The CBB :: View topic - Girls: Girls with Eccentric Parents

through

[^/[^Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

#1: Girls: Girls with Eccentric Parents Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:21 am
—
We discussed girls with neglectful or abusive parents earlier - now to the girls where the parents are crazy, eccentric, scatterbrained or have odd ideas about parenting.

We have girls like Eustacia, Lavender, Emerence or Yseult who have parents or guardians with odd ideas about how a young girl should be raised. We also have scatterbrained parents like the Barrases, Katherine Gordon's Aunt Luce, or the Mrs Winterton, where the kids are more responsible than the parents.

What do you think about the way EBD explained away the actions of these parents? Were their actions justified by her? How did they affect the girls, and how did those girls fit in with the Chalet School world?

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

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:55 am
—
I thought I would start with scatter brained parents.
Aunt Luce with Katherine Gordon may have been scattered brained however she still spent a lot of time with her niece and was generally caring towards her. In fact I always thought she sounded like a lot of fun.

The Barras especially Mr Barras was a generally uncaring parent who could not be bothered with his kids at all. He seemed to regard them as nuinsances at the best of times and so over reated with anything that interfered with his art. He always struck me as someone who should never had been a parent as he didn't have either the time or inclination to spend with either of his kids. Clem tended to be a little more sensible than Tony and so didn't get into trouble as much as he did

I always thought Mr Winterton was a little unrealistic in his I haven't paid any attention to you because my job was far more important and then I'm going to come along and change everything because I don't like how you behave-a little bit too late. No wonder Lalla and Polly resented him especially if Mrs Winterton didn't discipline them the way he wanted. I pretty much felt the same about Prunella's parents. It's a bit rich to totally ignore your daughter gallivant off and then complain because Granny didn't raise her how you wanted. Which was more important, your daughter or your job! (Sorry, that's a bit of a pet soapbox of mine)

One thing as I've often thought about Eustasia, it struck me about the similarity between hers and Adrienne's upbringing. Both were taught at home and neither had much to do with their own age group and yet Adrienne settled in so much better than Eustasia. Ailie and Co who looked after Adrienne were extremely helpful and protective whereas Eustasia never got that at all. Mind you Adrienne was certainly more personable than Eustasia who always reminded me of Cressida in Heather Leaves School.

Out of all of them I always felt sorry for Lavender, Eustasia and Yseult because they did have very different upbringings and although their parents were slightly on the different side, they did seem to genuinely care for their children. I often wonder how much did personality really come into play.

Emerence seem to settle in and make friends a lot more easily than the other three, so didn't elicit as much sympathy. I am always curious though cos EBD says Emmerence always watched herself in Verity's presence and would have done anything she asked for if EBD was planning anything more to develop between those two than what eventuated. Did anyone else think that?

#3: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 8:31 pm
—
The beginning of Eustacia never seems very EBD at all to me, but then it was early on in the series so she was probably still experimenting with things. I wish we knew more about Mrs Benson ... actually IIRC she was Dr Benson, because she sounds very interesting!

Some of the people with eccentric parents/guardians - Clem (although her dad could be a right nasty piece of work sometimes) and Kat are very sensible by comparison with those meant to be looking after them, whereas others aren't at all, so I'm not sure how that fits in with Joey's argument that children's behaviour is all down to their parents (unless, of course, either her kids or Madge's are causing trouble!).

EBD didn't really seem to know what to do with some of this lot after they'd first appeared, which is frustrating. Yseult changes from a rather silly girl to a very staid one (admittedly partly due to her mother's illness), which rather disappoints me; but it all happens away from the school. Emerence, who after her first term never really does anything to merit repeatedly being referred to as "one of the naughtiest girls in the annals of the school" (the OOAO toboggan accident was hardly deliberate), just hangs around being Margot's best friend until she leaves. And Lavender hardly appears after the first book she's in. Not sure why Confused

#4: Author: linda, Location: Leeds

Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 10:49 pm
—
Of course, there is Professor Richardson, father to Ruey and her brothers Roger and Roddy. Who in their right mind would leave three quite young children alone in a foreign country whilst he goes off to try to be the first man into space? EBD seems to excuse him for his total lack of parenting skills because he has lost his wife.

#5: Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:20 pm
—
You could add Lavender's aunt to this list.

Really, I think it all stems from the idea that children should fit in with the parent's life and work (and been seen and not heard etc.), rather than the modern approach where the needs of the child are paramount - indeed, completely dominant in some families, which maybe taking things a bit far IMO.

I'm guessing the idea that a mother should, for instance, put the needs of her husband above those of her children (apart from when they are tiny babies) was pretty much the norm in the early years of the last century - for those in the upper classes, with their nannies etc., anyway.

Ditto the fact that if you were e.g. a great artist or writer or important medical person, the work you were doing - which was, after all for the good of society or was Art with a capital A or whatever - was also perceived as being more important than the needs of your children.

And then there are the Bensons and Hopes, who seem to have almost experimented on their children....

Really, compared to this bunch, Professor Fry is almost a decent dad. At least he had the good sense to ensure Richenda had a loving and capable nanny to look after her, ensure she goes to a decent school etc. It's only when she threatens his precious porcelains (i.e. impinges on his life's work) that he goes a bit crackers.

#6: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:06 pm
—
Actually, Lavender and Emerence and Yseult come closer to some of the more modern parenting problems - in all cases they have been spoiled to the point where they have trouble acceding to the minimal requirements of living in a society. Emerence has never been told no, and Lavender has lived an odd life, but has been the centre of her aunt's world, and cosseted and indulged, while Yseult seems like she's been indulged as well.

I think EBDs scorn of the parents who experiment on their chidlren shows through, though. Clem and Katherine turn out surprisingly normal and healthy minded given the life they've been through. I guess there is affection in both relationships, going both ways.

I feel particularly sorry for Eustacia, Lavender and Yseult. Okay, they're obnoxious, but all three are abruptly thrown into a totally alien society, where they have none of the skills or knowlege they need to fit in and function, and they're all ostrasized for it by their peers.

#7: Author: Gabrielle, Location: Near Paris, France

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:27 pm
—
I always felt very sorry for Eustacia and I suppose to a lesser extent Yseult and Emerence. It really wasn't Eustacia's fault that her parents chose to experiment on her like that. What I always found really unfair was how everyone expected her to turn into a real Chalet School girl so quickly. You can't undo the attitudes of a lifetime in a month or so. No-one ever seemed to have much sympathy for the fact that she'd just lost both her parents either.

EBD is always emphasising how wrong these types of parents are too. Lavender is almost anorexic when she arrives at the Chalet School.

#8: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:39 am
—

Gabrielle wrote:

No-one ever seemed to have much sympathy for the fact that she'd just lost both her parents either.

What really bugs me is that, even though poor Eustacia has lost both her parents within a short space of time, and been dumped (in her view) in a strange environment, in a foreign country, Bill & co attribute her unhappiness to some sort of unrequited hero-worship of Joey-the-centre-of-the-universe!! It's unfair to Joey as well: she's more or less told that it's her fault that Eustacia's run away.

#9: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:46 pm
—
I felt sorry for Yseult. So what if she didn't fit in? It seems to me that EBd created a template of a good CS girl, and if you didn't mould yourself to that within a few months, you were destined to be an outcast and despised, etc. It really doesn't say much for the school that they couldn't accommodate these girls without holding them up to scorn.

#10: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 3:21 pm
—
I think the differences between Kat and Clem and Eustacia, Yseult and Lavender partly stem from the fact that both Kat and Clem had been to school before and therefore knew how to function in society while the other three hadn't. (Although personalities must come into it as Yseult's younger sisters fit in a lot more easily - though maybe cos they were younger).

There is also a big difference in the way these girls behave. Kat and Clem are likeable but I don't think any of us liked Yseult, Lavender, or Eustacia at first. We can talk about how the school should have been more forgiving, etc etc, but at the same time I can't see myself putting up with any of them any better than did the average Chaletian.

I don't really agree with the 'perfect Chaletian' comment. When you think about it there are a lot of characters (Verity, Nina, Con, Margot, for example) who never become 'perfect Chalet girls' but are none the less accepted. In the case of the first three, I'd say it was because although they are different they are likable. In the case of Margot I'd say it was because of her charm.

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

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:19 am
—

Loryat wrote:

I think the differences between Kat and Clem and Eustacia, Yseult and Lavender partly stem from the fact that both Kat and Clem had been to school before and therefore knew how to function in society while the other three hadn't. (Although personalities must come into it as Yseult's younger sisters fit in a lot more easily - though maybe cos they were younger).

Yseult had been at school before but it was one geared to verse speaking and had very similiar ideas to Yseult's mother so Yseult would have had a huge shock coming to the CS after having been at school which did reinforce her mother's ideas as well. I never realised that until I read the non-abridged version of New Mistress when it mentions it. It's not mentioned in my Armada copy at all.

Quote:

"She has an artistic Mother who writes very lush novels," Rosalie said solemnly...."Did she teach them herself then?" Kathie asked.....No; they went to a little school of about twenty girls which was run by one of her like minded friends...What actually happened was that the Board of Education closed it down as being totally inefficient and the pupils were scattered. We got the Pertwees."

Though one thing I thought of while looking that up was even what Yseult is good at isn't made much use of. She can verse speak beautifully but because she is new she doesn't get much of a part in the Christmas Play and yet Ruey does in her first term. I would have thought for a girl who isn't brillant and struggling to settle in it would be a good way of helping her to and getting her involved with the school.

#12: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:31 pm
—
That's true...though it does say that Yseult's style of verse speaking wasn't one that the CS 'approved of' - which for some reason always makes me think sexual connotations Embarassed

. I suppose she does get the understudy for Herod which is a pretty big deal, considering she's new.

ETA OT, I had for some reason thought that Yseult had a governess.

#13: Author: Elle, Location: Peterborough

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:51 pm
—
What about Tom Gay's father? He always struck me as odd with the way he brought Tom up to be as boyish as possible and to despise girls and all their works. It strikes me that there is something very wrong in Tom's upbringing!

#14: Author: coddle,

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:15 pm
—
How about Dick and Mollie Bettany??

To have kids and not see them from one year to the next is bad enough, but to CARRY ON having them is worse!

Why bother if you're never going to see them?? The 'second twins' must have found it so hard to adjust when they met the rest of the mob!

#15: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:24 am
—

coddle wrote:

How about Dick and Mollie Bettany??

To have kids and not see them from one year to the next is bad enough, but to CARRY ON having them is worse!

Why bother if you're never going to see them?? The 'second twins' must have found it so hard to adjust when they met the rest of the mob!

I think that was largely the times. Going to work for the Empire, abroad, for lengthy periods of time was common, and often a good way to earn a decent salary, get training, and serve the country. It was the wife's job to go with her husband in many cases, to entertain, look after him, manage the household, etc. Keeping children in India and similar climates was seen as very unhealthy, so sending them back to school or to stay with relatives was seen as the responsible option.

Plus, at that time there weren't many options other than abstinence to not have more kids. Reliable birth control wasn't available at that time, so if you were married and not sleeping in separate beds. I think the pill didn't come into play until the 1960s.

#16: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:52 am
—
I know that this's been discussed before, and brilliantly covered in Jennie's Russell Universe, but what about Madge and Jem? Not sure whether you'd call them eccentric, but, after initially being shown as very caring people who take on responsibility for Joey, Robin, Juliet, the Bettanys, etc, they later:

1. More or less ban Sybil from the house (well, Jem does) until the next holidays, because of the accident with Josette.

2. Say that they don't have time to write to tell David and Sybil that they're staying on in Canada, even though Madge has time to write Joey a long letter about Cornelia's wedding plans.

3. Tell Joey and Jack that they're staying on in Canada without bothering to ask if they mind Margot being away another 6 months or however long.

4. Leave the decision about whether or not to take David out of school (although I think it was right not to take him to Canada at 15/16, as it would've interrupted his exams) to Jack and Dick.

5. Make Sybil and Josette abandon their own plans, against their wishes, to keep Madge company in Australia - and tell Hilda about it before they tell Josette!

I'll never understand why EBD turned them into such bad parents! If it was just a case of wanting the Russells out of the way, she could've said that Sybil and Josette were really excited about the chance of getting a year in Australia, or that Madge wanted Joey to tell Sybil about Canada because she thought it'd be better for her to hear it in person rather than in a letter. Why did she apparently want Madge and Jem to come across so badly?

#17: Author: Tan, Location: London via Newcastle Australia

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:32 am
—
When you lay it out like that Alison, it is really hard to understand isn't it? I still think there is no way you can justify not writing to your children in those circumstances. By all means, make sure that Joey and Jack speak to them as well, but to not break the news about Canada?

#18: Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:42 pm
—
To be fair, quite a lot of that was typical at the time. During all those points, the children were under age and two expectations were made of them - that their parents would make major decisions, such as Sybil and Josette coming to Australia (point 5), and that children were expected to do as their parents (and other figures in authority) said, and if they failed to do so, they could expect serious punishment (point 1).

As regards point 3, if Jo had demanded Margot back, she could easily have been put on a plane and sent home, but I'm sure Jem and Jack talked it over and decided it would be better for Margot's health for her to stay. Jo would, 'naturally', accept Jack's decision, and besides she knew how much good the trip was going Margot.

With point 4, I've no doubt Dick visited David at school and would also probably have heard how he was doing from Rix. Stephen could probably also have talked to his father about David. This meant Jem and Madge were really less aware about David's situation than either Dick or Jack would be and this point seems quite reasonable to me.

I have to say that, instead of labelling them bad parents, they should be seen as parents of their time, being a generation older than Jo and Jack. Although we don't have a choice other than to see them from 21st century attitudes, they can't be judged as 'bad' parents in the way some of the other people on this list must be viewed, as their children grew up in a loving environment with every educational, social and religious opportunity, which gave them a real and positive future.

Just for an example, let's see what might have happened if the five points Alison listed were treated in other ways:

1. Sybil is at home, a weeping mess. David, with his broken leg, is still at home and requires nursing. Sybil cries herself into a fever, so the person nursing David has to nurse her, too. Madge is torn between Josette at the San, who could die, and David and Sybil at home. The likelihood is that Madge, too, will fall ill from stress and exhaustion. Josette would fret if her mother was away and become worse. She could die, and what would that do to Sybil?

2. Sybil is expecting to hear that her mother is returning home, and then, without any warning, gets a letter saying they will be staying longer. She is shocked by this and worries that it's all her fault because she caused Josette's illness. She frets herself into a fever again. We don't know much about David, but I imagine he would much rather hear the news from a kind uncle than also have the shock of a letter with no warning that the change had been made.

3. I still think that, if Jo had really minded, Margot could have flown home. I'm also convinced Jem and Jack discussed it. No real alternative here. Sorry. Razz

4. David's final years at school are interrupted and, unlike his cousins, he is not likely to come back fluent at French (as he has never learned it and does not seem to use it at school). It's more likely he would miss vital information he needs for his medical degree and do less well, thus perhaps not getting the working situation later.

5. Both girls are underage (under 21), and there are also very good opportunities for them in Australia. Both girls find husbands there, Josette doing so while at University, and she ends up with a lawyer as a result (next best thing to a doctor, IMHO). Sybil's needlework career would have waited until she got back from Australia, and the fact that she didn't come back implies to me that she found a way to satisfy her wants there in Australia as easily as she had in England (or that she decided marriage was a better option). Yes, Josette does miss out on Millie's, but I've always felt Miss Annersley got the short straw as she had to tell Josette. From her abrupt comment, I think she was very surprised to learn that Josette didn't know she was going to Australia and probably thought Madge had already told her. And then Miss Annersley does say that, if Josette begged hard enough, she would probably be allowed to stay. Josette clearly doesn't do this, so you can't fully put the blame on either Madge or Miss Annersley.

Erm... sorry this is so long! Embarassed

#19: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:23 pm
—

KB wrote:

2. Sybil is expecting to hear that her mother is returning home, and then, without any warning, gets a letter saying they will be staying longer. She is shocked by this and worries that it's all her fault because she caused Josette's illness. She frets herself into a fever again. We don't know much about David, but I imagine he would much rather hear the news from a kind uncle than also have the shock of a letter with no warning that the change had been made.

I feel that while Sybil should have heard the news in person - ie from Joey - there should have been a letter as well, for Joey to give to her after she'd broken the news gently. While hearing from Joey would have been much better than just a letter out of the blue, I really feel like Madge should have enclosed even a short personal note to her.

#20: Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:02 am
—
Ah, but how would she have justified it? After all, she says this to Jo:

Quote:

But Sybs, bless her heart, will never set the Thames on fire, and means to go in for art needlework and designing in any case, so half a term out of school wouldn’t hurt her.

Can you imagine Sybil's hurt if her mother had written something like that? And then Sybs might have reasonably wondered why, if she could be uprooted now, why she couldn't have gone with her mother and sisters when they went over in the first place. Wink

#21: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:46 pm
—

Kate wrote:

This is exactly what I think. I always find the Joey/Sybil scene very sweet - it's a nice aunt/niece vignette (did I use that word correctly? well never mind). But I think it would have been nice if Madge had written too. However when you think about it this is not the kind of thing that can be expressed in a note, especially when Sybil was responsible for the accident which lead to Josette's frailty in the first place. It would really have to be a long, personal letter. Maybe Madge was worrying over how she would express it, how to assure Sybil that they weren't blaming her etc, and putting it off for those reasons. One to one interatcion was definitely the best way to break this news, IMO.

What about Carola Johnstons's parents? They ditch her with a selfish cousin and forget to take into account the fact that she might grow while they're prancing about Nigeria! (Or wherever.)

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

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

Page 1 of 1