The CBB :: View topic - School: Discipline

Oh, be fair, Alison - Val wasn't told off for being kidnapped; she was told off for having left the school premises without first getting permission - and if she had been where she was supposed to have been, she would not have been kidnapped!

For example, Grizel gets to be head girl even though she's run off to Schaffhausen, while Anne Seymour doesn't, on account of slipping while she's trying to wet her flowers and keep them fresh and almost killing herself and Joey. Grizel's offence was pre-meditated and on top of lots of other bad behaviour. Anne's was an accident, although the consequences were serious. And I'm sure she genuinely repented any carelessness too.

...while Anne Seymour doesn't, on account of slipping while she's trying to wet her flowers and keep them fresh and almost killing herself and Joey. Grizel's offence was pre-meditated and on top of lots of other bad behaviour. Anne's was an accident, although the consequences were serious. And I'm sure she genuinely repented any carelessness too...

I sometimes find myself longing for someone not to get caught

EBD seems very reliant on the idea of people "having punished themselves enough". I'm sure that CS girls were too honourable to look at it like this :lol:

, but it must have occurred to the odd person that if you burst into tears in the headmistress's study you could get away with anything...

I do find some of the attitudes towards disobedience to be interesting.

Lydia Maynard is widely regarded as being responsible for her own son's death - she didn't teach him proper discipline, he disobeyed a direct order, and was killed.... However, several of the Maynard kids nearly die due to deliberate disobedience .... and.... there is no hint at all that Jack and Joey have let them down by not teaching them to obey - it's due to character flaws in the kids.

Does a girl ever actually get away with anything? I can't think of a single instance offhand.

And isn't it odd that Jo is highly critical of the amused tolerance that Madge has towards Sybil, when that is exactly how Jo was treated by Madge when she was growing up?

All the things that Jo got away with, and she criticises Sybil for the least little thing.

I do find some of the attitudes towards disobedience to be interesting.

Lydia Maynard is widely regarded as being responsible for her own son's death - she didn't teach him proper discipline, he disobeyed a direct order, and was killed. She is told so after his death.

However, several of the Maynard kids nearly die due to deliberate disobedience - Margot in Lake Lucerne, Mike falling down a cliff, and the kids are seen as bad in spite of being raised perfectly - there is no hint at all that Jack and Joey have let them down by not teaching them to obey - it's due to character flaws in the kids.

One situation which always seems to me to be very over the top is the threat to Joyce that if she gets into any more serious trouble she'll be expelled.

Another seemingly unfair punishment, now I come to think of it, is (IMO) Madge's total over-reaction to Grizel's prank of vaselining the blackboards. Why does Madge get so angry about that, anyone?

“I've got nothing more to say to you. I'm too disgusted with your behaviour. You make me feel sick! Please go away, and don't let us see anything more of you this week as can be helped. You are a disgrace to the School, and the sooner you realise it the better for you. Now go!”

told them that she was bitterly ashamed to think that Chalet girls could be so greedy and thoughtless. She impressed on them the seriousness of Joyce's illness. She added that this meant that they were not to be trusted -- which reduced Luise, Hilda and Margritta to tears at once -- and then she issued sentence.

...on second thoughts, in answer to Alison H, what about Miss Stone in ?Two Sams? I remember she has some trouble with the class, but I'm not sure if it's just that she can't 'reach' them in the way Miss Ferrars can.

“Cobbler’s-wax? But why?” Anne demanded.
“Because then it’ll stick and she won’t be able to open it.” Jocelyn gave a sudden chuckle. “What a yell watching her struggling with it!” In her interest she spoke in English again and Gwen, equally interested, forgot to rebuke her. Instead, she asked where the cobbler’s-wax was to come from.
“Hobbies, of course. They have a lump there. I saw it the other day when I went to get my raffia.”
They thought it over. Finally, Sandra spoke. “But it might be some other mistress. Dr Benson doesn’t always come to us first. In fact it’s always Miss Stone when she comes to take register.”
“We can’t do that to Rocky! She’d eat us alive!” Barbara said with horror.

The truth was that at a staff meeting the previous evening Miss Stone had let herself go on the subject of her form. She wound up by wishing aloud that she might change with someone else - anyone else! The Head had promptly taken advantage of her remarks and requested Kathy Ferrars to hand over Upper IIIa and take hold of Upper IVb. She had already decided on this and discussed it with Miss Ferrars in private.

"We must do something about Upper IVb," she had said. "I won't have them continuing in their present idle, careless way. I think Linda Stone isn't quite the right person to tackle them. Will you exchange with her and see what you can do, Kathy?"

"But why me?" Kathy Ferrars had asked in dismay.

"Because you are very much of a live wire. Also, that crowd are games-mad and you are good at games. Linda isn't really keen and hasn't the hold on them that that would give you. Take them over and wake them up! I'll back you to the limit in whatever methods you choose to use; but something must be done if we are not to have the same trouble with them later on as we had with Inter V four years or so ago - remember? They're young enough to respond without much bother if you pull them up sharply now. Will you do it?"

"What does Linda think of it?" Kathy asked.

"She will be only too thankful to be relieved of them. She will do much better with IIIa who are a keen set; but I doubt if she has the right approach towards people like Upper IVb. I think you have."

Or how Joyce managed to become seriously ill just from scoffing a bit too much food at an unusual hour.

Extraordinary school where you can bully and intimidate someone as Jack does Jane and get very little in the way of punishment but lots in the way of understanding and yet be castigated for passing a piece of paper with innocuous information on it!

Remember what happened to Vivien James and Marion Orde and Muriel Abbey two years ago?’
Most of those present did, having been Juniors at the time. That hopeful trio had been caught copying a key to their Latin translation a fortnight before the birthday and part of their punishment had been the loss of the expedition to Oxford which had formed the birthday celebration.

...The CS also seems to view bullying as something that can only really be solved by the girls themselves, e.g. in Adrienne Miss Annersley says that she knew Janet? had been bullying Adrienne but knew that by saying something the bullying wouldn't stop and might get worse.

Surely Miss Wilson's comments were after Eustacia had just told Miss Wilson that Evadne and Ilonka were playing noughts and crosses? Nothing about bullying.

Even when I was at school in the '80s/early '90s, "telling tales" was frowned on, and a lot of bullies got away with things as a result. in Eustacia, Miss Wilson makes it clear that Eustacia should put up with being treated badly by the other girls rather than sneak, and even tells her that if she was at a boys' school she'd've got "a good thrashing" for sneaking. Unfortunately that attitude was prevalent for a long time.

"Bullying!" Jack went scarlet. "I – I – "
"Of course you did! Judging by what I overheard last night, you've been utterly beastly to her. And that, let me tell you, is something I never expected from you, of all people. It gave me a nasty shock, I can tell you!"

Girls are held to a much higher standard of social behaviour

Does anyone else think that this is suggestive of EBD being against the use of corporal punishment? If so I would say it only applies to girls, as I seem to remember Dr Jem teaching a certain member of the Mystic M a lesson...

Off her own bat she claims that the boys in the community school temper the 'bitchiness' of the girls. I'm not sure how true that is generally, but I find 'bad' boys far easier to deal with than 'bad' girls. Quite alot of female bullying goes on under the radar.

It took me emptying the contents of her handbag into her office bin for her to actually take the point. (Once she stopped shouting.) In the middle of the row the head suddenly realised how incredibly stupid they were going to look if they tried to bring anything against me for doing to one of them what they'd told my daughter she was being a baby for getting upset about.

Author:	Róisín [ Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:54 am ]
Post subject:	School: Discipline
Discipline in the Chalet School. What do you think of the standards of discipline in the Chalet School? Were they consistent? To lenient? Too harsh? Prone to favourtism? What are the rules, that we can make out? Were the rules of the school reasonable ones, and were they enforced properly? Please raise any issue you like in relation to this topic below

Author:	Emma A [ Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:
In general, I think that the rules were sensible ones, designed to limit the individual freedoms enough to permit community living. Infringements enough to be noticed by the staff are generally dealt with in an appropriate way (though the staff are helped by the girls' inevitable tendency to start crying as soon as they enter the study, let alone after the Headmistress starts her remonstrances). However, I do find the prefects' responses to "cheekiness" generally overwhelmingly over the top. Instead of encouraging the girls to turn their Heyer-reading into more historical learning (as happens in, IIRC, Peggy of the CS), the prefects impose a swingeing punishment which far outweighs the offence, in my opinion. When Annis is rude to Mlle Lachenais in Island, her punishment - isolation - seems acceptable (though may have been difficult to enforce), and it's made clear that it's the occasional relaxation in her regime, where she's able to help Cherry, for example, that makes her calm down and apologise. And I do like the way that the staff treat her leniently after she runs away. It does seem, thinking about it, that relatively minor transgressions are punished with relative severity, whereas really big things (especially if the criminal shows remorse) are more easily forgiven.

Author:	jennifer [ Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:
I agree that a lot of the basic rules and punishment make sense, and match with the size of the school (a lot more regimented in the later days, for example). On thing that I found grating was the tendency to punish every one in the general vicinity when someone is disobedient - like when Verity refuses to sing in German, the girls who gasp in shock at her rebelliousness are hammered with a massive punishment, which seemed way over the top to me. In other cases, the victim is told off, like when Jane is reprimanded for letting Jack physically attack her. I'm not familiar with the prefect system, but I think some of the over enthusiasm in the punishments for creative cheekiness could come from the inexperience of the prefects. They see the middles being cheeky to them, and over react because it is threatening their dignity, where a mistress would be better at interpreting the intent.

Author:	Alison H [ Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm surprised by how much authority the prefects have. I appreciate that in public schools prefects are VIPs, but some of them are as young as 16 and they end up dealing with some fairly serious matters without any adult involvement. I also wonder how poor Matey felt about having to spend every Saturday night supervising whoever was in disgrace! EBD seems very reliant on the idea of people "having punished themselves enough". I'm sure that CS girls were too honourable to look at it like this , but it must have occurred to the odd person that if you burst into tears in the headmistress's study you could get away with anything, even (especially?) putting your own and other people's lives at risk ... whereas Jane Carew was told off for being the victim of bullying and Val Pertwee was told off for being kidnapped. The issue of Margot Maynard's been discussed in several other threads, but it seems very unjust that she gets away pretty much scot-free with blackmailing Ted Grantley and half-killing Betty Landon. Generally I think that the discipline's reasonable, though, especially the way that they try to make the punishment fit the crime rather than just doling out lines and detentions.

Author:	Mrs Redboots [ Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Oh, be fair, Alison - Val wasn't told off for being kidnapped; she was told off for having left the school premises without first getting permission - and if she had been where she was supposed to have been, she would not have been kidnapped!

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

School: Discipline http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4876

Author:	jennifer [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:43 am ]
Post subject:
Mrs Redboots wrote: Oh, be fair, Alison - Val wasn't told off for being kidnapped; she was told off for having left the school premises without first getting permission - and if she had been where she was supposed to have been, she would not have been kidnapped! Actually, there's some interesting psychology there. It's a common that when something bad happens when you are doing something against the rules, it is seen as entirely your fault, regardless of the severity of the initial offence, and the punishment is disproportionate. So Sybil, whose offence (playing with a kettle when left unsupervised at age eight) combined with an accident (Josette running into her) turns into the offence of nearly killing her younger sister. Val's offence - breaking bounds at school to go see her brother - is one worthy of punishment, but when she gets randomly kidnapped by criminals, her crime is extended to include responsibility for getting kidnapped and causing everyone to worry.

Author:	JS [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:46 am ]
Post subject:
Discipline wasn't consistent - it seemed to be fairly ad hoc and to suit the particular plotline of the moment. I would also not have been able to predict whether the prefects would decide to deal with something or whether it would have to go to the head - little consistency there, either. Often there's little basis or precedent for decisions. For example, Grizel gets to be head girl even though she's run off to Schaffhausen, while Anne Seymour doesn't, on account of slipping while she's trying to wet her flowers and keep them fresh and almost killing herself and Joey. Grizel's offence was pre-meditated and on top of lots of other bad behaviour. Anne's was an accident, although the consequences were serious. And I'm sure she genuinely repented any carelessness too. Oh, and I thought Joey's sarkiness was often uncalled for when she was a prefect/head girl. She did that classic thing (that many bosses do) of not realising that what she says comes across more strongly because of her 'superior' position so she should temper things a little. I think EBD did realise this, however. She has Joyce Linton stand up for Kitty at one point by saying that Joey can sit there saying horrible things but if Kitty tries to answer back she'll say it's cheek.

Author:	JackieP [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:31 am ]
Post subject:
JS wrote: For example, Grizel gets to be head girl even though she's run off to Schaffhausen, while Anne Seymour doesn't, on account of slipping while she's trying to wet her flowers and keep them fresh and almost killing herself and Joey. Grizel's offence was pre-meditated and on top of lots of other bad behaviour. Anne's was an accident, although the consequences were serious. And I'm sure she genuinely repented any carelessness too. Did EBD perhaps rate not thinking/carelessness as a worse sin than pre-meditated disobedience...? JackieP

Author:	Emma A [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:40 am ]
Post subject:
JS wrote: ...while Anne Seymour doesn't, on account of slipping while she's trying to wet her flowers and keep them fresh and almost killing herself and Joey. Grizel's offence was pre-meditated and on top of lots of other bad behaviour. Anne's was an accident, although the consequences were serious. And I'm sure she genuinely repented any carelessness too... Louise, chosen ahead of Anne because of the latter's "thoughtlessness" is later shown to be just as bad! She re-enters a burning building (which, to be fair, Anne had managed to set on fire, because she'd left the iron, plate down on the ironing board) just to rescue a copy of Joey's first book, and has to be rescued herself!

Author:	claire [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:
but Anne nearly killed Joey, and doing so would have killed Madge so therefore she attempted to murder the school's founder and THAT's why she never got to be head girl. I'd actually forgotten that incident and thought she wasn't made headgirl because she told Joey to shut up and stop moaning in the previous book

Author:	Alison H [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:
Grizel nearly killed Joey as well (on the Tiernjoch) . It didn't seem to happen so much in Switzerland, but I'm surprised that they didn't have a mistress (or an armed guard ) patrolling the grounds in Tyrol, given the number of people who went walkabout and ended up in danger or at least in serious trouble as a result - Grizel to climb the Tiernjoch, Joey & co to go to the ice carnival, Robin and Cornelia to go off with the "madman", Joey to rescue Rufus/Elisaveta/Maureen/Grizel (have I missed anyone?), Juliet & co with the film crew, Stacie to run away ...

Author:	jennifer [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Grizel's escapade was done before term started, though, so it would be very unfair to her to demote her for something that happened on vacation, as for almost any other girl the school wouldn't even know about it.

Author:	Sunglass [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Is there actually a single prank that goes unpunished, or if not punished exactly, then at least results in a sorrowful talking to from someone in authority and the declaration that the miscreant has punished herself enough? Does a girl ever actually get away with anything? I can't think of a single instance offhand. I think that's the thing that strikes me about discipline at the CS - EBD seems to be very conscious, I suppose not surprisingly, of writing for young girls who might be tempted to copy the antics she writes about (Polly Heriot copying the schoolgirl weeklies making Joey take out all copiable mischief from Cecily Holds the Fort etc), so she seems to feel that even if she needs to write lots of pranks and escapades, she needs to also show the dire consequences! I sometimes find myself longing for someone not to get caught. Is this different in other GO books? Just thinking about the crying issue - it's clearly NB to know when and how much to cry - if you're like Simone in the early days or poor Odette Mercier, you just get labelled a crybaby, even by staff, who might be expected to recognise homesickness. But once you're in Miss Annersley's study, and have held out for the right amount of time, then a burst of hysterical sobbing is definitely the right move.

Author:	Tara [ Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Sunglass wrote: I sometimes find myself longing for someone not to get caught I've just read the Merry books for the first time (brilliant, btw) and was struck by how they get away with midnight feasts and even spending half a night making sweets in the kitchen - which they got into by stealing the key from Matron (I'd have thought that was quite serious)... They're doing it to raise money for the school, and it's all terribly good-natured, but very un-CS. It is New Zealand, not UK, so perhaps a slightly diferent ethos?? Have just remembered an incident in a non-EBD book (but can't remember which) when the girls do get away with a midnight, but feel so guilty they have to confess. Public school ethic gone mad? Reading the CS books as an adult I do find the discipline inconsistent. Some very minor things are severely punished (though others are laughed over) while apparently much more serious misdemeanours are dealt with more leniently. It does seem to depend a bit on who does them . I love the bit in Lavender when the girls leave a tray of snowballs on the stove and it all explodes. Miss Annersley is having a fit and Bill tells her not to be a tragedy queen and has a chortle over it. Somehow sounds very like EBD herself. ETA there are occasions when girls are sent to bed, not really as a punishment, but to let them recover from whatever they've been doing.

Author:	Pado [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Perhaps Madge was afraid that vaselining the blackboards would incur a capital expense if they needed to be replaced, and money was tight. The St Swithin's prank: did involve an outright lie whereas other pranks simply create innocent havoc.

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 am ]
Post subject:
Sorry for spreeing on this thread , but I've just been reading the thread in Joey's Trunk which refers to Rolf Maynard, Jack's nephew whose death was always blamed on his parents' failure to instil proper discipline in him. It just made me think about whether CS girls expect to get away with more at home than they do at school, or more at school than they do at home. Emerence, for example, gets away with anything at home and finds the discipline at school a shock, but some of the Austrian girls early on, who do everything their parents say at home, seem to find things freer at school. I will stop waffling now.

Author:	Jennie [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:47 am ]
Post subject:
When is Jack Lambert's bullying tackled by the staff or the prefects?

Author:	moiser30 [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:
the disapline is good in the Chalet School books because They never ever expell anyone unless they have to.

Author:	Theresa [ Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:04 am ]
Post subject:
Alison H wrote: EBD seems very reliant on the idea of people "having punished themselves enough". I'm sure that CS girls were too honourable to look at it like this , but it must have occurred to the odd person that if you burst into tears in the headmistress's study you could get away with anything... When I was in high school I never did in any of my assignments on time, and I used to get away with it by intentionally bursting into tears before I went into the classroom. That way it seemed like I was genuinely upset and remorseful about 'forgetting' to bring it with me, not just because I was getting in trouble. Girls who cried after they were already getting in trouble never seemed to understand the difference. I also used to get away with not bringing my homework every day, even though other girls would get detention for not doing one time, so although I have always found the discipline in the CS to be inconsistent, it also seemed pretty well in line with my rl experiences of favouritism (in my favour XD ).

Author:	JennieP [ Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:
I was always very edgy on the discipline issue - or at least, that doled out by the prefects. I thought they had way too much power for a bunch of 16-17 year olds, and were frequently throughly unpleasant to the younger girls - for example, some of the things that OOAO says in Theodora to the triplets and Ted. Certainly at my school if the prefects had said stuff like that, they would have been the ones up in front of the Head. I also agree with what other people have said about the severity of punishments for minor things was ludicrous, in comparison to the ease with which Margot, for example, got away withshocking behaviour merely because she was very sorry afterwards. And of course flipping Joey always got away with murder by being ill aftewards...

Author:	JustJen [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:13 am ]
Post subject:
I always thought that Peggy's punishment for the forth form slang out break was over the top. If I was a student I would have let Blossom and co. have it for doing such a stupid thing.

Author:	jennifer [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:57 am ]
Post subject:
I do find some of the attitudes towards disobedience to be interesting. Lydia Maynard is widely regarded as being responsible for her own son's death - she didn't teach him proper discipline, he disobeyed a direct order, and was killed. She is told so after his death. However, several of the Maynard kids nearly die due to deliberate disobedience - Margot in Lake Lucerne, Mike falling down a cliff, and the kids are seen as bad in spite of being raised perfectly - there is no hint at all that Jack and Joey have let them down by not teaching them to obey - it's due to character flaws in the kids.

Author:	JayB [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:51 am ]
Post subject:
jennifer wrote: I do find some of the attitudes towards disobedience to be interesting. Lydia Maynard is widely regarded as being responsible for her own son's death - she didn't teach him proper discipline, he disobeyed a direct order, and was killed.... However, several of the Maynard kids nearly die due to deliberate disobedience .... and.... there is no hint at all that Jack and Joey have let them down by not teaching them to obey - it's due to character flaws in the kids. And Madge is a wonderful mother, despite Sybil's 'disobedience' in spilling boiling water over Josette. Not to mention the number of times that Joey nearly died due to disobedience or breaking school rules. Does that make Joey a bad child or Madge a bad parental figure?

Author:	Jennie [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:
And isn't it odd that Jo is highly critical of the amused tolerance that Madge has towards Sybil, when that is exactly how Jo was treated by Madge when she was growing up? All the things that Jo got away with, and she criticises Sybil for the least little thing.

Author:	Maeve [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Sunglass wrote: Quote: Does a girl ever actually get away with anything? I can't think of a single instance offhand. Hmm - they got away with it when they played tricks on Matron Webb and Matron Beasly and when they pretended they didn't know that they were talking loudly in imitation of Matron Webb - these are the only instances I can think of. I always thought Mary-Lou was told off way too much in Mary-Lou when they are all being chased by "Demons" on the Feast of St. Nicholas and she leaps on top of the stationary cupboard. She had already scared and embarrassed herself rather publicly, so Miss Annersley's dressing down the next day seems a bit over the top.

Author:	JayB [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Jennie wrote: And isn't it odd that Jo is highly critical of the amused tolerance that Madge has towards Sybil, when that is exactly how Jo was treated by Madge when she was growing up? All the things that Jo got away with, and she criticises Sybil for the least little thing. I suspect some unconscious jealousy of Sybil on Joey's part. She was able to tolerate Jem and David because they were male, Robin (in Jo's mind anyway) loved her best, Juliet didn't threaten her place in Madge's affections. But Sybil, being another girl, and pretty, too, displaced Jo in Madge's order of priority, and attracted attention everywhere. Given that Jo always liked to be the centre of attention herself, that must have been galling at times.

Author:	Tara [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:
That's really interesting. Madge is Joey's mother-figure, of course, so a bit of sibling rivalry between her and Sybil seems only too likely.

Author:	Pado [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:06 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm intrigued by the sibling rivalry concept...I can see it...but doesn't Joey have triplets of her own by the time any negativity about Sybil is expressed? Presumably that should have steadied her somewhat?

Author:	Loryat [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:
jennifer wrote: I do find some of the attitudes towards disobedience to be interesting. Lydia Maynard is widely regarded as being responsible for her own son's death - she didn't teach him proper discipline, he disobeyed a direct order, and was killed. She is told so after his death. However, several of the Maynard kids nearly die due to deliberate disobedience - Margot in Lake Lucerne, Mike falling down a cliff, and the kids are seen as bad in spite of being raised perfectly - there is no hint at all that Jack and Joey have let them down by not teaching them to obey - it's due to character flaws in the kids. Maybe the difference is that the J&J have at least tried to instil some discipline, whereas Lydia didn't bother at all, a la the Hopes. Plus, if all the Maynards were as good as Len, they'd be a very boring family. I think I'm the only person who thinks that Joey and Sybil have a good relationship. Joey notices Sybil has flaws and points them out to Madge; doesn't this ever happen to Joey at any time in the books? Since Sybil had to be forcibly carried to the Head's study, I'm pretty sure it wasn't only Joey who mentioned that Sybil had flaws. Madge's seeming failure to notice/deal with them is more interesting, but at the start of Lavender is it not mentioned that Madge was beginning to be worried by Sybil's behaviour herself? Perhaps it comes down to Sybil sharing her home with numerous cousins, many of whom(?) are older than herself. It makes Sybil's behaviour a much more complex issue than any of Joey's kids acting up. (I know the Richardsons join the Maynard family later on, but that's near the end of the series and IMO there is far less interaction between them and the Maynards than there is between the Russells and Bettanys, and it's on a much more equal footing). As for discipline, I suppose the inconsistency of the punishments is actually fairly believable - doesn't EBD actually mention occasionally that due to a mistress being in a bad mood or being sorely tried, some punishments are more severe than they might ordinarily be? In the cases of Grizel and Anne, I suppose there are several factors to explain the leneincy towards Grizel. She is a product of bad upbringing, while Anne has no such excuse; her offence was committed in the holidays - Anne might have committed the same offence and no-one would have even known about it; the Head Girlship will redeem Grizel, while there isn't really any need of it for Anne; finally in New House Anne actually expects to be Games Prefect and IMO it was gratuitous of EBD to even put the whole waterfall thing in at the beginning of Returns. As regards Margot nearly braining Betty, earlier on Deira does the exact same thing and apparently recieves no punishment at all, so it seems serious assault is not actually regarded as such a serious offence in CS as cheek. One situation which always seems to me to be very over the top is the threat to Joyce that if she gets into any more serious trouble she'll be expelled. Fair enough Joyce has behaved pretty badly (I loathe her) but considering she's a new girl, a half orphan and her mother is dangerously ill, you'd expect a bit more tolerance. I know we need the whole dramatic death bed scene at the end of the book but EBD could have put a bit more effort into making Joyce really bad if you ask me.

Author:	Alison H [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:
I thought Joyce got a raw deal too. Her worst "crime" - a midnight feast is hardly that serious - was playing up Miss Norman, and TBH a lot of that was Miss Norman's fault for not being able to maintain discipline in a very small class. I know that it can be difficult to deal with badly-behaved pupils, but there were only a few of them there and the impression given is that any other mistress would have been able to handle the situation. Other than a few minor problems faced by Kathie early on in her time there, what other occasions are there on which a teacher is unable to keep discipline? Mr Denny and Herr Anserl both lose the plot several times, but that's failure to keep control of themselves rather than of the class - EBD evidently didn't think much of male teachers!

Author:	JayB [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: One situation which always seems to me to be very over the top is the threat to Joyce that if she gets into any more serious trouble she'll be expelled. I can't imagine that they ever would have expelled Joyce. What would have happened to her, if they had? She had nowhere else to go, and no-one else to take responsibility for her. Mrs Linton was too ill. Presumably she had a solicitor or someone looking after her affairs back in England, but the school could hardly have offloaded Joyce onto him. They were stuck with her, really.

Author:	Loryat [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:
I can't think of any CS instances, the teachers all seem to be veritable gods...I think Joyce's behaviour towards Miss Norman is despicable, and it's my main reason for really disliking her, but the reason it becomes such a problem is that Miss Norman can't do anything about it, while any other mistress (or prefect) would have squashed it utterly. Another seemingly unfair punishment, now I come to think of it, is (IMO) Madge's total over-reaction to Grizel's prank of vaselining the blackboards. Why does Madge get so angry about that, anyone? Also the St Swithin's Day prank? The only excuse I can think of is that it's cheek aimed at a staff not prefect, and therefore much more serious...but the prefects are representations of the staff...I'm very confused. ...on second thoughts, in answer to Alison H, what about Miss Stone in ?Two Sams? I remember she has some trouble with the class, but I'm not sure if it's just that she can't 'reach' them in the way Miss Ferrars can.

Author:	JayB [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Another seemingly unfair punishment, now I come to think of it, is (IMO) Madge's total over-reaction to Grizel's prank of vaselining the blackboards. Why does Madge get so angry about that, anyone? Maybe because it caused damage to School property and affected the work of the School, because the mistresses couldn't give their lessons as planned? And if I'm remembering rightly, Grizel's attitude had been unsatisfactory for a while, and she wasn't at all repentant. The punishment may have been for that as much as for the actual prank.

Author:	Loryat [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:
But Madge is furious before she knows who was responsible. I suppose it must be to do with interupting teaching, but IIRC it's the only time Madge gets really mad.

Author:	claire [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:
It also costs a lot to put right and at that point the school doesn't have much money