The CBB :: View topic - Women: Domestic and Other Staff

through

[^/[^Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

#1: Women: Domestic and Other Staff Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:52 am
—
eg Karen, Gaudenz, Miggi, Marie, the endless Pfeiffens, Anna, Andreas etc.

Are the domestic staff drawn in a stereotypical way by EBD? Do you think she describes them with respect, or are both she and they a product of the times in which she/they lived? What do you think of their workloads and their personal lives, where portrayed.

Feel free to discuss any aspect of the lowlier staff of the CS Very Happy

ETA: thank you meerium for remembering Gaudenz's name Laughing

Last edited by Róisín on Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

#2: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:42 am
—
Firstly, while I suppose EBD might have had some daily help while she was running her school, she probably didn't have any first hand experience of managing a big domestic staff, so she wasn't writing about what she knew.

She is a product of her times, but once that has been allowed for, I think she did treat the domestic staff with respect. Many of them have names, a lot of them have personalities. The girls are required to be polite, and when Jack & Co interfere with Gaudenz's work it's taken just as seriously as if they'd interfered with a mistress's work. Melanie, I think, comments that Anna must be 'awfully clever' or WTTE when the triplets talk about her - and Anna is treated with affection as well as respect by the Maynards.

Of course EBD gives them impossible workloads, but I think that's more a case of needing to drive the story forward in 70,000 words, rather than a lack of consideration for Karen when she's required to produce picnic lunches for the whole school at two hours' notice.

Compared to the way in which EJO's characters, for example, sometimes treat their staff, I think EBD's attitude to domestic staff is wonderfully enlightened and considerate.

#3: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:44 am
—
I think she loses the plot in this area as time goes on. In the early days, when the Austrian economy was in a mess following the end of the First World War and when domestic staff in Austria generally worked long hours and for little pay, it's understandable that people like the Pfeifens would be grateful to Madge for employing them and treating them well. Also, given the social mores at the time, the attitude of their employers, e.g. referring to them as "servants" rather than as "staff", makes sense, as does the fact that they get up early, have little time off, etc..

However, those same attitudes and working practices in the affluent society of 1950s Switzerland, and also given the social changes that had taken place by then, just really grate on me. So does the way that people like Gaudenz and Rosli are presented as "stupid peasants" - as are most of the domestic staff other than whoever is in charge at the time (Marie, then Luise, then Karen, all of whom "rule with a rod of iron").

Their excessive devotion to the school/the Maynards/the Russells is a bit much as well: it seems unrealistic that Karen would have followed the school from Austria to (presumably Guernsey and then) Britain, that Anna would have trekked across war-torn Europe on her own to be with Joey, and maybe even that Marie and Andreas would have taken their two young children away from their home country and extended family just to be with the Russells. Especially as we're told that it was difficult for Austrian members of the teaching staff to leave Austria at all.

I get the impression that EBD never really thought that much about the domestic staff as people. There are some bizarre EBDisms, e.g. Andreas/Andre Monier/Le Mesurier is sometimes French and sometimes Austrian, Karen seems to be based at both Welsen and the Platz at the same time at one point, and Marie and Andreas's children are rarely mentioned. However, I suppose it's no worse than the way some members of the teaching staff don't really get any major storylines or have their characters fully developed.

Sorry for the long waffle - pet topic Embarassed

#4: Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:59 am
—

Alison H wrote:

Sorry for the long waffle - pet topic Embarassed

Really Alison, I never noticed Laughing

(Wave the scarlett peril high!!)

I did find Anna's devotion to the Maynards completely believeable as with the lack of time off. Having worked as a lived in Au Pair in both the UK and America, very few employers seem to recognise what time off is especially is you're relaxing and they just need you to babysit. My job in America averaged 70 hours a week, while in the UK one job averaged 55-60hours a week with the Mother expecting the house to be cleaned from top to bottom thoroughly every day and all for the grand wage of 35pounds a week and this was in the mid-nineties. And that was the going rate.

I stayed with the job in America for three years purely because I loved the kids and liked the parents so could understand Anna staying not so much because she loved Joey but because the kids would have felt like her own that she wouldn't want to leave them. Joey although child minded and loved a large family didn't spend a lot of time with them due to her writing and they were all in boarding school for 9 months of the year whereas Anna did put the time into them and so would stay for them. I know I considered doing just that for the kids I cared for in America and it was a hard choice to leave

#5: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:36 am
—
In the Tyrol days I think EBD is pretty forward. The peasantry and servants are regarded as overly supersitious, 'sturdily built', not necessarily all that bright and devoted to their employers to the point of voluntary slavery. However, the girls are very strictly taught to be polite to the domestic staff, and go beyond that to friendly and interested. From a modern standpoint, the idea that a half day off a week and a few hours at Christmas was a generous leave policy is shocking, and the stereotypical presentation of peasants in general is rather grating.

I also think that not only does this attitude not move forward by the Swiss days, it actually moves backwards. As someone pointed out, Switerland in the 1950s was a very different place than between war Austria. The servants also lose a lot of their personality and interaction with the school. In Austria we have the extensive Pfeiffen family - Marie, Luise, Hans, Eigen, Rosa and all, plus Karen, plus Anna, plus Jockel. They have personalities, and we know something about their families and backgrounds. By the Swiss days there are Rosa only and Gaudenz who have some personality, and everyone else, other than Karen, is an interchangeable name.

As far as Anna goes, after all she and the family have been through, you could accept her loyalty to the family. I just think the work load would have killed her. It was one thing when they had triplets, and Daisy and Robin and Primula were still at home and old enough to help out, but by the end of the series there are nine children, six wards, a rambunctious large dog, a busy doctor and a busy doctor's wife who holds regular parties for large numbers of schoolgirls. Anna and Rosli do all of the cooking, cleaning, shopping and laundry for nineteen people, plus most of the childcare for the four babies still at home, pre modern conveniences.

#6: Author: Miss Di, Location: Newcastle, NSW

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:15 am
—
I know Madge was horrified at how little time off Frau Mench's maid got at Christmas - and remembers how many days off/gifts/etc she had to give her maid back in Cornwall (or was it Yorkshire by then?)

Maybe EBD just got stuck with depression era working hours when people were gratefull for a job and forgot the world had moved on. Anyway, this theory works for me, look at all those girls showing they were not adults by putting up their hair - in the mid 1960s!

#7: Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:59 pm
—
I have mixed feelings about this topic. I do agree that the portrayal of servants / staff presents roles and attitudes that are quite alien to us these days, and that Anna in particular seems to have a ridiculous workload, no time off and be entirely taken for granted by her employers.

But. But.

Firstly, I don't think EBD is remotely in the business of giving us an accurate / realistic picture of the lot of the servants. She's just not particularly interested in the servants (and why should she be, she's writing school stories!), so they only appear on the rare ocassions when they interact with the girls / staff / Maynard and Russell families. Thus we only get fleeting snapshots of e.g. Karen or Marie Pfeiffen or Anna or Gaudenz. Who knows how much time they have off or how much they earn or what they actually think of the school.

Secondly, Anna. I would guess that after the first few books (when Marie leaves the school to work for Madge), she is the servant we see the most. She seems to idolise Joey from quite an early point in the series, and is portrayed as the kind of salt-of-the-earth-born-to-serve servant class girl.

Her loyalty to the Maynards seems completely anachronistic to us, but you find her like in many books from the early part of the last century (I'm reading an Agatha Christie at the moment, and there is a faithful retainer very much in the part-of-the-family Anna mode - and there are plenty of similar characters - Bunter in DLS or Mrs Bertie in AF, for instance. It's the expectation that the upper classes will have servants and those servants will be devoted and hard working and are necessary in the back ground to ensure the smooth running of things. But the books aren't *about* them).

I really get the feeling *from the books* that Anna doesn't resent her position at all, no matter how many CBBers think she is being exploited by Jo. Unrealistic glossy idealism by EBD, you may say. But there you are. It's what is in the books. Anna loves Jo. Anna loves the Triplets. Anna was so devoted to Jo and her family that she turned down the man who proposed to her (I could argue this must mean she didn't love him very much...) because she was convinced Jo couldn't manage without her.

Thirdly, we mainly see Anna when Jo is hosting something - new girls for one afternoon a term, the staff for tea every couple of weeks, her children at home for the holidays. For the majority of the year, there can only be Jo and Jack (who both work) and two or three babies at home (and they have a nanny in Rosli and at various times a nursery governess). I'm sure Anna works hard, becuase running a house was bloody hard work in those days, but somehow I just don't see her as all that hard done by, and I don't think she sees herself that way either....

Caroline takes EBD apologist hat off.

#8: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:12 pm
—
What slightly surprises me is that the girls are allowed to call the domestic staff "Karen" and "Gaudenz" - in my day, admittedly a decade later, you called the domestic staff "Mrs So-and-so", greeted them when you saw them, and stood aside to let them pass in the corridor just as if they were teaching staff. And even at home, our people were always "Mr So-and-so" and "Mrs So-and-so", unless and until they gave you permission to the contrary.

I've always felt that "Karen" in particular, wasn't a real person, just EBD's name for "the cook", and that there could well have been a succession of cooks.... not necessarily all called Karen, but too much faff to keep changing the name!

And the devotion of the pre-war staff isn't too surprising. Ada - whom I was always required, incidentally, to address as "Mrs B----" - joined our family in the early years of the last century, at the age of 12. And she had simply never had a square meal up until then, didn't know what it was like to feel full. The cook would give her left-over food to take home to her family on her day out. She belonged to the sort of people who believed domestic service was a great career - "getting your feet under someone else's table" as Noel Streatfeild puts it. It wasn't always that great, but for those who found it so, they stayed with it. Ada continued with our family, albeit part time and coming daily, until she died.

#9: Author: Tara, Location: Malvern, Worcestershire

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:08 pm
—
This is a bit of a tangent, but, having frequently been horrified at the attitude of some of my Sixth Formers in our comprehensive school to the domestic staff, the assumption that they are to be treated with politeness, consideration and respect is rather to be welcomed! Attitudes are not necessarily better now.

I do like the very early books when the school is small and when catastrophes happen, everyone mucks in to help, IIRC, after the flood, all the staff and senior girls do a lot of the clearing up so that the domestic staff can get on with their work - nice.

#10: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:07 am
—
Caroline has said it all much better than I could. Very Happy

On the first name front, my mother was taught most strenuously in the 30s that one should always call any grown-up woman,* especially the cleaner, Mrs. -- no matter what the neighbors did. So, I got the impression that things were in flux, and that seemed to be borne out in GO literature: a progression from first name in older books, to more formal address, as well as many changes in attitudes toward servants. I've no idea what happened in real life, since servants were mythical beings. However, I have to say that the sole member of the janitorial staff at my 1960s elementary school was still called by his first name.

*except honorary aunts, of course

#11: Author: Hannah-Lou, Location: Glasgow

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:33 pm
—
I don't know anything about servants/staff, but I think that if EBD's depiction of staff doesn't move with the times (and/or location of the school!), it's just another point to back up my theory that she didn't set her books in the time when we can calculate that the events must have happened, or at the time when she wrote them. I don't think she really moved on very far from the time in which the first books are set, and many of the "up-to-date" details of the later books feel forced. It's a shame she had to put the war into the books, because from that you can date the events of the whole series, and I don't think that's really when EBD intended the action to be taking place.

Sorry, I'm another one displaying a pet theory here Laughing

#12: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:07 pm
—
No, I can really see where you’re coming from – my own personal take is that you have to be very flexible when it comes to things like that and that includes in some ways saying that all the books are set around 1930-odd. I see what you mean about the War being unfortunate in allowing us to date the books but it gave us so many great CS books that I can be sorry she did out it in; otherwise I think the series would have grown stale much sooner.

I was reading Jo Of this weekend and there was a passage about how Madge was interested in Marie and her family – and the effect that had on the girls etc. I think that’s very important, she was a real person to Madge and EBC, just not a person EBD chose to focus on – fair enough it was a school story. Later on, I agree the servants are just there to do huge amounts of work but I don’t think that it was so much EBD wanted to make them overworked it just suited her to be able to have them pack up a picnic for the whole school at short notice in order to fit the plot. I think that episode was as much about the feel of a school that would be prepared to do that sort of thing – not something many of her readers would experience, I imagine. How cool would it be if your head said “Sod lessons, we’re all off for a hike”? So in some ways that episode makes the school a bit more like the early family-style CS.

Tara wrote:

This is a bit of a tangent, but, having frequently been horrified at the attitude of some of my Sixth Formers in our comprehensive school to the domestic staff, the assumption that they are to be treated with politeness, consideration and respect is rather to be welcomed! Attitudes are not necessarily better now.

As for attitudes to staff I remember one of the cleaners at school said to my dad, a teacher, “You treat us like we’re real people, some of the other teachers don’t.” This in the 90s. I still feel that our cleaning people at work are completely left out, and we have cleaning people in the day when we are around. But then they are employed by an outside company and not doing the same work as ‘we’ are. Even the contractors who are doing the same job as employees don’t get invited to all the company events. That all sounds really bad.

As for the first name issue, it’s interesting. We called our caretaker by his first name at primary school. But then I called my friend’s parents by their first names. Mr/Mrs/Miss was only for teachers (interestingly, we weren’t allowed to call dinner ladies the generic Miss, It had to Miss Smith or whoever I think that was an effort to make sure we regared them as having as much authority as a teacher). I know, it still begs the question was the teacher in some way ‘better’ then the caretaker?
Enid Blyton children called the staff by their first name too.

#13: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:02 pm
—

Quote:

I don’t think that it was so much EBD wanted to make them overworked it just suited her to be able to have them pack up a picnic for the whole school at short notice in order to fit the plot.

It's occurred to me that just because the girls, from whose point of view we see events, didn't know there was going to be a ramble, that doesn't mean that Karen didn't know. Hlda or Matey might have said a few days before 'If the weather stays fine we'll have a ramble after church on Sunday. Can you manage picnic lunches for the girls?' And Karen and her staff might be quite pleased because they wouldn't have to cook, serve and clear away Mittagessen.

#14: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:20 pm
—
Maybe it was even Karen's idea! She comes to Hilda's office and says "I'm not cooking a hot meal for that lot on Sunday. They can have a packed lunch and have done with it." Laughing

#15: Author: Sugar, Location: second star to the right!

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:39 pm
—
I've just finished reading Wynyards and in that Kit and Lorna call their "daily woman" (can't think of a better term sorry!)- Mrs Monty, as opposed to Mrs Montgomery and they are polite etc but is she classed differently to a live in servant?

They seem to have quite a good relationship with her, she ends up staying for Christmas for example but they do seem to think shes unreliable and what have you.

But thats a home environment and not a school environment but Mrs Monty seems a bit more real than "Karen"

I agree with what Katherine was saying about my own school, the caretaker was called Mr something but we all called him Barry on the quiet! Also the generic Miss was a no no ( and something I also found on TP... most teachers prefer their name rather than Misssssssssssssss!) However, the generic Sister was allowed!

#16: Author: Billie, Location: The south of England.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:06 am
—
Strangely, at primary school the teachers were very strict about not being called "Miss!" But when I went to secondary school the teachers answered to "Miss" or "Sir." It's very strange. Maybe they had more important problems to deal with than reminding teenagers that they had names.

In my last year at sixth form we got a new head, and he was widely disliked. He was one who treated the caretakers/dinner ladies like inferiors, unlike his predecessor who you'd probably get away with calling by his first name and said hello to everyone.

Er.. I think my train of thought has derailed. Sorry.

#17: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:19 am
—
In my secondary school the mistresses were addressed as Miss or Mrs depending on their marriage status, the masters were addressed as Master and all of the domestic staff were nuns so they were addressed as Sister (or Mother for the principal). It was a convent that had been taken over almost completely by lay staff due to falling numbers of novices etc.

Getting back on topic. I think EBD has the girls and mistresses treat the domestic/grounds staff in a very respectful manner. The work that they do is valued (eg the door that got covered in treacle (?) was a waste of Gaudenz' time to fix) and they are each given personalities, even if these are sometimes not expanded upon and thus become a bit cardboard. In New House the maid is described as if she is very 'simple' - giving EBD the benefit of the doubt, maybe some of the characters that did end up as maids in a boarding school, especially scullery maids, were quite simple. In my experience of monasteries (sometimes I use monastic libraries in my research so travel and stay with the monks) the domestic staff there are 'taken in' by the monks because they are giving someone a chance in life that they would not otherwise have, in a caring enviroment. I can see Miss Annersley acting from the same attitude. That said, I can't think of any domestic staff that *are* described as 'simple' except for that maid in New House.

#18: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:43 pm
—
Was EBD using 'simple' to mean 'unsophisticated', perhaps?

I think Jockel, the lad who helps out in the Tyrol years, is a bit 'daft'. He's the one who is spooked by the snow statues on one occasion. But he's also the one who brings Rufus across Europe until he meets up with Mr Flower, who then looks after him, so he can't be completely witless.

And some of the maids in the war years aren't too bright, because all the bright young girls are off doing war work so the school has to take what it can get.

#19: Author: Sugar, Location: second star to the right!

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:45 pm
—
Re: Jockel and the snow statues.. one of my nan's sisters was in service at 14, and came back one night to see the lady of the house coming down the stairs in white nightie with moon shadow behind her. Aunt was apparantly terrified and refused to go back to work there! And she wasn't simple by a long shot! I don't know whether people were "simpler" in their beliefs back then though.

And I'd agree about the war years, any woman worth her salt was doing war work, especially after it was made an act of parliament so those still in service were either a) too young b) unsuitable for one reason or another c) married to a serviceman... (why was that an exemption from war work?)

#20: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:25 pm
—
To clarify what I meant by simple:

I'm not sure how to put it, but a bit 'backward', perhaps with learning difficulties (that wouldn't be diagnosed in that enviroment in that period, or co-ordination difficulties, or a lack of understanding about social skills. I mean people who would find it hard to get employed elsewhere, and were taken in by the school at a lower level of employment (ie scullery maid, assistant on the grounds but not the groundskeeper etc) because the school was doing them a good turn (like the brothers in the monastery that I mentioned in my last post).

I don't mean unsophisticated, because unsophistication can be changed by experience and education. I mean something more inherent than that.
Being a bit 'backward' or simple like I described above, is, IMO, completely separate from a capacity to do good, such as Jockel bringing Rufus.
I don't mean 'simpler in beliefs' either - this is something that is learned.

Anyway my original point was that maybe sometimes when EBD is portraying a particular maid as clumsy or simple (as I meant above although I know I am not clear enough), maybe that is not the author being snobbish and condescending; maybe that is because the girl herself *is* slightly backward and unable to find other employment because of this, and that Miss Annersley was doing a good turn by taking her into service, thus giving her a routine and a wage etc.

Not all the servants *are* portrayed like this, IMO - she paints most of them as worthy, valuable workers who are as much a part of the school as the rest of the staff. It is just the odd one.

#21: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:36 pm
—

Quote:

Being a bit 'backward' or simple like I described above, is, IMO, completely separate from a capacity to do good, such as Jockel bringing Rufus.

I didn't mean that because Jockel was backward he wouldn't want to take Rufus to Fraulein Joey. I meant that as a 'half wit', as I see he's described in Exile, now I've looked up that bit, it's surprising that he actually managed to do it.

Jockel had probably never been further than Spartz, or possibly Innsbruck. Yet he managed to travel half way across Europe with very little money and probably without the right papers. That would be an achievement for a boy of normal intelligence.

#22: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:13 pm
—
Ah I see what you mean. Absolutely.

#23: Author: Ariel, Location: Hither Green, London

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:53 pm
—

Mrs Redboots wrote:

I've always felt that "Karen" in particular, wasn't a real person, just EBD's name for "the cook", and that there could well have been a succession of cooks.... not necessarily all called Karen, but too much faff to keep changing the name!

When did Karen rejoin to the school after the flight from Austria? From memory, in some of the Plas Howell or St Briavals books, there is a cook called Cook. IIRC, in Carola, Carola has a conversation with her about their half-term trip to the lily ponds and the cook tells Carola that her home is nearby (or something like that). She speaks in a local dialect. I'm sure, though, that the name Karen is given at other times in that period. And then there is the Karen who is simultaneously at Welsen and the Platz...

#24: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:34 pm
—
I did have all this written down somewhere once ... but where??

The original cook is Marie Pfeifen. When Marie moves to Die Rosen to be Madge's housekeeper, her sister Luise takes over. Luise disappears at some point between Eustacia and New House and is replaced by Karen. There are mentions of a cook who is unnamed and just referred to as "Cook" in some of the British books, e.g. in (I think!) Rosalie where "Cook" has an accident in the kitchen and burns herself but all Tom & co are interested in is when they're getting their dinner. Karen is then referred to again by name from around Wrong/Carola. She is named as the cook at Welsen, but then also appears to be at the Gornetz Platz (in my drabble I just had her moving from one to the other, but in the books she seems to be in both at once!).

In the later books, Karen is referred to as " a very old friend" and Hilda and Joey talk about how the school is "her very life", and the impression given is that she's been with the school all along and therefore must have left Tyrol with the school in Exile (although I prefer the idea that she travelled from Austria with Anna!). I think EBD just liked the idea of some of the familiar Austrian staff being around - there's never any explanation given of how/why Marie and Andreas and their children left Austria with the Russells but they also reappear after Exile.

No-one beats Herr von Francius the dentist, who seems to move from Tyrol to the Oberland, though ...

#25: Author: JackieP, Location: Kingston upon Hull

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:20 am
—

Alison H wrote:

No-one beats Herr von Francius the dentist, who seems to move from Tyrol to the Oberland, though ...

Although that works if the firm is actually 'Herr von Francius & Sohn' - who left Germany for Switzerland just before the Anschluss....

JackieP

#26: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:01 pm
—
I lke your explanation, Jackie.

I was reading Seven Scamps at the weekend and one of the boys was being told he wasn’t to associate with the gardener’s son on account of the language that he picked up off him. It seemed to be rather different to the way Marie and Andreas’ children do spend time with the Russell children in the nursery. Maybe that’s the point; it was okay when they were little but once they were of a decent age (I think the scamp is question was Peter or David, who are around the eleven mark, sorry can’t remember and the book’s at home) they wanted appropriate friends. In Maids of La Rochelle Anne and Elizabeth are anxious to ensure Janie has friends her own class.

#27: Author: Tor, Location: London

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:39 pm
—
It's funny that I never questioned the role of the domestic staff in any of the books I read when I was little. Not having servants myself, I think I just assumed that was what servants did! Naive of me maybe..?

For example, when I was litele I never ever ever understood how Mary Poppins could have left Jane and Michael. One of the many dark bits at the end of the movie that used to make me cry (I LOVED this film and watched in almost continually from 3-5 years old apparently). SO, I guess my childhood notion expected servants to love their job/charges? Much like i expected my mum to love tidying my room. Fortunatley I now know better!

The faithful servant is a bit of a stalwart and a stereotype in the literature I loved as a child. It's interesting to compare Anna with say Hannah, in Little Women, or Hannah (? am I remembering correctly?) in Nancy Drew, or Rebecca Drew in Anne of Windy Poplars/Willows etc etc. Anna is not as strong a character, but here we have multiple strong women in service positions of some kind, who see their job as a responsibility, and one they do well, and feel very strongly protective over their 'family'.

I guess that now I don't have a problem per se with the idea of having servants, though I still feel embarrassed in restaurants having people clear up after me, as long as people are paid correctly. I think EBD struck the right balance. Domestic staff might have an unglamourous job, but at the time it was all that was open to many people (through gender/class/access to education), and to work hard at
something, and throw yourself into it is admirable. The deal is much like that between any employer and employee, respect and look after your staff, and treat them well (by whatever standards of the time), and most staff respect their boss in return.

Sorry... ramble... but I guess that what I am trying to say is I feel EBD could not envisage a world without staff for the class she was dealing with, but firmly believed that those staff deserved to be treated with respect. I like this attitude, there will always be menial jobs that don't pay well, and some people have to do them (meritocracy or no), but society ought to recognise those jobs as necessary and worthy (if not aspirational). Today it sometimes seems that people feel they have bought someones service, and don't need to treat people with respect once money has changed hands. I found this at it's worst in the public sector, when I worked in a National Museum it happened a few times that people (thankfully only a few horrid people) would actually say "I pay tax, you have to do what I say, because I pay your wages". Hideous (and obviously stupid... I also paid tax, was I therefore my own boss?)

Hmmm.. that sound like a soap box needing to be got down from.

Wink

#28: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:52 pm
—

Tor wrote:

"I pay tax, you have to do what I say, because I pay your wages".

By their reasoning then they should be able to tell Police Officers and MP's what to do? Would like to see them try. And what about the Inland Revenue? Perhaps you should gently point that out to the next no-brain that tries it on. Rolling Eyes

#29: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:23 pm
—
Senior domestic servants would be important people within their own worlds. Karen, Anna and Marie would have the day to day responsibility of dealing with tradesmen and ordering quite large quantities of goods. If Karen or Anna or Marie said 'I don't think we should deal with so-and-so any more,' Hilda or Joey or Madge would probably listen. It would be important for the tradesmen to keep their goodwill.

#30: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:10 pm
—
Hilda told Karen that she wasn't allowed to try out a new type of oven blacking (the one that got spilt all over Biddy Laughing

). It's a shame that we don't get to see more of Karen and Anna interacting with the local people in Switzerland, though. We get the odd vague mention of buying fruit and vegetables from local farmers, and there's a bit in the hb of Theodora about Anna visiting friends who live on a nearby farm, but it's never really expanded on, and we don't get to know Rosli's family the way we do the Pfeifens in the early books. There's so little local colour in the Swiss books compared to the Austrian books that that'd be nice to see more of those sort of scenes.

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1