Joey and Co. in Tirol
Select messages from
 # through # FAQ
[/[Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions
#1: Joey and Co. in Tirol Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:08 pm
    —
There is a synopsis here.
So how does this measure up against the other summer books? Do you like the three R's as a group and as individuals? How realistically is Prof. Richardson portrayed? Do you feel sorry for Ruey? How about her relationship with the Maynards, especially perhaps Len? Did you find the robber episode funny or patronising -> speaking of which, how about the relationship with the Rosomons?!

Please join in Very Happy
#2:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:44 pm
    —
Ooh good, an excuse to waffle not work!

I quite like the holiday books in general, and I like this one. A lot of it is rather far-fetched - planning to go off in a spaceship Rolling Eyes , throwing things at robbers, Roger nearly bleeding to death because he fell over a twig or whatever it was, and the Richardsons being long-lost relations of the Rosomons - though!

It's nice to see the elder Maynard boys, who hardly feature outside the holiday books, and also the Richardson boys. Exiguous bathing trunks 'n' all Laughing ! I wonder if EBD would've paired Con and Roger off eventually - Len seems to get on better with Roger than Con does, but presumably he wasn't good enough for Len because he wasn't a doctor!
#3:  Author: Lolly, Location: Sydney PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:23 pm
    —
I really like this one even though parts of it are very silly. Professor Richardson is completely unbelievable -even as one of the 'Bad Guardians' - and the story about the robbers is pretty silly, but in keeping with the literature of the time. I think what makes it such a nice read is that there is a bit more depth to the characters in this than in some, and I think Jack comes across as a real (and comparatively realistic) father figure. Joey is much less irritating in this book than in some, and her taking the three Rs under her wing is much less contrived than other of her adoptions - (particularly the LUDICROUS meeting she has with Erica).

Because the focus is on only a part of the vast Maynard family, the characters are more defined and the boys develop as separate entities rather than just 'the boys'. It is also nice to see Joey removed from the vicinity of the Chalet school, albeit to its former site, as in some of the later books Freudesheim seems to be an extension of the School with the same rules and morals attached. This often makes the triplets seem one dimensional and too good to be true constantly reinforcing Chalet School rules and ideals, and endlessly 'helping' those who don't meet the standards or don't conform to the norm.

Also, it is nice to see a return to the Tirol as EBD's real love for the region comes through in a way which is never seen in the Oberland books (am I right in thinking she never went there) and I think Joey speaks for her when she says that she likes the Oberland but the Tirol is her real love.

I'll stop now.....



Wink
#4:  Author: Laura V, Location: Czech Republic PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:32 pm
    —
It's probably my 2nd favourite summer story after Rescue, the whole relaxed atmosphere shows a nice side to the family and also the boys and is a nice break from the school routine.
The whole Rosommon/Richardson connection is too far fetched for me. Why is it EBD has a thing about making everyone long lost or distant relations? Having said that I do like the 3 Rs and seeing a family who live in a contrasting way to the Maynards.


PS I think Professor Richardson's character is totally believable! I had an art teacher at school who had a similar manner (but with paintbrushes and pencil crayons, not stars and spaceships!)
#5:  Author: Bess, Location: Cambridge UK PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:16 am
    —
LOL. I think I had that art teacher, too - he used to totally forget his class, and wander off around the school corridors, singing. Shocked And he hated mauve with a passion. Anyway...

This is one of my favourite holiday books, too. Besides their daft Dad, the 'Three R's' seemed such nice, down to earth, normal kids - no major character flaws for Joey/Len to rectify, such a relief! The Rosomon connection seemed much more unlikely to me than the space-flighting, but I rather liked the bank-robbers. It's amazing what a bunch of kids on their own with their over-active imaginations can come up with, although possibly the EBD scenario is a bit extreme!
#6:  Author: Maeve, Location: Romania PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:44 pm
    —
I don't mean to start a tangent about how Jack treats Mike in the first chapter as I know that's been hashed over umpteen times elsewhere, but I am struck by how "adult" Joey seems in chapter one as Madge calmly tells her how she, Jem, and Jack are going to manage everything - without even consulting Joey. I'm sure they are all concerned about her, as Madge says, but still, the somewhat high-handed - not to mention, somewhat unfeeling - way in which they plan to settle everything - seems outrageous. But I rather like how it causes Joey to quit acting like a schoolgirl and to stand up to her big sister.
Quote:
But as Jack refused to thrash him—said he didn’t dare just then—or have anything to do with him, there was no other way of punishing him.”
“Yes?” Joey’s voice was noncommittal.
“My dear girl, you know how insistent your husband has always been on obedience to rules ...
“How long are you proposing to keep him?”
“Till the end of the holidays. He can go back to school from us.”
“Oh, can he, indeed?” Joey’s face was flushed and her eyes were sparkling. “Well, I’m telling you here and now that he can’t! ...So put that on your needles and knit it!”
“Joey——”
“No—and no!” Joey stuck out her jaw.

Madge is one of my favorite characters but I think she really crossed some boundaries here and I like that Joey doesn't sit back or isn't sedated as so often happens. I like this grown-up parental Joey for a change.
#7:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:55 pm
    —
The holiday books, with the exception of Rescue, are not among my favorites. I'm not sure why - maybe it's too much adult Joey in one go.

I do like the Richardsons, though, and Ruey certainly is sweet tempered given how Len takes charge of her (particularly the scene where she makes Ruey get up, wash and say her prayers before bed).

I can't take the Professor Richardson in Space plot line at all seriously - maybe it's my exposure to actual rocket science (I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do work with them - it really is that complicated). The first private (i.e. not run by a major government) manned space flight occured about two years ago, and that was just up and back. Tyrol was published in 1960, and Sputnik launced in 57, so I suspect she was picking the spaceflight thing out of the news without doing any other research.

I shudder to think what would have happened to the Richardsons if they hadn't met the Maynards. I can see the Professor handing Roger some money, telling them to get back to England on their own, and taking off for good.
#8:  Author: Changnoi, Location: Milwaukee, USA PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:16 pm
    —
I like seeing Stephen and Chas in this book as separate entities. I know there's been a lot of speculation that EBD was planning to make Charles a priest, and I will say that that's much more plausible and much less tortured than making Margot a nun! Even in Three Go, he had that quiet sensitive aspect to him, and it's nice to see him again here, still with that character.

Joey's interactions with the three Rs seem much more appropriate than her interactions with many other characters simply because the three Rs are in such a scary position, virtually abandoned by their father, etc. Joey can normally seem overwhelming and interfering; here, she seems just like she's taking the interest in these three young people that needs to be taken.

I do dislike the triplets' reactions, though, when they first go to see the hut where the Richardsons are living. They begin grilling Ruey about why she hasn't put curtains up! The poor girl is doing a lot better than I would be doing if it were me, and they start cross-examining her about why the place isn't looking nicer. Ruey is, I think, a remarkably nice girl to put up with it.

It's hard for me to read this book all the way through in one sitting because I have to stop and contort myself trying to find out how exactly Roger managed to sever an artery by falling over a stick. This confuses me. I may well be wrong, but I don't think this is a commonplace accident...

I do like the book overall. Especially Charles Smile. Though if I had the writing of him, I'd turn him away from the priesthood eventually and pair him up with a nice young person. This, I suppose, among other reasons, is why I don't get to be EBD.

Chang
#9:  Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:20 am
    —
Changnoi wrote:
It's hard for me to read this book all the way through in one sitting because I have to stop and contort myself trying to find out how exactly Roger managed to sever an artery by falling over a stick. This confuses me. I may well be wrong, but I don't think this is a commonplace accident...


I'm really not sure that there was any suggestion that he fell over a stick. He fell onto the path and, as Joey describes it to Professor Richardson,

Quote:
a rather nasty cut, as the result of a collision between your three and my triplets. The girls and Roddy got off without any harm, but Roger crashed down with all his weight on the sharp edge of a stone on the path and cut his shin to the bone.
#10:  Author: Maeve, Location: Romania PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:23 am
    —
Changnoi wrote:

I do dislike the triplets' reactions, though, when they first go to see the hut where the Richardsons are living. They begin grilling Ruey about why she hasn't put curtains up! The poor girl is doing a lot better than I would be doing if it were me, and they start cross-examining her about why the place isn't looking nicer. Ruey is, I think, a remarkably nice girl to put up with it.
Chang


Yes, this always bothered me also. Leave the poor girl alone!
#11: Joey & Co. in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:11 am
    —
I didn't mind this book. Having read most of the others that come after this one it was good to finally read how Ruey becomes part of the family. Personally I never thought Roger would have married either Con or Len not because he was a doctor, more because EBD would have seen their relationship as a brother/sister relationship more than anything else. I did like seeing more of the rest of the Maynard family. I can't say I see the priesthood in Charles that everyone else can. Margot I guess I always put her becoming a nun as a reaction to the Robin. You don't have to be angelic or saintly to be a Nun, only willing to serve. And usually it's the unexpected ones in the family that go do things like that. The whole Mike thing was over the top. The kid was 7. I did like Joey's response to Madge, Jem and Jack over it all Glad to see she stood up for Mike. One last comment and I know this is way off tangent but why did Jack let someone so delicate health-wise have so many kids? All those pregnancies would have put a huge strain on her health
#12:  Author: Eilidh, Location: North Lanarkshire PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:52 am
    —
Changnoi wrote:
I do like the book overall. Especially Charles Smile. Though if I had the writing of him, I'd turn him away from the priesthood eventually and pair him up with a nice young person.


I agree totally. Laughing

Hum, yes. I like this book lots - it was always my favorite when I was younger because it was so long, and because I liked the family slant that it had to it.

I do like the 3 R's, although I do think Professor R is slightly over-the-top. The whole flying to the moon thing didn't really work for me.

I liked Ruey too, and I thought she had as good a relationship as anyone could be expected to have with the Maynards, given that she's only known them for a few weeks. She and Len seem to be very friendly, and I think it might perhaps have been more interesing to have seen her with Con or Margot, but thne EBD liked Len best.

The robber episode is just overactive imaginations, I think. It never struck me as patronising. And the relationship with the Rosomons is frankly ludicrous, although typical EBD.
#13: Re: Joey & Co. in Tirol Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:57 am
    —
Fiona Mc wrote:
One last comment and I know this is way off tangent but why did Jack let someone so delicate health-wise have so many kids? All those pregnancies would have put a huge strain on her health


Does Jo not say at some point while in Britain. "I'm as stong as a mountain pony."? Or words to that effect. The years in the Tyrol having sorted her health. Admittedly that doesn't really go with the not worrying Jo, but then she was always pregnant so there was an excuse!
#14:  Author: Caty, Location: New Zealand PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:58 pm
    —
This is my favourite of the holiday books because:
1. It was set in the Tiernsee. I was disppointed with the visit to the Tiernsee in Coming of Age.
2. It captures more of the atmopshere of the early books - freedom to wander around the lake, boat, swim, ramble etc. Even the cleaning of the Richarson's chalet is the kind of thing the girls would have done in the school's early years.
3. It is a long book with comparatively few characters, so we get a better view of each of them, particularly the Maynard boys.

I like the 3 Rs, but I would have preferred not to have the Rosomon connection. It is just too far fetched, as is the Professor's space trip. I enjoyed the burglar episode. Far fetched, yes, but entertaining. I would have liked to see more of Con & Margot too.

As for Con/Roger, I think it was in A Future Chalet Girl, that Con & Roger got on well rather than this book.
#15:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:26 am
    —
It's interesting how the triplets and the three older Maynard boys follow each other in temperment. Len and Steve are the responsible, practical ones, Con and Charles are the sensitive, quiet, rather solitary ones, and Mike and Margot are the bad ones.

I could see Charles going into the priesthood - possibly in an academic role, or maybe being a professor or teacher and settling down with a nice girl.

With Robin, I think she either had to be a nun or die young (a la Beth in Little Women) - she was too sweet and good to stay in the real world. Margot's calling is one I can't quite decide if it makes sense - I could see her subliminally trying to compensate for her badness by taking orders, or it could be a true calling. I could see her going the activist route too, particularly once she got exposed to the world outside of her relatively sheltered upbringing. She's been raised to think of others, and provide charity, but mostly in the making up baskets of clothes and toys for poor children sense. Once she got into actually working with the poor and diseased and disenfranchised, she might take up the cause and start crusading.
#16:  Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:25 am
    —
I noticed that about the Maynard boys too! I can see Charles as a monk in a traditional Abbey, praying for the world but also following his interests perhaps studying herbal cures. Being a Parish Priest wouldn't suit him - so many fund-raising activities, paperwork etc. As a convert, EBD probably wouldn't know much about the austere regime of nuns - even the active teaching and nursing orders, yet she sent her two frailest characters, Robin and Margot there. And Margot would find the discipline, the total wiping out of self, impossible.
#17:  Author: Cryst,  PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:12 pm
    —
As others have said, I tend to like the holiday books which seem to have more atmosphere somehow. I also found aspects of this book far fetched. I seem to remember minor niggles about Jo all the way through, too. Like the hat linings, the fact that a couple of months (or whatever it is) after having the twins she's out there on the lake diving off the boat in a swim suit and racing against the boys. Oh and was this the book where EBD suddenly weaned the twins just so that Jo could go out for the day to show everyone the cave and have an adventure in the mist? That seemed rather heartless to me!
#18:  Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:53 pm
    —
I do love the way that she does so much of this stuff with her kids, but the hat linings frankly unnerve me, and continue to do so Shocked
#19:  Author: Changnoi, Location: Milwaukee, USA PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:34 am
    —
The hat linings are *awesome* and make me wish that I had as much foresight and organizational skills as Joey as to be able to make one hat mix-and-match all of my outfits.

'50s wife at heart?

Chang
#20:  Author: Fatima, Location: Sunny Qatar PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:36 am
    —
I agree with Chang about the hat linings - in fact it inspired me to have a second band to use on my hat for a change. Not that it matched any of my outfits, though.
I always really enjoyed this story, and accepted most of it; the relationship with the Rosomons was a little far fetched, although I was pleased that Ruey & Co would still have some family of their own.
And for a while, just in this book, I felt as though it could have been Len who was destined for Roger.
#21:  Author: Miriam, Location: Jerusalem, Israel PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:49 pm
    —
Cryst wrote:
Oh and was this the book where EBD suddenly weaned the twins just so that Jo could go out for the day to show everyone the cave and have an adventure in the mist? That seemed rather heartless to me!


Wasn't bottle feeding considered etter for the baby at that time? I always thought that was just EBD keeping up with current trends o0n the issue, not particularly related to Jo's activities.
#22:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:23 pm
    —
Changnoi wrote:
I do dislike the triplets' reactions, though, when they first go to see the hut where the Richardsons are living. They begin grilling Ruey about why she hasn't put curtains up! The poor girl is doing a lot better than I would be doing if it were me, and they start cross-examining her about why the place isn't looking nicer. Ruey is, I think, a remarkably nice girl to put up with it.

I agree that the triplets are unfair. Ruey is only fourteen and it seems she has to make all the decisions about the housekeeping as well as doing nearly all the work. Why should she make more work for herself when the boys wouldn't appreciate it anyway? I think it's remarkable that she doesn't show more resentment at being taken over by the Maynards when she and Roger and Roddy have been pretty much independent for so long.

I don't think EBD intended Roger for either Len or Con, they are too close in age.

I feel very sorry for Steve at the start of this book as well as Mike. He's only twelve, yet he's expected to be responsible for his three younger brothers. If the Mike incident was anyone's fault it was Joey's for taking all eleven out without adequate adult supervision.

The twins are already on bottles when Joey first meets the Richardsons. If she was breastfeeding (and she usually did) I imagine Anna had to give the twins bottles instead during her lengthy faint, and Jack probably decided it was best for Joey if they continued on bottles.

Jay B.
#23:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:23 am
    —
Actually, I hadn't noticed that. Joey is unwell during the later stages of her pregnancy, and can't be told about Margot's blackmailing attempt because it might upset her. She collapses, is unconscious for a day, and the middle children are shipped off so she can rest and recuperate without the extra care.

Then, a few weeks later, she's running around Austria, climbing mountains, swimming, adopting children, cleaning houses and so on, by my guess about a month or two post partum with twins. Shocked
#24:  Author: Mollio, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:03 am
    —
This book is one of my favourites, but I've always wondered what sort of a doctor Jack was to leave a collapsed boy, who had lost a load of blood, in the care of children - however mature. Wasn't Maynard's house always open to every waif and stray? Struck me as odd. Shocked
#25:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:18 am
    —
He probably thought Roger shouldn't be moved. It would have been difficult to transport him in a boat or car, Jack would have had to get an ambulance from the San. He could have sent him to the San, but since the whole purpose of the accident was to allow the Maynards to interfere in - ahem, get to know the Richardsons, that would rather have defeated the object.

Jay B.
#26:  Author: Karry, Location: Stoke on Trent PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:29 am
    —
Off the top of my head, but didn't jack bring him back across the lake from their house? Surely it would have been better to keep him at Scholaskica's?
#27:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:36 pm
    —
I quite liked this book. All the characters come across well IMO. I love it when Joey stands up to Madge, and totally thought that Len and Roger got on extremely well.

One annoyance is when they have to leave Charles behind and Jo is relieved Daisy and Laurie will be staying too especially as 'Laurie's a doctor'. I don't think Daisy would have forgotten everything she knew in a few short years!
#28:  Author: Tamzin, Location: Edinburgh PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:51 pm
    —
Loryat wrote:
One annoyance is when they have to leave Charles behind and Jo is relieved Daisy and Laurie will be staying too especially as 'Laurie's a doctor'. I don't think Daisy would have forgotten everything she knew in a few short years!


I finished this book a week or so ago and I felt exactly the same way. What price all those medals Daisy won and the award-winning papers she wrote. It strikes me that it should have been Laurie who gave up the medical career to care for the kids and not Daisy (if they were sure that their combined income couldn't run to nannies etc). After all a doctor with a minor post at some declining Swiss Sanatorium is hardly in Daisy's medical league.
#29:  Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:33 pm
    —
Tamzin wrote:
What price all those medals Daisy won and the award-winning papers she wrote.


Where are those mentioned? I've missed them completely!
#30:  Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:49 pm
    —
There are two references to Daisy's awards:

Three Go wrote:
But I feel sure that those of you who knew her will be pleased to hear that Daisy Venables, who left us two years ago to study medicine at London, has won the Ransome Gold Medal with a paper on infectious diseases of children. It is a new award, and Daisy is the first to win it, so we may all be very proud of her.


and

Carola wrote:
‘Don’t be silly!’ was the bracing retort. ‘Come on in and see Jo. I’m Daisy Venables, by the way.’
‘The doctor?’ gasped Jean. ‘The one who’s won all the medals and things?’ She eyed Miss Venables with awe.
#31:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:41 am
    —
So why wasn't Daisy referred to as Dr Venables in that extract? Think EBD was reflecting the opinion that she was really just playing at being a doctor there.
#32:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:37 am
    —
It shows how society has changed, we would of course think being a doctor takes precedence in importance over being a wife and mother, but in EBD world and the recent past it was the other way round.
#33:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:51 am
    —
I don't know if she believed it took precedence exactly, as she never really belittles anyone who doesn't choose to get married. It's just that she firmly believes you have to choose between a career and marriage - you can't have it both ways in EBD's world. I see it as EBD thinking - if Daisy chooses to get married, a consquence of that choice is not being a doctor; if she wanted to be a doctor, she should choose not to get married.

It's very difficult for us to understand as we don't see it as a choice like that - we're accustomed to people doing both - but I still think that EBD showed a degree of forwardness in this. The characters who don't choose to marry (Miss Ferrars, Miss Wilson, Miss Annersley, Miss Wilmot, Miss Dene) are just as happy and fulfilled as any of the others. They're not portrayed as "old maids" and they're just as appealing to the reader as the married women, if not more so.

I think that homemaking is massively undervalued today, so it's nice to me that someone can show how it's just as important as a career - even if she did believe that you can't do two important things at once.

*stops ranting now...* *hopes that made sense!*
#34:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:13 am
    —
Oh yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that marriage was better than career, etc, or vice versa, only that there wasn't the choice there is now, like you say and that giving up career for family then was totally normal.
#35:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:15 am
    —
Mia wrote:
Oh yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that marriage was better than career, etc, or vice versa, only that there wasn't the choice there is now, like you say and that giving up career for family then was totally normal.


Oh I know you didn't mean it like that - just that society in general does. Smile A good part of my thesis is about this, so it's a pet rant. lol
#36:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:25 am
    —
It's a shame that we never actually get to "see" anyone making the decision. Joey says that Janie says that Julie (too many Js there!) is very happy - when she (Julie) gets engaged and abandons her plans to become a barrister - but we never actually get Julie's own thoughts/comments on the matter. & someone - forget who Embarassed - says that Daisy's a doctor but doesn't practise any more now that she has a husband and children, but we never get Daisy's feelings on the subject. We don't even really hear much about how Madge feels about leaving her own school when she marries Jem. &, when Biddy Courvoisier leaves because she's expecting, we're just told that she's found that she's "unable" to go on working.

The only occasion I can think of on which we do get someone's own feelings on the subject is in Prefects when Len says that she wants to go to university before getting married, but it's not really clear whether or not she intends to work after the wedding. Joey seems to think that Anna dumps Tom Evans so that she can carry on working for the Maynards, but I'm not convinced by that Laughing !
#37:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:41 am
    —
Alison H wrote:
It's a shame that we never actually get to "see" anyone making the decision.


There is quite a bit about Simone's marriage in Goes to It - there is no explicit mention of the decision, but is implicit when you see how happy she is. I think EBD took it so for granted that she saw no point in making it explicit. We see people making the decision to concentrate on their career, but not the other way. I guess EBD just had such little experience in that area that her marriages end up being glossed over or being discussed in a "hearsay" sort of way - or else seeming like a fantasy like Joey's. It is a pity, as I think it would make EBD more "acceptable" as a feminist if she did go into it a bit more.
#38:  Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:38 am
    —
Someone - Jo I think in Goes to It - says that Simone is 'too sweet and pretty to teach all her life' - isn't Simone about 22? IMO she does think that marriage is the best option. Career being necessary financially for some people or a useful and fulfilling way to spend your life.
#39:  Author: Samantha, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:31 pm
    —
But in those days you DID have to choose, a lot of the time. My grandmother was forced by law not to work, and none of my mother's friends - or she - worked once they had children. We don't realise how fast life has changed for us. When I started work - less than 20 years ago - if you were married your income still went on your husband's tax return.
#40:  Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:35 pm
    —
Thanks KB, it's so long since I read either of those books. I vaguely remember the Three Go quote after seeing it.
#41:  Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:36 pm
    —
I'm afraid it was a choice that had to be made. I went back to work full time when my #2 child was six in 1970 and met a lot of disapproval from family and friends. At the time, I only knew one other woman who was working full time with a child that young and we supported one another as best we could.

We do tend to forget that this was set over 50 years ago. It would not have been believable to have women continue in a career after having children - at least not till they were quite a reasonable age, by which time they were out of touch with new developments.

I do like this book - in fact I like all the holiday books. I agree that, as an adult, I am horrified at some of the scenes - Len criticising Ruey, Jack leaving Roger in the care of the children, Charles being left behind etc., but as a child I didn't really question it and I still like enough of it that I can skate over such things.
#42:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:34 pm
    —
patmac wrote:
We do tend to forget that this was set over 50 years ago. It would not have been believable to have women continue in a career after having children - at least not till they were quite a reasonable age, by which time they were out of touch with new developments.

And there was the plain fact that being a housewife and mother took a lot more time and energy then. There were no man made, non-iron fabrics, no automatic washing machines or tumble driers, no frozen food, no freezers (and many people didn't have fridges) no microwaves, no central heating for most people, no duvets, no disposable nappies. I'm not sure about the availability of baby foods - my mother has said she used to puree fruit and veg for me when I started on solids.

With no fridge or freezer, shopping would have to be done nearly every day. No supermarkets, so you'd have to go to several different shops to get what you needed. Fewer people had one car, let alone two, so you'd have to walk or wait for the bus. Jobs such as bedmaking, washing and ironing would take much longer, coal fires would mean more cleaning.

In practical terms, combining career and family was much more difficult in the past.

Jay B.
#43:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:42 pm
    —
Alison H wrote:
Joey seems to think that Anna dumps Tom Evans so that she can carry on working for the Maynards, but I'm not convinced by that Laughing !


Actually at one point Joey says that she thinks the real reason Anna doesn't marry is that she didn't love the guy enough, I think.

Quote:
Someone - Jo I think in Goes to It - says that Simone is 'too sweet and pretty to teach all her life' - isn't Simone about 22?

I think it's Frieda who says that. You can imagine it coming from Frieda a lot more than from Jo - I don't think she'd ever say that.
#44:  Author: macyrose, Location: Great White North (Canada) PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:49 pm
    —
It is Frieda who says that in Goes To It:
Quote:
Presently Frieda smiled.
‘So the last of our old quartette is married,’ she said softly. ‘I am so glad. Simone is too dear and sweet to spend all her life teaching.’


In the chapter that's cut from the paperback of Three Goes, Janie Lucy says much the same thing about Gillian Linton and her future hustband:
Quote:
‘Julian shall find out about him,’ thought the little lady with a silent chuckle. ‘Gillian is much too dear and sweet to spend all her days teaching. And I rather think that, given the chance, Mr. Young will see to it that she doesn’t.’


EBD must have liked that phrase. Very Happy
#45:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:52 pm
    —
Doesn't say much for what EBD's thought were on those that did remain teachers. Rolling Eyes
#46:  Author: Cath V-P, Location: Newcastle NSW PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:30 am
    —
Definitely unlucky would be my guess! There's a comment in Helen McClelland's bio that EBD "was never fully resigned to remaining unmarried" although she then wonders whether EBD would have been content to be married if she had had to make the career/wife choice.
#47:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:23 am
    —
Yet those women in her series (CS at least) who remained unmarried seemed to live fulfilled lives and were definitely not missing out on anything. Laughing
#48:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:00 am
    —
One of the scenes that gets me in this book is Charles and the appendicitis. The kid wakes up in the middle of the night feverish and in intense pain, and his first response is to wake up his sister, not his parents. His sister's first response is to try to treat him herself, rather than waking her her parents (and her father is a doctor) and when they do rouse the parents poor Charles apologises for waking his mother up.

It's kind of sad that the kids response when in pain is not to be comforted by their mother, but to avoid disturbing her.
#49:  Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:37 am
    —
macyrose wrote:
EBD must have liked that phrase. Very Happy


'Dear' and 'sweet' are obviously not desirable characteristics in a mistress then! Laughing
#50:  Author: Rowena, Location: NE England PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:10 pm
    —
jennifer wrote:
One of the scenes that gets me in this book is Charles and the appendicitis. The kid wakes up in the middle of the night feverish and in intense pain, and his first response is to wake up his sister, not his parents. His sister's first response is to try to treat him herself, rather than waking her her parents (and her father is a doctor) and when they do rouse the parents poor Charles apologises for waking his mother up.

It's kind of sad that the kids response when in pain is not to be comforted by their mother, but to avoid disturbing her.


I always thought that too! It's like they're raised from birth not to be nuisances because Mamma can't be disturbed/worried/bothered etc. Even being pregnant as often as she is, she must be much, much stronger than she was as a child to actually sustain the pregnancies, and yet, as has been said, one minute she's fainted away for hours and the next she's racing hefty teenage boys round the lake!
Joeys own reactions, especially in this book, are also at odds with how everyone else (namely Madge and Jack) treat her too - she cares deeply for her children and wants them with her etc, and her husband and sister conspire to treat her like some kind of feeble invalid. Then again, in other books, at the whim of EBD, she is made out to be a feeble invalid type person in need of coddling Confused

The other thing about this book - and the only thing I can usually remember about it at all without prompting as it's one of my least favourites - is the mysterious box they find belonging to Prof Richardson. The way it's mentioned seems to set it up to be all mysterious and in some way important later on, yet it's never mentioned again. Drives me mad wanting to know what was IN IT!!! Very Happy
#51:  Author: Chair, Location: Rochester, Kent PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:30 pm
    —
*Clare sends lots of plot bunnies Rowena's way. Clare then runs and hides*.
#52:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:47 pm
    —
*giggles at Clare*
#53:  Author: Rowena, Location: NE England PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:35 pm
    —
Chair wrote:
*Clare sends lots of plot bunnies Rowena's way. Clare then runs and hides*.


oooerrr so it was YOU!!! I wondered what the little *offerings* under my chair were Very Happy
#54:  Author: Caty, Location: New Zealand PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:41 pm
    —
jennifer wrote:
One of the scenes that gets me in this book is Charles and the appendicitis. The kid wakes up in the middle of the night feverish and in intense pain, and his first response is to wake up his sister, not his parents. His sister's first response is to try to treat him herself, rather than waking her her parents (and her father is a doctor) and when they do rouse the parents poor Charles apologises for waking his mother up.

It's kind of sad that the kids response when in pain is not to be comforted by their mother, but to avoid disturbing her.


Funnily enough, I didn't find this too strange. Considering his mother had been ill enough to faint a few weeks earlier and it was probably drilled into them all to make sure she took it easy, I'm not surprised Charles didn't go to wake her. And waking Jack would have meant waking Joey, who is such a light sleeper. Charles is always decribed a slightly sickly anyway, so maybe waking with midnight tummy upsets was a common occurance for him? Yes, it was appendicitis, but he would just have known he had a tummy ache.
#55:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:12 am
    —
Caty wrote:
Funnily enough, I didn't find this too strange. Considering his mother had been ill enough to faint a few weeks earlier and it was probably drilled into them all to make sure she took it easy, I'm not surprised Charles didn't go to wake her. And waking Jack would have meant waking Joey, who is such a light sleeper. Charles is always decribed a slightly sickly anyway, so maybe waking with midnight tummy upsets was a common occurance for him? Yes, it was appendicitis, but he would just have known he had a tummy ache.

It's not Charles' actions I have a problem with but Len's. She should have known the difference between a tummy ache caused by too much rich food and severe pain. (And if it was an ordinary tummy upset, then wasn't aspirin the wrong thing to give him?) And if she didn't know the difference, then she should have called Jack immediately. As it was, poor Chas had to suffer pain for longer than necessary, and the consequences could have been serious.

I think Len took too much on herself here - but it says something about the responsibility she's been burdened with since babyhood that at - fourteen, isn't it? - she should automatically assume the job of diagnosing and treating her younger brother rather than wake her parents - whose job it actually was. I do think Jack should have had a quiet word with her about it when the emergency was over.

Jay B.
#56:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:42 pm
    —
Especially as - needing emergency surgery as he did - giving him anything by mouth would have increased his risk of complications due to the anaesthetic.

One bit made me laugh - when Len finally wakes Joey there is this sentence

Quote:
Joey was awake in an instant. Like most mothers of small children, she usually slept with one ear open.


This after Len has just spent almost an hour trying to soothe Charles and then come in and woken Jack, who had then gone to Charles -all without Joey stirring! Rolling Eyes
#57: Joey and Co in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:19 pm
    —
I never found anything too odd about Charles waking his sister not his parents. I remember as a kid never waking Mum if anything was wrong. It always had to be Dad without fail, being sick, bad dream anything. I also remember being told the story when I was 18 about my oldest brother taking my youngest brother when he was a baby to bed with him so Mum could get some sleep and it wasn't even Mum who told that story but an old school friend of my brothers. It seems my older brother had turned up at school looking exhausted the next day. Mum had no idea he had done that til I mentioned it. What it showed me though was how responsible the oldest kids in large families always seem to be. They can't seem to help themselves. Also in regards to Len giving asprin, one asprin in the greater scheme of things wouldn't thin his blood that drastically, neither would waiting an hour before being taken to hospital. You only need to fast 6hrs before theatre and water only stays in your stomach for 7 seconds. The amount of patients I meet through work who had appendicitis for over a week before coming to hospital is unbelievable. And the changes in medical practice over time is huge, so what is abnormal now is normal back then.
#58:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:12 pm
    —
However, with an acute appendicitis time is really of the essence and having to wait those hours until the stomach emptied naturally could mean the difference between removing appendix before it burst or afterward - with the attendent risk of peritonitis. The fact that Charles' pain came on very suddenly would suggest it was an emergency.
#59:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:43 pm
    —
Quote:
Also in regards to Len giving asprin, one asprin in the greater scheme of things wouldn't thin his blood that drastically,

I was thinking rather that aspirin can irritate the stomach, so if Chas really had had an upset stomach, it might have made it worse, and in any case I don't see how it could have helped. Didn't Joey have any milk of magnesia or similar in her medicine cabinet?

At the very least, not waking Jack straight away meant that Chas was in pain for longer than he need have been.

Jay B.
#60:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:43 pm
    —
I think the reasoning behind the aspirin was that it would help him sleep. I'm pretty sure most of Matey's "doses" were just aspirin, and Len probably absorbed that idea. We know that aspirin could irritate the stomach, but EBD and therefore Len might not have known.
#61:  Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:00 pm
    —
Kate wrote:
We know that aspirin could irritate the stomach, but EBD and therefore Len might not have known.


And was it known at that time?


My nan used to cover my bumps or grazes with her betnovate cream in the 60's. And she certainly wasn't aware that this was not a good thing to do (it's a steroid cream) - I think there was a lot less awareness then of side effects
#62:  Author: Cath V-P, Location: Newcastle NSW PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:33 pm
    —
At least Joey thanks Len for all that she did and tries to show her that she is appreciated.
#63:  Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:37 am
    —
Rowena wrote:
Even being pregnant as often as she is, [Jo] must be much, much stronger than she was as a child to actually sustain the pregnancies, and yet, as has been said, one minute she's fainted away for hours and the next she's racing hefty teenage boys round the lake!


I think the thing is with Jo's health is that she has outgrown her physical frailty, but she is still emotionally rather fragile. I think Jem says it best in one of the Tyrol books (can't remember which book!): that she feels everything very intensely, and that whilst her sensitive temperament allows her to write, it also has the capacity to make her ill. Jem says that he and Madge must help her learn to control her emotions more, but the war comes etc. and Jo then goes through plenty of traumas. And every time she has an emotionally traumatic experience to go through it does seem to result in some form of illness for her.

To my mind this makes her behaviour and Jack / Madge's treatment of her, more believable.

Caroline.
#64:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:36 am
    —
I think that's a good point. Past about the age of 16 her physical health seems to be fine (she isn't getting pneumonia, bronchitis, endless colds and so on), but she has a pattern of falling physically ill due to stress. When she's excited or happy, she gets over-excited and almost manic, and when she's stressed or upset she has a tendency to keel over and need a week in bed to recuperate.


She collapses and is confined to bed after the flight from Austria.

She collapses, is feverish and confined to bed for a week after the trip from Guernsey to England.

She collapses and is drugged and confined to bed for a period after Jack's is reported dead during the war.

By the time she arrives in Canada she is really stressed, and the children are taken off of her hands while she recuperates.

At some other point she is sent off to Penny rest for a vacation while the kids are taken care of by someone else.

She collapses at the beginning of Tyrol, due to a combination of overwork and the shock of Mike's accident, and is confined to bed for a period.

---

I think part of the issue is that Joey is used to letting other people handle her physical and emotional health, rather than taking responsibility for it herself.

She doesn't seem to be able to say "Hey, I'm really tired and stressed out due to teething/the recent move/the kids' illness, and need to take it easy for a few weeks or I'll be ill." Instead, she relies on someone else (first Jem and Madge, and then Jack and her older children) to get her to rest or take it easy when she's overdoing it, or she pushes herself until she collapses and is forcibly sent to bed for a week.
#65: Joey and Co in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:49 pm
    —
Quote:
I think that's a good point. Past about the age of 16 her physical health seems to be fine (she isn't getting pneumonia, bronchitis, endless colds and so on), but she has a pattern of falling physically ill due to stress. When she's excited or happy, she gets over-excited and almost manic, and when she's stressed or upset she has a tendency to keel over and need a week in bed to recuperate.


I tend to agree. But it certainly seems to make Jo seem weak. I think Lesley said it well in her book, Hilda Annersley: Headmistress that Jo is one of the most emphathetic people she knows but isn't emotionally strong. The other thing too, the above quote makes Jo sound boarderline bipolar-they tend to have manic highs and lows and some of the most creative people in the world have bipolar (think Robin Williams). I know she doesn't but being described as almost manic made me think that. What do others think? The other thing I was thinking, one of the reasons I like this book so much is its certainly drawn a passionate response from people and its great reading everone's thoughts on it. It certainly seems to be one of EBD's more noteworthy books for that reason alone.
#66:  Author: Joan the Dwarf, Location: Er, where am I? PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:15 pm
    —
This is making me chuckle as I've had a drabble idea floating around for a while that Joey is bipolar and that Jem worked this out when she was still at school. Maybe this will prompt me to write it now... Very Happy
#67: Joey and Co in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:56 pm
    —
Joan go for it
#68:  Author: Laura75, Location: Cambridge, England PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:49 am
    —
Dawn wrote:
My nan used to cover my bumps or grazes with her betnovate cream in the 60's. And she certainly wasn't aware that this was not a good thing to do (it's a steroid cream) - I think there was a lot less awareness then of side effects


I still use my betnovate cream on scratches and spots because it heals them so quickly!
#69:  Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:11 pm
    —
Jo even has to be cossetted in Joey Goes because she is tired. She naps on the train while others take care of her six small children. It is a circle - Joey works too hard/is stressed so collapses and others coddle her as they did when she was 'frail Joey' Is it attention-seeking or does she have a problem with adult life?
#70:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:32 pm
    —
Mel wrote:
Jo even has to be cossetted in Joey Goes because she is tired. She naps on the train while others take care of her six small children. It is a circle - Joey works too hard/is stressed so collapses and others coddle her as they did when she was 'frail Joey' Is it attention-seeking or does she have a problem with adult life?


I think EBD was of the opinion that medical frailty, etc, made her characters more 'interesting'. It's quite common in Victorian-era writing.
#71:  Author: Miriam, Location: Jerusalem, Israel PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:22 am
    —
Mel wrote:
Jo even has to be cossetted in Joey Goes because she is tired. She naps on the train while others take care of her six small children. It is a circle - Joey works too hard/is stressed so collapses and others coddle her as they did when she was 'frail Joey' Is it attention-seeking or does she have a problem with adult life?


To be fair, I think that anyone might have wanted a nap after what she had been through the previous week, between Daisy's wedding and packing up an entire house, combined with next to no sleep the previous night. Yes, someone else had (who had had rather more sleep) looked after the babies, but I don't think that was unreasonable.
#72:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:21 pm
    —
I think the point about Joey being emotionally rather than physically frail is exactly right. However, I'm not so sure about Joey being manic depressive. While she is very emotionally turbulent, and can suffer physical side effects from emotional trauma, I don't think she is quite bi-polar. Most of the time she behaves normally, without treatment.

Joey is less emotionally uptight than a lot of people in the period were. Nowadays it's normal for people to be depressed after a terrible event etc, but in those days you were just expected to deal with it and get on with your life (look at the attitude taken towards shell-shocked soldiers during WWI) unless of course you were a 'spineless jellyfish' which Joey isn't. It was considered unseemly to get too excited about things. Joey doesn't; she shows that she's suffering or happy very openly.

When you think about it, a good many CS characters go to emotional extremes, but we only see it once. Joey is followed throughout the series so we see it all the time.
#73:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:32 pm
    —
Some people do have breakdowns, but they've all been through major traumas - Maria Marani after her father dies in a concentration camp, Margot Venables after losing her husband and three sons, to a lesser extent Juliet who misses part of her university course after all the problems with her parents and then her relationship with Donal ending - but, as Loryat said, we don't hear that much about them.
#74:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:12 pm
    —
I agree that she doesn't really fit a bi-polar description - her emotional swings are always in line with events, so she's never inexplicably manic, or depressed for no apparent reason.

Flamboyant is how I'd describe Joey - the others joke about her tendency to fly off the handle when given unexpected news, she gets very agitated when the triplets are ill and she's not allowed to break quarantine, she gets very excited whenever anything good happens, and flattened by tragedy.

I think she runs into problems because she's learned to expect other people to reign in her emotional excesses, rather than learning to do it herself - first Madge and then Jem and then Jack, as well as various other friends and mistresses will force her to go to bed, give her a sleeping draught, send her on vacations, veto overdoing it, indulging her more exuberant excesses on the happy side. Even the kids are taught to suffer in silence rather than bother mother.

When the family moves to Switzerland, her exhaustion is understandable. They've packed up a house, had a wedding, and moved eight children internationally. However, it's Jack and Simone and Frieda who conspire to make her take a break before she collapses - note that she doesn't take the steps to make the journey less harrowing, or arrange for an extra day's stop to rest.
#75:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:12 pm
    —
That does ring true, Jennifer - that Joey never learnt/was allowed to learn to pace herself. She was always looked after, Jack just continuing the role that first Madge then Jem had taken. Initially it was probably because she was weak physically, but once she had gained strength physically she should have been allowed to grow emotionally - she wasn't.


EBD tried to excuse her behaviour by saying it was because she was a writer - that she felt things so deeply - I don't think that is a reasonable excuse. It is possible to feel very deeply when writing without having the type of personality that goes to such extremes.
#76:  Author: Rowena, Location: NE England PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:23 pm
    —
Lesley wrote:


EBD tried to excuse her behaviour by saying it was because she was a writer - that she felt things so deeply - I don't think that is a reasonable excuse. It is possible to feel very deeply when writing without having the type of personality that goes to such extremes.


I wonder if EBD secretly wished for a nice young man to *take her away from it all* and yearned to be looked after the way Joey was...
#77:  Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:12 pm
    —
Rowena wrote:
I wonder if EBD secretly wished for a nice young man to *take her away from it all* and yearned to be looked after the way Joey was...

Don't we all? Very Happy
#78:  Author: Rowena, Location: NE England PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:19 pm
    —
Lottie wrote:
Rowena wrote:
I wonder if EBD secretly wished for a nice young man to *take her away from it all* and yearned to be looked after the way Joey was...

Don't we all? Very Happy


Well he WAS a doctor!!! Very Happy
#79:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:46 am
    —
Rowena wrote:

I wonder if EBD secretly wished for a nice young man to *take her away from it all* and yearned to be looked after the way Joey was...


There is sort of a sense of almost unreality in much of EBDs writing about romance and relationships. Engagements seem to pop in randomly - in most of the relationships the women go from meeting a nice man who looks at them appreciatively and then, bam, they're engaged a month later. They never meet a nice man and discover that they don't have much to say to each other, or the woman isn't interested, or they don't happen to meet again, or he turns out to be a cad, or actually engaged to someone else. Girls go from naive young school girls with no interest in or knowledge of men to married with children in a very short period of time.

I don't think it's all do to writing for children/the era, because other books in the same era do address relationships in a more realistic way.

Joey and Jack are one of the only pairs in the Chalet books where we see a pre-engagement relationship, and most of it is an adult-child friendship. The few engagement scenes are rather stilted, and seem to be only for confirmation (the man isn't really asking, he's confirming that yes, they are getting married). The Len/Reg one is terrible!

The three key men of the CS related books, Jem (the early version), Jack and Julian, are all designed in a similar mode, which leads me to think that they may personify EBDs idea of a perfect man.

They're strong, rather authoritarian, and inclined to be overprotective of their wives - they have the authority to make her rest or make major arrangements in the family's affairs without consulting her, and will always step in if she's distraught or stressed. Jack is hyper-protective of Joey's health, holding it above his children's. Jem makes decisions about the arrangement of Madge's school and Julian buys a house without consulting Janie.

They have a tendency to tease and are involved in their children's lives, but are often shown as the stronger disciplinarian of the family. They don't get angry often, but when they do they get very angry and it's hard for them to control their anger. However, when angry with their children they shun them rather than giving in and beating them bloody, so EBD may have seen this as a virtue and a form of self control.

These things show up in other relationships as well. Neil wants Grizel to let him take care of her, Gottfried calls Gisela 'little wife' and so on.
#80:  Author: Rowena, Location: NE England PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:26 am
    —
Well put Jennifer! That's what I meant lol, and you said it much better than I could have.
I wonder if all EBD ever really wanted was to be a *little wife* and a mother and live happily ever after.
Given her own parents relationship and her never marrying, perhaps a Jem or Jack was all she ever really wanted, and she just never manged to do the *eyes meet across a crowded train crash/avalanche/glacier/still, grey, to all appearances school girl* thing and find him.
#81:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:57 am
    —
This is possibly where I'm going wrong ... I need to borrow a group of kids, wait for a handsome doctor to come into sight, and then push one of the kids into a lake or a lily pond or something Laughing .
#82:  Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:18 am
    —
But in these days of equality wouldn't they expect you to rescue the child yourself? Or they might worry about being sued for assault or something, if they stepped in. I'm not sure that we are living in an improved world.
#83: Joey and Co in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:20 pm
    —
Quote:
This is possibly where I'm going wrong ... I need to borrow a group of kids, wait for a handsome doctor to come into sight, and then push one of the kids into a lake or a lily pond or something


Go for it Alison, just let me know if it works Laughing Laughing Laughing
#84:  Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:07 pm
    —
jennifer wrote:
The three key men of the CS related books, Jem (the early version), Jack and Julian, are all designed in a similar mode, which leads me to think that they may personify EBDs idea of a perfect man.

They're strong, rather authoritarian, and inclined to be overprotective of their wives - they have the authority to make her rest or make major arrangements in the family's affairs without consulting her, and will always step in if she's distraught or stressed. Jack is hyper-protective of Joey's health, holding it above his children's. Jem makes decisions about the arrangement of Madge's school and Julian buys a house without consulting Janie.

They have a tendency to tease and are involved in their children's lives, but are often shown as the stronger disciplinarian of the family. They don't get angry often, but when they do they get very angry and it's hard for them to control their anger. However, when angry with their children they shun them rather than giving in and beating them bloody, so EBD may have seen this as a virtue and a form of self control.

These things show up in other relationships as well. Neil wants Grizel to let him take care of her, Gottfried calls Gisela 'little wife' and so on.


I don't think it's so black and white, although it looks it when some examples are taken out of context. I don't in any way see Gottfried calling Gisela his 'little wife' as authoritarian or derogative. It's a term of endearment, a nickname that he calls her when they are alone, not a symbol of her servititude or of her being controlled by him. Similiarly, Julian Lucy buying the house without consulting Janie - unless I'm mistaken, isn't this La Rochelle itself? Therefore, he bought it as a surprise present for her - he *knew* in advance she would love it, and the surprise is key to the event. I don't think he would have abstained from consulting her (especially as the house in EBDland is absolutely the domain of the wife) in any other case.
#85:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:09 pm
    —
I agree with Roisin, besides the term 'little' is an endearment in German.

I wish my SLOC had bought a house for me! Wink
#86:  Author: Kate, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:17 pm
    —
Alison H wrote:
This is possibly where I'm going wrong ... I need to borrow a group of kids, wait for a handsome doctor to come into sight, and then push one of the kids into a lake or a lily pond or something Laughing .


Why do you think I'm in the process of becoming a teacher? Laughing Laughing
#87:  Author: Loryat,  PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:35 pm
    —
jennifer wrote:


There is sort of a sense of almost unreality in much of EBDs writing about romance and relationships. Engagements seem to pop in randomly - in most of the relationships the women go from meeting a nice man who looks at them appreciatively and then, bam, they're engaged a month later. They never meet a nice man and discover that they don't have much to say to each other, or the woman isn't interested, or they don't happen to meet again, or he turns out to be a cad, or actually engaged to someone else. Girls go from naive young school girls with no interest in or knowledge of men to married with children in a very short period of time.


This is true. The only relationships that seem to have any pitfalls/that we see develop are Jem and Madge (who clearly get on very well before the engagement is announced) and Juliet and Donal (pitfalls).
#88:  Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:47 am
    —
Róisín wrote:
Similiarly, Julian Lucy buying the house without consulting Janie - unless I'm mistaken, isn't this La Rochelle itself? Therefore, he bought it as a surprise present for her - he *knew* in advance she would love it, and the surprise is key to the event. I don't think he would have abstained from consulting her (especially as the house in EBDland is absolutely the domain of the wife) in any other case.


I don't have the book to hand to check, but doesn't he do the same thing when they move from La Rochelle?
#89:  Author: Dreaming Marianne, Location: The Peninusular PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:11 pm
    —
Was anyone else quite - well, scandalised at the depiction of smoking? I know, I know, it's just a reflection of the times, but it really did shock me!
#90:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:47 am
    —
I accept that it was a reflection of the times - two of my grandparents died of smoking-related diseases, sadly, but I know that in their generation it was unusual not to smoke - but I still find it a bit weird reading about doctors who specialise in treating lung diseases puffing away at their pipes. &, in this particular book, I was surprised at Joey offering one of her fags to Roger - OK, I'm sure he smoked anyway, but even so!
#91:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:52 am
    —
Although even today that can happen - I read that Christian Barnard - renowned heart surgeon, was a chain smoker.

At least then the majority of people were not aware of the link between smoking and lung cancer.
#92:  Author: Lulie, Location: Middlesbrough PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:13 am
    —
D'you know I've never been shocked or scandalised by the mention or depiction of smoking in the CS books. Even though very few of my relatives smoke (actually I can't think of any who do now, but one or two used to in the past) I live in an area where there are a lot of heavy smokers, mot of whom start in their teens or younger, so perhaps it's always seemed normal - if exceptionally silly - to smoke.

It always makes me laugh on the rare occasions I have to visit our local hospital. You are only allowed to smoke outside and it's amusing (ironic? Plain daft?) that there's a huge gang of patients, connected to oxygen machines, drips or other medical machinery stood outdoors in their pjs, smoking. It's quite worrying the size of the group of doctors and nurses who are also out there "having a fag".
#93:  Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:23 pm
    —
I remember once (before the smoking ban in the workplace had yet arrived) when my dad was in the ICU coronary unit - there was one tiny waiting room that was supposed to be for the use of the visitors, however it was always filled with heart patients having their cigarette. Rolling Eyes
#94:  Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:34 pm
    —
Julian Lucy consulted Janie before he bought Les Arbres. I think they had to move quickly about the purchase, and there was the point that they were going to buy the furniture too.

It was common in those days for the hsuband to make all the decisions of that nature.
#95: Joey & Co in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:36 am
    —
Quote:
It always makes me laugh on the rare occasions I have to visit our local hospital. You are only allowed to smoke outside and it's amusing (ironic? Plain daft?) that there's a huge gang of patients, connected to oxygen machines, drips or other medical machinery stood outdoors in their pjs, smoking.


You should try being one of the nurses trying to convince a patient not to smoke just before going to Surgery. As one nurse who did once told me you end up feeling crook as. But the way some patients carry on you're only doing it to be mean to them. Personally my attitude on patients smoking is go for it. If you want to kill yourself that's your business and for most of them it's too late anyway, they're dying, so why try and give up smoking. It won't do much good anyway. I know that sounds harsh but getting verbally abused by patients because they want a smoke isn't my idea of a great shift. And they'll sneak out anyway, the first chance they get. (Can anyone tell, I've a bad shift today, so my apologies to anyone that's offended)
#96:  Author: Mollio, Location: Ireland PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:34 am
    —
I'm a nurse too, Fiona, so I understand exactly where you're coming from. I work in a Care of the Elderly setting where the patients (clients, but I HATE that term!) are allowed to smoke in a designated area. Sometimes you'd need a mask to go in there - and the smokers refuse to sit anywhere else.
Sorry you had a bad shift. Hope it's a better day tomorrow. Smile
#97:  Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:45 am
    —
My dad - an ex smoker who hasn't smoked for around 40 years or so - has taken to sitting in the smoking room at his nursing home. So when I go to visit, I have to get him to come out as I can't sit in there.

We don't know why he's sitting in there instead of the main lounge, it could just be that it's much smaller with only 3 or 4 people in. My mum thinks it's because it's very close to the dining room and a loo so he doesn't have to walk very far!
#98:  Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:15 am
    —
We used to have non-smoking teachers at school who sat in the smoking room because all their friends were there. Some say it's beacuse all the interesting people are smokers.
I say that as a non-smoker, reserving judgement!
#99:  Author: Chair, Location: Rochester, Kent PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:53 pm
    —
I have just reread the pb version during my reread of the series. I had never picked up on the flirting between Con and Roger before and I couldn't see any flirting this time? Is it the wrong book, or is it only in the HB version, or am I being completely and utterly stupid?

*Clare thinks it is probably the last option*.
#100:  Author: leahbelle, Location: Kilmarnock PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:41 pm
    —
No, Clare, I missed it too, and miss it every time. I just don't see it at all!
#101:  Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:25 am
    —
Con and Roger go to see the cathedral together, but only because Joey packs them off there whilst she's taking Ruey round the clothes shops. If anything, it seems to be Len whom Roger's interested in - she gets annoyed about something and EBD goes on about how even when she (Len)'s annoyed and wearing an old dress she's still incredibly pretty.

I can never particularly imagine Con and Roger getting together - they're both nice people but they don't seem to have anything in common.
#102:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:38 am
    —
By EBD's standards Roger is too young for Con, or Len. And Con said more than once that she wasn't interested in marrying young and having children. And good for her, I say.

Jay B.
#103:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:40 am
    —
JayB wrote: And Con said more than once that she wasn't interested in marrying young and having children. And good for her, I say.


Hmmmm, wasn't that similar to sentiments expressed by her mother? Wink
#104:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:58 am
    —
Lesley wrote: JayB wrote:
And Con said more than once that she wasn't interested in marrying young and having children. And good for her, I say.

Hmmmm, wasn't that similar to sentiments expressed by her mother? Wink
True. But on the basis that all Jo's characteristics are doled out between the triplets, Len is getting that part of Jo's life. Margot is getting the devotional aspect (not that I see anything very devotional about Margot). So Con can have a happy independent life as a writer.

Jay B.
#105:  Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:10 am
    —
I'd love it to happen - and could see it happening for Joey until Exile - whatever Jack Maynard thought! Just that, had the series progressed past Prefects, I cannot see EBD allowing Con to take that route.

BTW where were Jack's characteristics in the Triplets? He did provide half the genetic material after all! The only thing I can think of is his temper in Margot - and supposedly in Len, though the only time we see that is when she is subjected to provocation from Prunella and is ill.
#106:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:19 am
    —
Lesley wrote: BTW where were Jack's characteristics in the Triplets? He did provide half the genetic material after all! The only thing I can think of is his temper in Margot - and supposedly in Len, though the only time we see that is when she is subjected to provocation from Prunella and is ill. And I suppose in Margot wanting to study medicine. Although that's not shown to be an innate part of her character, in the way wanting to be a writer is of Con's.

Jay B.
#107:  Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:24 pm
    —
Lesley wrote: BTW where were Jack's characteristics in the Triplets? He did provide half the genetic material after all! The only thing I can think of is his temper in Margot - and supposedly in Len, though the only time we see that is when she is subjected to provocation from Prunella and is ill.

And I'm not quite sure why it was attributed specifically to him - Jo shows she has a temper plenty of times!
#108:  Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:20 pm
    —
I can't understand why Jo was allowed to daydream as a girl, especially about historical characters, but the very same quality is seen as a bad thing in Con.
#109:  Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:47 am
    —
LizB wrote: Lesley wrote:
BTW where were Jack's characteristics in the Triplets? He did provide half the genetic material after all! The only thing I can think of is his temper in Margot - and supposedly in Len, though the only time we see that is when she is subjected to provocation from Prunella and is ill.


And I'm not quite sure why it was attributed specifically to him - Jo shows she has a temper plenty of times!

Jo's got a fairly quick temper that cools down really quickly as well, and is not prone to brooding or holding grudges, and she doesn't lean towards violence - most of the time she's pretty happy-go-lucky. With Margot, her temper has a nasty edge, leading to screaming tantrums as a child and bullying and occasional violence as a teenager.

Jack has that nasty edge too - he has to keep himself away from Mike and Margot when they misbehave in order to keep himself from hurting the, whereas Jo never has to restrain herself from physically hurting her children.
#110:  Author: JayB, Location: SE England PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:36 pm
    —
Jo seems to have her temper pretty much under control by the time she leaves school. As an adult, she'll rant a bit to a friend when something angers her, for example when Miss Bubb made her leave Stephen to cry, or she'll become icily dignified, but that's about it.

Jay B.
#111: Joey and Co in Tirol Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:57 am
    —
Jennie wrote: I can't understand why Jo was allowed to daydream as a girl, especially about historical characters, but the very same quality is seen as a bad thing in Con.

I can understand why. Jo when she was younger had her feet very much on the ground and a lot of outside interests other than her writing, Con had very few other interests outside her writing. She didn't love sports, did do some needlework, but not much else. She also didn't make friends outside the family very easily. Joey on the other hand had very definite interests, was gregarious and a lot less wrapped up in her writing when compared to Con at the same age. For someone so wrapped up in her writing the way she was could make it easier for her to lose touch with the real world so to speak. However as both Jo and Con reached adulthood they seemed to reverse roles. Jo became less in touch and Con more grounded
#112:  Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:29 am
    —
There's also the fact that Jo was so frail as a child - spending large amounts of time on her own, reading or day-dreaming, because she was too ill to go to school. You could argue that her upbringing was actually more similar to Margot's - being indulged by Madge and Dick because she might not live to grow up. So she has a little more excuse than Con does for living an internal life.

When we first get to meet her, though, this phase is coming to an end. Madge and Dick even say (in School) that starting the school and moving to Austria will be the making of Joey - she won't have as much time to read, she will have more friends her own age and get out and about more. And sure enough, when the school starts she isn't shown daydreaming very much at all - or not in the way Con is i.e. drifting off in lessons, being vague and distracted, away with the fairies. In contrast, no matter how much Jo loves stories, writing and reading, I always get the impression that she is very much all there - a real live wire.

The only time I remember Jo being similar to Con in this way is when she gets fixated with writing Malvina in Jo Returns. Other than that, Jo is much more balanced about her writing.
#113:  Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:43 pm
    —
However, Con is always described as hard-working and conscientious, so why shouldn't she live in a dream world if she gets all her work done? At least, she doesn't go haring off to find someone without telling anyone in authority where she's going.

What I do object to, is that Con is not expected to spend her free time in her dreaming and writing.

ETA: it's hard to learn the craft of writing, so why object to her doing so?
#114:  Author: wheelchairprincess, Location: Oxfordshire, UK PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:56 pm
    —
Con always was the triplet everyone was down on, so much more than Margot who had her devil. That is one of the things that really bothered me about the later books.

About this book. The treatment of the R's annoys me as does the relationship with the Rosomon's. But, it could have been worse, they could have been a long lost Maynard relation. And both are actually very "in character" for the CS.
#115:  Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:35 am
    —
Alison H wrote: If anything, it seems to be Len whom Roger's interested in - she gets annoyed about something and EBD goes on about how even when she (Len)'s annoyed and wearing an old dress she's still incredibly pretty.

Absolutely agree with this. When reading the series for the first time, this book made me sure that Len and Roger would end up together - they have so much in common because they are both the eldest, and they share a lot of responsibility for the younger ones in this book.
#116:  Author: bethany,  PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:46 pm
    —
I am another one who didnt see anything between Con and Roger when I read this book. Havign re-read it a few tiems I could possibly see something between Len and Roger, but only possibly.

One thing I dont totaly understand in this book, is when Len is looking after Charles (before waking Jack and Joey). Len seems to out the lightbulb (not sure if that is from a lamp or the main room light), to somehow plug in an adapter into it so she can heat up Charles' milk I think.

Can anyone explain this? Is it something that was common at that time, or somehting that happened in continental Europe?

Thanks!
Bethany
#117:  Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:50 pm
    —
bethany wrote:
One thing I dont totaly understand in this book, is when Len is looking after Charles (before waking Jack and Joey). Len seems to out the lightbulb (not sure if that is from a lamp or the main room light), to somehow plug in an adapter into it so she can heat up Charles' milk I think.

Can anyone explain this? Is it something that was common at that time, or somehting that happened in continental Europe?

Thanks!
Bethany
Maybe there weren't enough sockets in the room and it was a bedside lamp (with a continental plug?) that she unplugged to put in a British milk heater thing (with an adaptor)?
Would that make any sense? Don't remember that part of the scene.
#118:  Author: Lulie, Location: Middlesbrough PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:00 pm
    —
I've seen in films/tv progs set in the 20s - 60s where you can use the light fitting as a plug socket if you take the bulb out. I think it was reasonably common in those days, but obviously not the safest thing in the world! That would be why it is obsolete Laughing
#119:  Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:16 pm
    —
Not in the 60s Lulie! The wall sockets had totally different plugs by then. Two types mind you, but both of them took three pin plugs. Light bulbs fitted the same way that they do now. I have never seen anything other than light bulbs fitted into light sockets, except in 20s era films.
#120:  Author: Mia, Location: London PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:07 pm
    —
I think Timothy Garton Ash mentions the light fixture as a power point thing in Romania in one of his essays... I'll try and find the reference.

Hasn't Ste Scholastika (as was) just been recently re-wired? They could have put some sockets in...
#121:  Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:13 pm
    —
Wouldn't they use round two-pin plugs in Europe in the 1960s? I seem to remember they were different.
#122:  Author: Simone, Location: Newton le Willows PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:43 am
    —
I definately remember our christmas lights plugging into the lamp when I was a child - this would have been in the late 60s early 70s
#123:  Author: Karry, Location: Stoke on Trent PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:55 pm
    —
Like Simone, we used to have a sort of adaptor that went into the light fitting, and then our christmas tree lights were plugged into that, I seem to remember green twisted wiredlooping across to the Christmas tree!
The CBB -> Formal Discussions


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod.

All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group