant fast again! And make lots more babies again!"

Was she joking? Sex was the last thing on my mind. I had just given birth after a rough, high-risk pregnancy. The labour itself had been relatively painless, thanks to the French system of loading a patient with drugs. But the aftermath was as if I had run a marathon barefoot. I felt wrecked.

"Will you be needing birth control?" the night nurse asked me the next morning. Was she serious? No, I said. But did she have Valium?

(When I was having my first I remember the midwife telling me about a woman having her 11th and whose muscles were so shot the baby slid out almost without her noticing!)

sealpuppy wrote:

(When I was having my first I remember the midwife telling me about a woman having her 11th and whose muscles were so shot the baby slid out almost without her noticing!)

My mum is the youngest of eight and my aunt (15 yrs older than Mum) tells me that when Grandma went into labour with Mum she was so annoyed because Mum was born in the middle of the washing up :lol:

Needless to say the village midwife only just made it, after poor Uncle Lewis had to hotfoot it down a almost vertical hill and up the other side to fetch her!

[]
(Jammy sod - takes my family 3 days and then some!)

and never 'forget' to drop their slang fines in the box.

Was there any way of telling if some-one had paid their fine or not? Or was it just assumed that the girls would be honourable enough to do so?

Likewise with giving in order marks.

Maybe the mistresses and prefects all walked round with little books and made notes of any fines and order marks given out, like a referee keeping a note of yellow cards shown .

It does seem to be a matter of honour as much as anything else. OT, sorry, but as it's been mentioned, what would have happened if somebody hadn't followed?

Even a firebrand like Emerence gives in disappointingly quickly after Miss Dene won't let her leave the stairs she should have gone down in the first place!

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Siblings: The Maynard Boys
As the series moves on, the Maynard family are increasingly at the centre of events, and the reader gets many insights into the Maynard home life and dynamics. However, the boys feature comparitively little, either because they are too young or are away at boarding school. Do we see enough of the Maynard boys to accurately judge their relationship? How does their relationship strike you? Is it a mirror of the relationship between the girls, or are there differences? What do you think happened 'off-screen' between them, and what would you have liked to happen? Would you have liked to see more of them in the books, or would that have been inappropriate as this is a GO series? Do they have a place in the literature of the CS - both books by EBD and by other authors - or are they relatively minor characters? Discuss these and any other points on the Maynard boys below. Idea by Sunglass

Author:	Margaret [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I do feel that once they went away to school the Maynard boys would have grown away from the Maynard family ethos. I know we hear them calling Joey 'Ma', but I feel that a lot more slang would have been introduced, though possibly not in Joey's hearing. Certainly I would have expected them to be more competetive, as all the brothers I know compete with each other furiously. I would have liked to have read more of them, but feel with a family that size they would have taken the opportunity to stay with friends more often in the holidays, to get away from the younger siblings. However as you have pointed out these are books about the Chalet School - even the holiday stories so more about the brothers would probably not be in keeping.

Author:	Lesley [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Stephen, Charles and Mike seem to mirror the triplets in personality and Stephen is hyped up as the sensible one so much that you could be forgiven for thinking that Len and Stephen are the oldest two Maynard children. I think Mike, in particular, doesn't get any choice but to be 'the naughty one' as his personality seems mapped out for him when he is only a few months old.

Author:	Nightwing [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
From what we see of the Maynards as a whole, I think that despite the boys being away from home more than the girls they're still a remarkably close family. I think one of the problems is that, having given Joey umpteen children, EBD wasn't actually able to write about them all, not even in her holiday books - perhaps her publishers weren't interested, or maybe she just couldn't think of ways to include them all? I agree with Lesley that the personalities of the boys map onto the triplets, at least to some extent. I do think that Stephen seems to be more of a natural leader than Len does; he's still protective but seems less likely to forgive other people's flaws. Charles is kind of a dark horse, and I like that EBD has a male character who isn't overly manly, for a change! I feel sorry for Mike. I wonder if he isn't one of those intelligent kids who gets bored easily, and creates havoc as a result. It's a pity that we couldn't have all the Maynard kids somewhat naughty, rather than just picking out one or two as the 'naughty' ones and making everyone else as good as gold!

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I love trying to imagine all the boys at boarding school together, but male boarding schools of the era are quite a fascination for me, so I know I'm being a bit weird with that Personally, I think that my favourite is Charles, he's so un-EBDish somehow, yet he fits in perfectly. Though, I don't know whether it's just because they don't get much screen time, but I think I would like them all more than I "like" the triplets. I think EBD ruins their characters towards the end of the series (the drabbles rescue them, though, so thankyou drabblers!) I hope they got to spend a lot of time with Jack, being taught to be manly men. Joey never seems to have that much time for them, which is sad. Or maybe Roger became the older brother they all wanted, that would be nice too.

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

Siblings: The Maynard Boys http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6460

Author:	Elle [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I wonder how the boys felt about their Mother being almost continually breeding? I think it would be something boys would be embarrassed about, particularly in the 50s.

Author:	JayB [ Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Quote: I feel sorry for Mike. I wonder if he isn't one of those intelligent kids who gets bored easily, and creates havoc as a result. He was quite isolated in the family. The triplets had each other, Steve and Charles were close in age and did things together. Then there was a gap of a few years to Mike, then another gap to the twins, who again had each other for company. When they were first in Switzerland in particular, life must have been fairly deadly for him, a lively, energetic boy stuck in the nursery with no companions his own age. He really needed a playgroup or kindergarten. I wonder what Jo would have done, if Winnie Embury hadn't appeared to solve the problem for her? (Chas was still at home then, but he was older and would have been doing proper lessons with Beth and in any case was a quieter boy who would have been more able to amuse himself on his own.)

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
They do seem to mirror the triplets in personality, although later on we see them develop their own personalities a bit more. Stephen is a very boyish boy who likes engineering and presumably was into sport; Charles is a really interesting character and I'd love to know what EBD's long term plans were for him; and Mike, as other people have said, was the "naughty" one who was probably just reacting to being bored and lonely. I love seeing the whiole family together in the holiday books and I'd like to have seen more of the Maynard boys, and I'd love to have seen more of Rix and David, but there just wasn't room for them in a series about a girls' school. I do wonder if they felt left out. Joey and Jack were so involved with the CS, and Joey in particular knew all the girls and staff, whereas they presumably never got to any of the events usually attended by parents at the boys' school, and it would have been difficult for the boys to have friends to stay/stay with friends during the holidays because of the problem of getting to/from Switzerland afterwards. I wonder how they even got to school in the first place - there's never any mention of Joey or Jack escorting them even as far as Calais, and they were only young kids when the Maynards first moved to Switzerland .

Author:	mohini [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
EDB introduces the boys and forgets them.They are mentioned in between just to highlight something. Mike blowing whistle or Mike falling to make Jo faint for 2 hours. I feel EDB put in the boys between he girls so that she would have some breathing time to think of new adventures for the girls. Or else there seems to be no need of the boys in the series. As boys they do not influence the girls specially the elder ones. With other girls, the brothers are mentioned to increase the girls knowledge - Tom helping Mary Lou and Clem with maths, Bad Bill teaching tricks or a mistress growing up in brothers being able to eat green apple or girls not crying as they have boyish hatred for tears. I wish the boys featured in more books as developing certain characteristic in their sisters. They must have had some influence. There are some rare but nice scenes between the boys but I cannot recall all the siblings talking or discussing their school problems or even buying gifts for parents.

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Alison H wrote: I wonder how they even got to school in the first place - there's never any mention of Joey or Jack escorting them even as far as Calais, and they were only young kids when the Maynards first moved to Switzerland . I imagine that the Maynards would be able to find escorts among their wide associates. Surely there would be doctors at the San. going to and fro between the branches, or even patients going home, who could have escorted them. Or maybe the staff would do it - we know they had to come back for the annual staff meeting, but presumably some of them had to be in England to collect all of the girls, they couldn't do that journey alone. Ergo, the mistresses would come then go again, and could take the boys back when they go back to England. waits for someone to find a flaw in the logic of that

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I love that idea! Imagine poor Kathie or Nancy or someone thinking that they were going to have a nice peaceful journey and a night on the tiles in Paris and then being lumbered with three noisy little boys to look after!

Author:	Carrie A [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I think that sounds very logical! But EBD doesn't comment on it and usually she gives all sorts of little bits of trivia about people who, if you haven't read all of the books, you are left wondering who they are and to whom they are connected! In New Mistress some of the staff have travelled to the Platz where they presumably spend some time getting ready for the new term then are sent off to Paris to meet the girls and escort them back to school. Having travelled to Paris via Eurostar and then Strasbourg via train from the Gare de L'Est this summer I don't think I would have been happy to turn around a couple of days later and do the journey all over again! The journey would have been long (no high speed TGV in those days), stressful (counting and double counting to make sure you haven't lost anyone) and I imagine expensive. Did the school pay for the escort duties? You certainly wouldn't want to take 3 or 4 Maynard boys with you - even if they all called you 'Auntie'!

Author:	Nightwing [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Hasn't Switzerland always been home to a lot of foreign diplomats, businessmen, etc? If the Maynard boys went to one of the 'good' English boys' schools, perhaps there'd be other pupils travelling the same way as them - the sons of Englishmen working in Switzerland.

Author:	JB [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I like to think that the boys were close “off-screen” as they go to school together in England and have less time with their parents than the girls. I would imagine they’re very independent and that they spent a fair bit of time laughing about the girls at the Chalet School. I wonder how they felt when the came home for the holidays to find more wards had been added to the family. I agree with Alison that Charles is very interesting – the episode when he breaks Joey’s statue is one of the few occasions of interaction between Joey and one of the boys. I too would love to know what EBD planned for him, although I suspect it was the priesthood. I feel sorry for Mike with his “naughty” label and his position in the family. Had Joey been a child in her own family (if you see what I mean), I wonder what label she’d have been given – it certainly wouldn’t have been “sensible”. I can just see Joey dumping the boys on one of the mistresses for a journey back to England! Although in some ways, I’d like to have seen more of them – particularly some interaction between them and the girls without Joey and Jack present – I think it would have been difficult to include them more in a school story series. Even the family holiday books in Tyrol are largely involved with finding new pupils for the school. I’m sure, had the series continued long enough, EBD would have brought them back on stage to marry Chalet girls.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
JB wrote: Had Joey been a child in her own family (if you see what I mean), I wonder what label she’d have been given – it certainly wouldn’t have been “sensible”. If I tend to think of teenage Joey in comparison to the triplets and the way they are judged, praised and blamed etc., then I don't think Joey would actually show up very well in the eyes of the authorities! She'd look terribly irresponsible and rather selfish in comparison to saintly Len. And yet her pranks might fade slightly in comparison with Margot's occasional 'my devil made me do it' moments of madness/violence/blackmail! And Con seems far more concerned with writing when she's a schoolgirl than Joey ever did when she was at school. She doesn't go as far in any single direction - virtue, badness, absorption in an interest - as any of the triplets. Of course, Joey's charm as a schoolgirl is that she is a well-rounded, faulty, interesting character, not too good, and not too bad, with her main power being not in her virtue or responsibility, but in her charm and popularity. Which you can't really say for any of the triplets, who are much more one-dimensional. I kind of like the little we see of the Maynard boys, I think because EBD has so little time to give to them (half the time we see them in the holiday books, they are being sent off to do something separately, so EBD can concentrate on the girls), we don't get the sheer amount of detail we get on the triplets, which can deaden things a bit. And we don't continually get Joey/Hilda/other CS girls telling us what the boys are like. It's much more up to the reader to take the little we get from the books and build up our own sense of the boys as characters. I like that we see with them that Joey's all-powerful rules on slang and 'Mamma' etc have limits, and that the boys introduce a bit of UK pop culture into the girls' lives. I like to imagine them all experimenting with cigarettes in the sunken garden in the holidays... In practice, though, it's at least as likely that the boys and girls are simply not close - they spend little time together, the boys must lead much less family-focused, independent lives, and I always think the boys must feel much more intrinsically British. I always wonder a bit that EBD devotes so much more time to Roger Richardson than to any of Joey's sons, though. Given that the books in general assume that Joey and her family are more interesting than any other character, it seems odd that if she's wanting to introduce male characters, she doesn't focus on Joey's sons...?

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I'd like to've seen more of the relationship between Felix and Felicity, although at the end of the series they were still too young to be particularly interesting in the context of the series. Or between Geoff and Phil, or between Cecil and Claire and either Felix or Geoff. Madge and Dick, Gay Lambert and her twin Michael, Clem and Tony and the elder Bettanys all seem to be pretty close, and I get the impression that David and Sybil (once they were in their teens and past the stage of Sybil being a pain and David "squashing" her) were as well, but with the Maynards we seem to get the triplets as Group 1 and then the 3 singleton boys as Group 2. The triplets were a fair bit older than Charles and Mike, and 4 years or so older than Stephen which is quite a big gap in childhood, but the younger girls were closer in age to some of their brothers so might have had closer relationships with them. I hope that makes some vague sense!

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Cosimo's Jackal wrote: I always wonder a bit that EBD devotes so much more time to Roger Richardson than to any of Joey's sons, though. Given that the books in general assume that Joey and her family are more interesting than any other character, it seems odd that if she's wanting to introduce male characters, she doesn't focus on Joey's sons...? Because he can make old ladies swoon in his swimming trunks I like to think EBD's publishers had told her to introduce someone who young girls could relate to (would Armada have been publishing by this time?) who wasn't another doctor. You're all being a very bad influence on me. I have to continually resist the urge to write a drabble based on the boys, as it isn't properly CS, and you aren't helping at all glowering from my dark corner

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
ChubbyMonkey wrote: Because he can make old ladies swoon in his swimming trunks I feel vaguely dirty even saying this, but I occasionally have the sensation that Joey has a bit of an eye for young male flesh in the shape of Roger. I know it's the elderly women who respond with shock (pleasant or otherwise) to his appearance in 'exiguous' trunks, but EBD does dwell on his manly young body a bit noticeably, and has Joey throw on her swimsuit and challenge him to a race, and J. does also seem to defer to his masculinity on more than one occasion. Like offering him a cigarette at 16 when her own girls are forbidden till 17, and being careful to ask about his injured leg in an undertone, apparently so he won't feel clucked over or emasculated... I think she also says something to soothe potentially ruffled male feathers when they have to climb the rock to get to the cave - like that she'll go first, but she knows he'd find it easy-peasy if it wasn't for his leg. It's not all that marked, and we do see Joey allowing double standards to a certain extent with her own boys too - like acquiescing to their slang and their not calling her 'Mamma', when she polices the girls behaviour far more. (Would Joey and Jack be equally accepting if it was the Maynard girls rather than the boys who were roaring pop songs on their minibus trip?) But look at the difference between Joey's treatment of Ruey and of Roger - of course, she's endlessly kind to both, but Ruey's welcomed into the family with a full makeover and some implied criticism of her femininity and housekeeping, while Roger is clearly just fine as he is, as a big rugger bugger who smashes things and slams doors. I never know whether it's because Jack is assumed to deal with the boys off-screen, so to speak, or whether EBD simply saw maleness as something less shape-able...? Or just less shapeable by women, which would be unsuitable as molly-coddling? Which might again explain the lack of attention to the Maynard boys... Though it woud be great if someone wrote a drabble to run alongside the saga of Len's pony-tail called 'Stephen Grows His Hair'...

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I think that EBD left a lot of the "male" upbringing to Jack - or Jem, when he wasn't around. Doesn't she threaten Charles over the vase incident with having to tell Jack? (can't remember properly). But on the other side, I think she also takes on a lot more of the parenting of the girls - such as trying to hide Margot's temper from Jack - than Jack does, partly because he's a doctor but mainly, I suspect, because they're girls. I love the idea of Joey have a bit of a crush on Roger I wonder if Jack would have picked up on it, and what he would have done if he did. I think that maybe Roger is EBD's way of introducing a boy of the right age for the triplets, to highlight the relationship between them and the boys - maybe she didn't feel as able to pay attention to Joey's own sons having ignored them for so long, but was ready to admit the lack of new men in the series. It amuses me in my own twisted way to think of Stephen being really resentful of Roger coming in and taking over, and Charles and Mike backing him up no end, and all of them doing really stupid things like smoking just to prove that they're as "worthy" as him. I don't know if 'amuse' is quite the right word, but I shall leave it to the understanding of the CBB if that makes sense or not.

Author:	Jennie [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I think one of the reasons that we see less of them is that EBD simply couldn't write boys successfully. She's all right when they're babies or very small, but just look how David and Rix disappear, until rescued by drabble writers.

Author:	KatS [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Veering ever so slightly off topic, I was reading some Malory Towers earlier today, and came across this (Alicia is talking to Darrell): Quote: I've got three brothers, you know - and when June actually dared to disobey Sam, he gave her the choice of being spanked twenty times with her own hairbrush or running round our paddock twenty times each day June can't be more than five years younger than Sam, given that she's thirteen at this point, and he's still at school. And to me, this sounds as though Alicia herself, despite being so bold at school, also obeys Sam.Later on Alicia mentions that June adores Sam despite his giving her "first class spankings" Can you imagine the Maynard boys deciding to spank Felicity or Ailie or Maeve? Are we supposed to think that this is normal and that the Maynard boys are preternaturally sensitive and forbearing towards their sisters and cousins?

Author:	Alison H [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Rix is pretty bossy as a little kid, but I can't imagine him threatening to spank anyone with a hairbrush or them submitting to it if he did . We hear about David "squashing" Sybil, but that seems to be more because he's older than because he's a boy: we're told something similar about Margia Stevens squashing Amy but not liking anyone else to do so. Sebastian in the Wells books is always squashing Fiona, who's around the same age as him, but Fiona does ask for it . Sorry for going totally OT but I love the bit in Masquerade at the Wells when Nigel, who's used to ordering Jane about, tries ordering Mariella about and she kicks him up the backside . Maybe that sort of treatment at home was why Alicia was always bullying poor Gwendoline Mary - suppresses urge to write long essay on possible psychological effects on Alicia of being threatened with hairbrushes. There's not much reference to bossy brothers in the CS books, though. If anything, Madge bosses Dick about and Clem bosses Tony about. The nearest I can think of is Eustacia being bossed about by her cousins - and getting told off for "sneaking" when she complains about it.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I think that probably says more about EB's ideas about gender than any kind of reality. Look at the way that the boys are always older and almost always unproblematically looked up to by the younger girls in all of her books that involve four children having adventures - in her hundreds of books I can't think of a single instance in which one or more of the girls is older than one or more of the boys, so that seniority might contest gender roles. Though EBD does register the notion that having brothers toughens you up - like is it Miss Armitage who can eat crab apples without flinching? But with the age gap between the triplets and any of the boys - and the triplets being very much the 'prefects' of Freudesheim, representing Joey as Head - it's hard to imagine any of them emerging as an alternative authority figure for the younger girls. Though maybe the arrival of two Richardson boys, including one who is older (is he?) than the triplets might unofficially shift the balance? Not that I can imagine EBD approving of Roger spanking Margot with a hairbrush after one of her episodes of devilitis! A bossy elder brother might have done Mary-Lou a lot of good, of course...

Author:	Mel [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I think she sees boys as more capable and independent than girls. In Joey Goes, Stephen is allowed to wander round the ferry aged 6/7 with Chas and Mike. Robin at that age - or any of the girls - is still trotting about on baby feet and lisping.

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
I think I could see Mike and probably Stephen too delivering a spanking if it was needed - after all, they do read as fairly tough boys (to my mind. Not "tough" in the rough and muscular sense, but "tough" in the 'can look after themselves and assert their authority' sense, plus I imagine they would have picked up that kind of general attitude at school). I would love to see Roger dealing with one of Margot's burst of temper. brushes off plot bunnies hurriedly I can imagine her looking up to him a lot, and him getting all "stop being an emotional female at her". He's another I think could rule the younger children fairly effectively. I think EB's portrayal, not always but certainly in the quote here, is more realistic than EBD's attitude of them all getting along and being happy.

Author:	Emma A [ Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
It's generally been my observation (based on friends, since I have only a sister), that boys who have younger sisters are generally very good with them - kind, considerate, gentle - and have uncomplicated childhood relationships with their younger sisters. Boys who have older sisters, unless it's quite a big age gap, tend to be sulky and rebellious, and the sibling relationship is often fraught. I think this is due to seniority issues - that girls tend to look up to older siblings more naturally than boys do, and boys tend to resent having to defer to an older sibling, particularly if it's a girl. Based on this, I'd have expected more rebellion on the part of the Maynard sons against the triplets, and resentment of their authority - but perhaps EBD (and Joey & Jack) avoid this problem by treating Stephen, in particular, as an honorary Eldest Child. But I would say that Antonia Forest's treatment of a large family was more realistic (though her boys are outnumbered 2:6 in the Marlow family, and Giles is the eldest). There are alliances in the family, and not everyone likes everyone else all of the time. I do wonder why EBD gave Joey and Jack so many children, including boys who can't have expected to be included in a long-running school series. For all they really appear (particularly Felix and Geoff), they may as well not have been written at all! But perhaps that's because I haven't read all ofthe holiday stories, even though those too concentrate on the girls and their relationships. I don't believe that any of the boys would dare to "spank" any of their sisters, whether younger or not, simply because it does not seem the done thing in the Maynard family (in fact in all of the CS series) to spank or otherwise corporally chastise a girl. Punishment would be left to their parents, I'd guess.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Emma A wrote: I'd have expected more rebellion on the part of the Maynard sons against the triplets, and resentment of their authority. Yes, I think I would have been driven mad to arrive home from my school to find my trio of elder sisters bringing their prefect-ish airs across the hedge from the CS! I think it would also be deeply odd to find your home essentially an outpost of your sisters' and mother's boarding school! Though I also tend to imagine Stephen possibly finding the whole thing quietly funny and rolling his eyes mildly at Charles at least - maybe even at Jack as he gets older? - about the endless school legends over the breakfast table... I suppose at least the boys would largely miss out on all the termtime shenanigans, like Joey running back and forth to the school like a lunatic, and there being continually a pack of mistresses, new girls, or Old Girls in the Salon for tea... What age is Mike when they move to Freudesheim? I wonder about whether growing up in such close proximity to a school (Cartref and Plas Gwyn not being quite so close) would change the younger boys' feelings about their own boarding schools? And whether it would make them more attached to their schools, as a kind of badge of independence (and maleness?), or more impatient with the whole school spirit thing...? Or to think about the difference between their sisters' lives, just being at school across the hedge, and theirs at school so far from home. I suppose if you felt homesick, you might envy the girls, but I imagine at least some of the time, and especially as they got older, the boys must have been relieved to be able to have their own lives during termtime, as the triplets can't...?

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Being at boarding school must have been horrible for the boys with so many famous relations! I can imagine all of the teachers expecting them to be fantastic at medicine/history/business etc. I also know that you tend to get "X's __" so I imagine most of them would just have been "Stephen's brother" or even, if they followed proper English tradition, "Jigger's son". I love the idea of Jack and the boys all sharing this huge 'eye-rolling' injoke about the school stuff Especially as I can picture Margot joining in, and Len and Con not doing so only because they are either too loyal or too dreamy to really notice, respectively.

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
ChubbyMonkey wrote: Being at boarding school must have been horrible for the boys with so many famous relations! I tend to think that Jem and Joey and co might have their importance artificially inflated in the CS and its circles. Maybe if the Maynard boys are somewhere like Harrow - although I suppose it's more likely to be Ampleforth or somewhere else Catholic - other boys are likely to have lots of much more famous Establishment figures as parents. And as Joey seems to write for a young female readership, she may not factor as famous at all from a young male point of view...? It might actually be easier to pass unnoticied for the boys, than the triplets, who suffer from the triple whammy of being the offspring of a madly famous parent who also lives next door, and attending that parent's old school and being taught by the same people.

Author:	Newiegirl [ Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
It's funny but the Maynard boys are so far off my radar that I almost think of Joey as only having three kids - the trips. Maybe as a little girl I wasn't interested in male characters, but even as an adult I tend to think of the triplets as being the only 'real' children and the others are all just names (with the occasional anecdote attached). I do like the idea of the eye-rolling at the breakfast table though....

Author:	Fiona Mc [ Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
[quote="Emma A"]It's generally been my observation (based on friends, since I have only a sister), that boys who have younger sisters are generally very good with them - kind, considerate, gentle - and have uncomplicated childhood relationships with their younger sisters. Boys who have older sisters, unless it's quite a big age gap, tend to be sulky and rebellious, and the sibling relationship is often fraught. I think this is due to seniority issues - that girls tend to look up to older siblings more naturally than boys do, and boys tend to resent having to defer to an older sibling, particularly if it's a girl./quote] I must admit I haven't found this so much. One family I babysat for had one girl (the eldest) and three boys. The two oldest were only a year or two apart and the other two were 3-5 years younger. I think what helped was the fact that Becky was the most easy going, good natured girl going around and her brothers all adored her. She was certainly not the bossy older sister. My older brother also has two girls and a boy where the boy's the youngest and there doesn't seem to be any fraught relationships. I tend to think a lot depends on the kids and their temperments and how much parents allow the older ones to boss the younger ones. I do find (having 5 older brothers and 1 older sister) that I can well believe Stephen being treated like an oldest child as he was the eldest boy simply because my older sister was when she still have 5 older brothers. I think a lot of that goes on when you're the oldest of a particular sex in the family. I do think EBD gives snippets of what the younger ones thinks of the older ones and Len is universally liked even by Mike as she bails him out of trouble and spoils him a little too. There's a lovely scene where Len tells Mike off and then slips him chocolate too. So Mike thinks Len isn't too bad. I know Felicity is chary of Margot cos of her temper and it's said though she's fun, most of the younger ones tend to avoid her in a temper and Con is a bit of a closed book but does tell wonderful stories. I tend to think that the family can't be close because of the huge age gap and it would be too hard to be close to everyone and very easy to avoid anyone you didn't really like

Author:	MaryR [ Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Like Fiona, there was no problem in our family - my brother doesn't seem to have had any dislike of me being the oldest child, though as I was 4 years older he did tend to play more with my sister, who was less than 2 years younger than him. In fact, he was/is so laid back about everything I couldn't see him complaining if he had ten older sisters!!

Author:	Cosimo's Jackal [ Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Fiona Mc wrote: it would be too hard to be close to everyone and very easy to avoid anyone you didn't really like Antonia Forest has her character Nicola Marlow have a family liking list - she mentally ranks her numerous siblings according to how much she likes or dislikes them, with her adored eldest brother Giles at the top and her over-helpful, conscientious (Len-like) sister Ann at the bottom. EBD would never allow the Maynards to have anything so cynical (or anything that suggests the Maynards aren't all totally enamoured of one another 24/7), but it would be interesting to think of... Margot might not feature high on Cecil's list, presumably, and the younger ones might find Len's prefectly airs a bit much at times.

Author:	Alison H [ Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Siblings: The Maynard Boys
Regarding Joey having so many kids, I think EBD just wanted that to be yet another way in which adult Joey was supposedly better than everyone else, and gave her three sons after the triplets partly to create a perfectly balanced family and partly just because by the law of averages she'd've had sons as well as daughters. There's a bit in Three Go - sadly chopped out of the paperback - about how Charles (who was all of 4 at the time) was the one with the most influence in the nursery. (She actually makes him sound like an incredibly annoying little brat who tells the older kids off whenever they do anything wrong, but I don't think she meant it that way - the idea just seems to be that he has a good influence on the others and that they listen to him!) Stephen, Charles and Mike - the younger boys are still too young at the end of the series for us to know much about them - all seem like really interesting characters from what we know of them. It's a shame that EBD didn't write a spin-off series about them , maybe also featuring the Russell and Bettany boys . I can well imagine them all groaning about Joey's obsession with the CS!