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

Themes: Family Ties and Organisation
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4257
Author:  jennifer [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:20 am ]
Post subject:  Themes: Family Ties and Organisation
The view of family life and the structure of families in the CS books is very different that that in the modern world; casual adoptions of random people, children being passed from family member to member, children sent back to Europe to the care of schools extended family, the separation of families by continents for year on end and the raising of children by a nanny or mother's help.

Is EBDs presentation of family life realistic for the time period through which the books are set, or is it in part her own invention? Is the portrayal of close family feelings between children and parents who have been raised apart realistic? What about the dynamics of blended families?
Author:  Sunglass [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think EBD is quite twitchy about families, which is probably hardly surprising, given her own family circumstances.

Given that (or maybe because?) she portrays what are essentially so many broken or problematic or bereaved families, orphans, families stricken by serious illness, or families separated for long periods over enormous distances. she still views the family unit very idealistically.

There's a strong sense of how filial or sibling love 'should' work, and deviations are usually put straight back into line asap - Mary-Lou has to retrain Jessica Wayne into behaving towards her sister and stepfather as M-L does towards hers; Ruey is still supposed to make the rented chalet up the Tiern Pass 'homely', even though her father is a maniac and her brothers fairly thuggish and they don't have an actual 'home'; the Bettanys, with siblings who have never met and some with parents they've hardly ever seen, snap back together into a shiny, happy clan; Nina is clearly regarded as quite strange for not writing more warmly to her relatives, despite the fact she hardly knows them; every family is clearly supposed to be like the Maynards, with every child getting smothered with attention and love, despite there being so many of them..

Not to say there aren't moments of realistic fractiousness - like Margot getting possessive about taking in yet another stray, or Jessica Wayne resenting her disabled stepsister, or Rosalie Dene having a slightly tentative relationship with her stepmother, but the Ideal Family appears to be something EBD isn't willing to relinquish.
Author:  Katherine [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Themes: Family Ties and Organisation
jennifer wrote:
The view of family life and the structure of families in the CS books is very different that that in the modern world; casual adoptions of random people, children being passed from family member to member, children sent back to Europe to the care of schools extended family, the separation of families by continents for year on end[...]

Is EBDs presentation of family life realistic for the time period through which the books are set,

I would argue that it’s not so much a reflection of society in EBD’s day as a plot devise to make characters a bit more interesting (and Joey more superhuman). I remember my parent sued to comment on Neighbours and Home and Away that no one seemed to live with their parents, and that was down to the fact that a good storyline was adolescent in trouble, needs to be rescued by responsible adult.
Author:  Róisín [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Themes: Family Ties and Organisation
Katherine wrote:
jennifer wrote:
The view of family life and the structure of families in the CS books is very different that that in the modern world; casual adoptions of random people, children being passed from family member to member, children sent back to Europe to the care of schools extended family, the separation of families by continents for year on end[...]

Is EBDs presentation of family life realistic for the time period through which the books are set,

I would argue that it’s not so much a reflection of society in EBD’s day as a plot devise to make characters a bit more interesting (and Joey more superhuman). I remember my parent sued to comment on Neighbours and Home and Away that no one seemed to live with their parents, and that was down to the fact that a good storyline was adolescent in trouble, needs to be rescued by responsible adult.


That's so coincidental! I was just coming on to post that the CS and the family structure thing in it remind me of nothing more than a soap like Home and Away. Even the Pippa=Joey... Sally=Mary-Lou... Herr Braun=Alf *clearly watches too many Australian soaps*
Author:  Alison H [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm just about to show my very advanced age here :oops: , but I remember, when Home and Away first started being shown in the UK, reading an interview with the scriptwriters/directors in which they said that they'd decided to write a soap in which the main family was a foster family because it made it relatively easy to write teenage characters in and out of the series. I can remember the names of the 5 original foster children - how sad am I?!!

Er ... yes, there was a point to that, LOL! In the same way, people like Robin, Juliet, the Richardsons, etc, who don't live with their parents, can be "used" as extra characters in non-school scenes involving the main clan, especially in the early days when we do see a lot of scenes at the Sonnalpe during the holidays.

Having said which, that doesn't actually apply in most of the cases concerned ... I think EBD possibly just felt that having lost one or both parents, or having parents living abroad, etc, made for an interesting background story. Carola, Katharine Gordon, Mary-Lou, Verity, Adrienne, Erica, Nina, Jessica, Jo Scott, Robin and of course Joey herself, and various others are all "introduced" that way ... although in most cases it doesn't actually make all that much difference to their actual school careers.

Probably had a lot to do with her own family background?
Author:  Róisín [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Alison H wrote:
I'm just about to show my very advanced age here :oops: , but I remember, when Home and Away first started being shown in the UK, reading an interview with the scriptwriters/directors in which they said that they'd decided to write a soap in which the main family was a foster family because it made it relatively easy to write teenage characters in and out of the series. I can remember the names of the 5 original foster children - how sad am I?!!


You aren't sad at all! I claim the same illustrious knowledge of the ancient to early era of Summer Bay history *G*

Many apologies for taking this thread *even further* off topic, but every time I read the title "Family Ties", the theme song to the 1980s Michael J. Fox sitcome comes into my head... *sha-la-la-la*
Author:  gaslady [ Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
I always thought a boarding school, in that era, was a natural repository for children from atypical family backgrounds eg. parents working in the colonies, orphans, children of one-parent families(esp. when their mother was dead, with fathers being less involved with hands-on parenting than today) and it didn't strike me as a child, nor now re-reading as an adult, that the number of people in those circumstances in one small comunity was that unlikely. I agree though that it was most likely a plot device on EBD's part.
Author:  Fiona Mc [ Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:33 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think EBD showed all children snapping back into being happy families when parents return from overseas. Prunella certainly doesn't and Katherine Gordon always seems to be off on holidays with Aunt Luce and we never hear about her parents.
Yes we have Jessica but I think her response was extremely normal if you'd wish it were more friendlier between her and Rosamund.

I do think the portrayal of Joey as supermum and always being their for her daughters is unrealistic because the older kids were always off to boarding school from a young age but she did try to spend a lot of time one on one with them when they were home. Sending the boys off to boarding school and having the girls next door is extremely common cos when I worked as a Nanny in the UK that's exactly what seemed to happen; the boys went to boarding school and the girls went to the nearest good school and no one seemed to think that was unusual in the UK with the families I worked for.

In regards to kids being bought up by a Nanny, it still happens all the time as there are stacks of parents who both work full time and the child either spends full time in a creche or with a Nanny/au pair which means they are doing the bringing up of children not so much the parents.

I do think having a Joey adopting all these kids may be wishful thinking but I have meet parents who have fostered 30 kids or more over their lifetimes and there is a huge need for it and that is what Joey is doing with Ruey and co, Adrienne and Erica. The only one offically adopted is Marie-Clare. I'm only surprised they turn out as well as they do and do think EBD does portray Ruey's reaction to it all pretty well
Author:  Ela [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
EBD did write about some friction between Maeve and Peggy, in particular, when Second Twins returned with their parents to the rest of the family in England. However, the fact that the elder children showed no difficulties in re-associating with their parents is more strange, since I would have thought that they would have considered Madge and Jem more parent figures.

Katt Gordon is an odd case, too, since were told IIRC that she hasn't seen her parents for some years, yet still remains emotionally close, and is shatteringly relieved when Miss Annersley is able to find out that they are safe. Perhaps someone who has a copy of Wrong to hand can tell me that Katharine was a teenager when her parents went to China...

I agree that the Maynards appear to foster children such as the Richardsons, but whilst also having a full family of eleven themselves is quite astonishing. I'm guessing that any modern social worker would baulk at placing a child in a foster home with so many other children!
Author:  JayB [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ela wrote:
Katt Gordon is an odd case, too, since were told IIRC that she hasn't seen her parents for some years, yet still remains emotionally close, and is shatteringly relieved when Miss Annersley is able to find out that they are safe. Perhaps someone who has a copy of Wrong to hand can tell me that Katharine was a teenager when her parents went to China...


She last saw them when she was eight, six years before.

Miss A. does say something to the effect that if she had lost them, it wouldn't be so bad as if she had seen them recently.
Author:  macyrose [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
I wonder how much the big happy families she writes about were wish fullfilment on EBD's part? She herself didn't have the greatest childhood. Her father split early, her only brother died young, her mother sounds domineering and perhaps by giving her favourite characters/alter egos such large happy families were like giving that to herself in a way (even if only in her imagination). And having had no practical exprerience of such a large family she might not have known how much work it would be to take care of it (even with an Anna and Rosli) and the kind of family dynamics it would have. And the husband/doctor knows best attitude might have been the real life attitude during EDB's youth as well as perhaps EBD's wish that she had a husband to take care of her.
It's interesting to compare the Maynards with a real life family of eleven kids - the Gilbreths of Cheaper By the Dozen fame. In the books Cheaper and Belles the picture is of a large happy family but there are also hints that not everything was great. It's mentioned in Cheaper that there were so many kids and so few parents that the kids could never see as much of their parents as they wanted. I think Margot's attitude in Future - she's reluctant to share her parents with yet another person, Melanie - is very realistic but then she's guilted by Jo into agreeing that Melanie should visit. The rest of the family don't seem to mind all the wards, adoptees or temporary houseeguests and most of the wards, etc. seem to fit into the family with little touble.
Author:  Alison H [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Leaving aside the Maynards and their habit of adopting children right left and centre and concentrating on some of the more realistic cases, I think that some of the people (it generally seems to be men) deserve credit for being ready to take on other people's relatives.

Laurie (in Joey Goes) is really very sweet about saying that he wants Primula to feel that his and Daisy's home is her home as well. He couldn't even have known Primula too well, as she and Daisy had been living in different places (Primula was in Canada during most of the time that Daisy and Laurie were engaged), and a lot of newly-married men wouldn't have been very enthusiastic about their sister-in-law living with them.

Jem knew when he and Madge got together that she and Joey came as a package, and that Madge was also Juliet's legal guardian, but he presumably didn't anticipate that a few years later they'd end up taking on Dick's children as well. OK, they had Rosa to look after them, but we never see him complain. Jem and Madge also ended up looking after Stacie, who really wasn't their responsibility but had nowhere else to go as she wasn't well enough to travel to England, and I should imagine that Gillian and Joyce also stayed with them in the holidays as they'd have had nowhere else to go that was near their mother.

Credit where credit's due :D !
Author:  JayB [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Jem knew when he and Madge got together that she and Joey came as a package, and that Madge was also Juliet's legal guardian,


And she was responsible for the Robin, too, as long as Capt. Humphries was away (when exactly did he come back from Russia?)

The Trelawneys/Careys took on Clem and Tony, for no other reason than that Clem and Mary Lou were friendly (Doris and Gran didn't even much like the Barrasses at first) when Doris and Roland weren't in good health themselves.
Author:  evelyn38 [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ela wrote
EBD did write about some friction between Maeve and Peggy, in particular, when Second Twins returned with their parents to the rest of the family in England. However, the fact that the elder children showed no difficulties in re-associating with their parents is more strange, since I would have thought that they would have considered Madge and Jem more parent figures.

There is also the tension between Sybil and the Bettanys, when Sybil taunts Peggy & Rix for only being cousins, when "David and I Belong". This seems an entirely normal reaction to me, but EBD (and Joey) use it as an example of Sybil being unpleasantly full of herself.

Like most "bad " behaviour, of course, this is redeemed by the healing power of "an accident" :roll:
Author:  Fiona Mc [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
evelyn38 wrote:
Ela wrote
EBD did write about some friction between Maeve and Peggy, in particular, when Second Twins returned with their parents to the rest of the family in England. However, the fact that the elder children showed no difficulties in re-associating with their parents is more strange, since I would have thought that they would have considered Madge and Jem more parent figures.

There is also the tension between Sybil and the Bettanys, when Sybil taunts Peggy & Rix for only being cousins, when "David and I Belong". This seems an entirely normal reaction to me, but EBD (and Joey) use it as an example of Sybil being unpleasantly full of herself.

Like most "bad " behaviour, of course, this is redeemed by the healing power of "an accident" :roll:


I also saw that tension as just normal kid behaviour and mainly as Subil's reaction to an older bossier cousin. Rix continually rubbed it in that she was too little so Sybil retaliated with what she could. Madge, sensibly I thought, didn't take sides but told both off for there behaviour
All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/