The CBB :: View topic - Books: Redheads at the Chalet School

through

[^/[^Print]\]

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

#1: Books: Redheads at the Chalet School Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:14 am
—
Here we have EBDs attempt at a police thriller - Flavia (Copper) is sent to the Chalet School because her stepfather is a police inspector, and his enemies have threatened his family. The attemp is unsuccessful, and the criminals track Copper to the school, kidnapping Val Gardiner by accident when the latter runs away from school. There is a dramatic scene at school, when the criminals are apprehended.

Along the way, there's an encounter with a viper, a dramatic mime on the part of Jack's form, Josette and Sybil get engaged in Australia, and there's the usual Christmas play.

--

So, is this book an unusual and interesting diversion, or a silly and overdrawn attempt at modernising the series? What do you think of Copper and her father as characters? Are Sybil and Josette's early engagements foolhardy, romantic, or just desserts for Madge?

Any other thoughts and reflections on this book?

#2: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:41 am
—
I found this one rather silly. I appreciate that EBD was trying to do something different, but the whole thing where they kidnapped Val by mistake and wrapped her in a carpet just seemed daft in a CS book - although it might've fitted into an Enid Blyton Five Find-Outers book or a Nancy Drew book OK.

We don't really get to hear much about Sybil and Josette's relationships so it's hard to know what to think about them. Hopefully their fiancés were both really lovely and they weren't just getting married to get away from Madge and Jem! Sybil - having aged 4 years in a year to put her where she should've been originally, i.e. 5 years older than Josette! - was 23 so not really that young to get engaged in the late 1950s, but I thought it was a shame that Josette, who was supposed to be "brilliantly clever", didn't get to do more before "settling down".

Generally I do find it a shame that most of the 2nd generation of girls feature so little after leaving school - EBD just seems to rush to marry them off and then they aren't mentioned much after that. Peggy was an obvious candidate for early marriage, but I don't know why EBD was so keen to marry Bride, Sybil and Josette off as well, especially to people we didn't really know anything about.

#3: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:39 pm
—
I like Flavia. She's a thoroughly nice, competent girl. I like her stepdad too.

The plot is implausible, but perhaps no more so than Princess. And it did make a change from the 'new girl with problems' theme. By this time EBD was in the position of the witers of long running soaps - you either have to keep recycling the same old plots or become ever more improbable in the search for something new.

EBD was also in the position that many older writers found themselves in in the '60s, of being out of touch with the spirit of the times. Not her fault and not a great deal she could do about it.

I regret Sybil and Josette's engagements because Sybil had such clearcut plans for her future and Josette was too young and hadn't even finished her education.

I do think it serves Madge right, though, that having selfishly taken Josette away from school to be company for her in Australia (Sybil wasn't enough?) she ends up leavig both of them on the other side of the world.

#4: Author: Fatima, Location: Sunny Qatar

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:00 pm
—
Flavia is one of my favourite characters, and it's a shame that she followed the usual new girl route of fading into the background after her moment of fame. I really enjoyed this, as it was so different from the others, and found it very exciting. (I was a fan of the famous five, so all in favour of a nice bit of kidnapping!)
Having never been exceptionally fond of Sybil or Josette, I didn't mind them being married off and left behind in Australia.

#5: Author: Ray, Location: Bristol, England

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:53 pm
—
I contributed quite a bit to the last discussion of Redheads, so I'll try not to be too repetative...

Sybil and Josette: I was quite sorry, in a way, to see them being married off so quickly, particularly given the fact that it's just tossed in as an aside. Then again, that tends to be how EBD does marriage.

Copper and her father: Good characters. Copper actually reminds me a little bit of Jacynth Hardy, in that she determins early on that she's going to work for one of the school's scholarships so that she can stay there. She's also got a lot more common sense than a lot of her compeers - I'm quite sad that we never get to see her be a prefect because she'd have been a good one. Her father's also well drawn and likable. Also, just as a general note, it's nice to see EBD write/create a normal, balanced single parent!

*cracks knuckles* OK. The big one: What do I think of the book as a whole and was it a good idea...

As a whole, the book is actually quite a good read. I was quite surprised (given how much it's generally talked down!) by just how entertaining it was. The plot, as I've said before, I do find believable, and up until the climactic scene in the study, it's a reasonably decent thriller. The main thing that lets the book down, really, is the inconsistancy. I know we all roll our eyes at EBDisms, but Rosalind is one of the most invisible head girls the school's ever had! The poor girl even vanishes half way between the school and the alm where Len has her first encounter with the woman (whose name escapes me completely). Even Mary Shand (Shaw?) who was randomly head girl in Highland Twins and then demoted to library prefect in Lavender had more of a presence!

And then there is that climax. Which is just silly. About the only redeaming feature is Gaudenz's repeated assertions that Manley should just be shoved off the nearest conveniant high cliff! It's clear from the way it's written that EBD didn't know one end of a gun from the other and what *should* have been tense and nailbiting just slides into melodrama. If you want any better indicator of how bad the scene is, try reading it out to a group of friends and see how quickly they start falling off their seats laughing!

It was, though, probably a good idea for EBD to at least try it. It did show her attempting to move with the times and trying to be current, AND it let her inject variety into the series.

One question for everyone, just to finish off: If someone were to propose to GGB a book in a similar style to Redheads as a fill-in book, do you think GGB would publish it or do you think they'd say it wasn't EBD enough?

Ray *hopes she hasn't bored anyone*

#6: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:11 pm
—

Ray wrote:

One question for everyone, just to finish off: If someone were to propose to GGB a book in a similar style to Redheads as a fill-in book, do you think GGB would publish it or do you think they'd say it wasn't EBD enough?

Very interesting idea...

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

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:15 pm
—
Definitely not EBD enough! Wink

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

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:41 pm
—
*lol* I think it would depend when in the series it was set. If it was post-Prefects, it would have a much better chance than during, say, the time around Princess. If it was a spies-in-wartime theme, it might have some merit. It would all depend on the material.

That said, though, GGB tries to get storylines that appeal to as many fans of the CS as possible, and considering that Redheads is almost universally described as people's least favourite EBD, I imagine any storyline would, using a line that was one criticism of something I wrote, be classed as "EBD at her worst, not EBD at her best".

#9: Author: Cath V-P, Location: Newcastle NSW

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:28 pm
—
And don't forget she had tried her hand at thrillers ten years earlier with the Chudleigh Hold series. I liked Chudleigh Hold and to a lesser extent Fardingales, but Condor Crags Adventure and Top Secret? Um, yes well.... so it's interesting that she tried to write a CS thriller.

And am I the only one to be confused by the explanation at the end? The timeline always seems wrong, but I canh't quite work out what the problem is.

And I do like the relationship between Flavia and her father - it's very balanced and happy.

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

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:19 pm
—
I think the problem with it is the mixture of genres. EBD can actually write quite decent adventure books, but school stories are a different species. It's interesting that boys' school stories, which, of course, predated girls', fizzled out to be replaced by adventure tales. Girls' schoolstories continued, possibly because a school is a safe, enclosed, quasi-domestic sphere, therefore acceptable for girls. The best writers, EBD included, subvert this assumption quite radically in the subtext, and the place of closure becomes the arena for adventure and growth, where the girls who had to take second place in boy-dominated adventure stories can be foregrounded and have their own stories, not be restricted to a supporting role in others'.
This only works when it stays in the subtext, because school is a familiar and known setting. EBD has built up a whole very credible world in the CS, we know the school, we know Miss Annersley, they are part of 'normal' life. When the totally ordinary scene of Miss Annersley having coffee and biscuits is interrupted by the man wielding a 'wicked little black revolver', the shock jolts one out of one's suspension of disbelief, and the result is not frightening or dramatic, merely very funny!
Good for EBD for trying something different, though, and the fact that it doesn't work shows up some really interesting things about the genre.

#11: Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:03 am
—
I recently re-read this and really enjoyed it. There were a few points I found interesting though:

Jack seems to be mostly described as featherheaded and Copper doesn't seem to have an awful lot to do with her - being far friendlier with Wanda - apart from the one scene when Copper is guilt-tripping over Val's disappearance and Jack suddenly seems to have a streak of common sense and is quite caring. Do you think this is strange, or is it perhaps a sign of Jack starting to grow up and show a different side to her personality?

I was also interested to note that when Jack showed signs of jealousy of Copper getting attention from Len, Len immediately made sure she paid attention to Jack because she didn't want a repeat of the Jane situation. This reminds me an awful lot of the way Len and Con used to react to Margot - pandering to her jealousy to avoid her getting into a rage - and makes me wonder how much Len did actually learn from the whole Ted incident.

Another incident that caught my attention was when Miss Annersley is talking with Len. I can understand why she decides to tell Len about the situation with Copper as she's been inadvertently involved in it to some extent, but I think she is WAY out of order telling Len that Prudence's father has told Prudence she's got to buck up and work or he's taking her away from the school. There is no need at all for Len to know that and I think it's highly unethical for Miss Annersley to say it.

The reality of the gun in the study incident doesn't bother me - if instead of Len, Copper and Bruno, it had been Julian, George and Timmy bursting in through the window, I wouldn't have questioned it (apart from them obviously not belonging in a CS book Wink

), so it seemed a quite acceptable resolution of the problem to me. I was in fits of giggles over Gaudenz's comments - they are absolutely superb!

The bit that jarred most for me was the whole bit at the end with the back history of Manley and Inspector Letton. It seems like EBD's obsession with random relatives and connections went a bit over the top there! I think the original revenge for locking up his brother motive would have been enough.

As for Sybil and Josette, it dos seem rather sudden, but I wonder if EBD was getting lots letters asking her what they (and various other past pupils) were doing and when they were going to get married, and so decided to get it over and done with so she didn't need to worry about them any more!

*stops rambling*

#12: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:40 am
—

LizB wrote:

I was also interested to note that when Jack showed signs of jealousy of Copper getting attention from Len, Len immediately made sure she paid attention to Jack because she didn't want a repeat of the Jane situation.

And the way Simone's jealousy is treated in the Tyrol books - where the staff indulges it to some extent to avoid making Simone unhappy, even when she's 16 or 17.

If Jack gets more attention when she acts jealous, then that encourages the behavior. If she sees less of Len when she's being overly posessive, then that might teach her that sharing is a good idea. Len, at this point, is a prefect, too, so it is her responsiblity to look after new girls as well - it's not like a few years earlier when Jack had a special relationship with her when none of the other juniors had much to do with her.

Quote:

I think she is WAY out of order telling Len that Prudence's father has told Prudence she's got to buck up and work or he's taking her away from the school.

Maybe Miss Annersley was so used to confiding school details to Joey that she got confused? This happens a few times, where a mistress (or Joey) gives information to another student that really shouldn't be shared. I can see why it's useful as a literary device - giving the information as converstation rather than description, but it's not very ethical. Talking to Joey is borderline - it could be useful to have a viewpoint from someone who isn't a girl's mistress, but Joey doesn't have any idea of confidentiality either, and will happily pass on the information to her daughters, or other girls.

There are a few cases where a student who is bullying or being nasty to another girl is given a detailed story of the girl's history which could easily be used to torment the poor girl further.

#13: Author: JayB, Location: SE England

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:03 am
—

LizB wrote:

Another incident that caught my attention was when Miss Annersley is talking with Len. I can understand why she decides to tell Len about the situation with Copper as she's been inadvertently involved in it to some extent, but I think she is WAY out of order telling Len that Prudence's father has told Prudence she's got to buck up and work or he's taking her away from the school. There is no need at all for Len to know that and I think it's highly unethical for Miss Annersley to say it.

And Len wasn't even Head Girl at the time, when there might have been some justification.

She does it again at the beginning of Challenge, when she effectively invites all three triplets to discuss the suitability of various mistresses to be temporary Head, then tells them about Mr Clayton's decisions about Heather's education.

I can see that, as Jennifer said, it's more interesting for the reader than mere exposition, but really too much is shared with the Maynards. Joey is often indiscreet, and Con and Margot aren't known for tact and discretion.

#14: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:14 am
—

Cath V-P wrote:

And am I the only one to be confused by the explanation at the end? The timeline always seems wrong, but I canh't quite work out what the problem is.

I am always thoroughly confused by it... and if anyone would like to explain it to me in words of one syllable, it would be much appreciated!

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

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:41 pm
—
The point about Challenge is interesting - why on Earth would any Headmistress consult with three of the girls about a proposed Staff change? Even if the girls are Head Girl and two other Prefects. There is no justification for it - and certainly no justification for discussing Miss Derwent and Mlle de Lachenais' perceived shortcomings - had I been either Ruth or Jeanne I'd have been seriously annoyed. Especially as she invites the Triplets to give their opinions of said Mistresses.

I can see why EBD did it - as a plot device to get the information across to the reader - but a far better way would have been having a discussion between Miss Annersley and Miss Wilson. As an ex-teacher herself surely she would have seen that as a better way?

#16: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:55 pm
—
In Rivals she criticises Miss Browne for talking to Elaine too much, and yet in the later books Hilda - who is surely a much better Head than Miss Browne was - tells Mary-Lou and Len all sorts of things that she probably shouldn't. Not to mention the way that Joey is always told everyone's private business!

And Madge doesn't discuss things with people like Gisela, but she does tell Joey all sorts of things - notably about Juliet's situation - because she doesn't like keeping secrets from her sister, even though Joey is also a pupil.

#17: Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:07 pm
—
I think the Juliet situation was slightly different, because Madge was going to have to take care of and responsibility for her in term-time and out, so she'd become appended to the family.

#18: Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:54 am
—

Lesley wrote:

The point about Challenge is interesting - why on Earth would any Headmistress consult with three of the girls about a proposed Staff change?

Maybe EBD was predicting the future... I've heard of schools asking their school councils to help phrase their ads for teachers and the kids get to interview prospective staff!!

Back on topic, I really like this book, mainly because it's such a different storyline. I love the scene in the study, even though it does feel a bit Blyton-ish.

#19: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:27 pm
—
I liked this book and actually thought some of the 'mysery' scenes were very well handled, esepecially the one where Len is in the library and hears Gaudenz confront the woman. It did get a bit annoying though the way it was always Len who dealt with the baddies. There was definitely something a bit weird about the chronology as well, I'm sure I noticed something.

The main flaw of this book for me is the way everyone reacts to Val being missing. It seemed to me that no-one was that worried considering she'd been kidnapped by a murderous gang Confused

#20: Author: genka, Location: New Zealand

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:03 am
—
On a rather different topic, I could never understand why such a big deal was made about the girls not being allowed to use nicknames, as opposed to abbreviations. After all, no one could claim that "Tom" is an abbreviation of "Lucinda Muriel" Smile

#21: Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:50 am
—
I think Tom was a specific exception, and it's made clear that her mother had arranged with Miss Wilson that she was to be called that (Matron questioned it until she had a call from Miss Wilson to explain), rather than her just arriving at the school and announcing herself that she'd like to be called Tom.

#22: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:43 am
—
There's also Hildegarde Heriot and Cecilia Humphries (aka Polly and The Robin) who are called by names other than their given name or a short form of their given or middle name.

I can see what the distinction is - Copper *isn't* a short form of a name, or another given name, it's a completely different nickname. I can't see the staff using names like "Floppy Bill", "Crumpet", "Mops", "Fauna", or "Jumbo" even out of class.

The statement there is

Quote:

The school doesn't mind short names, but they don't call you by your nicknames

However, in Redheads they say

Quote:

They don't allow nicknames in form and only a few shorts.

when explaining that Samantha is unlikely to be called "Sam" by the mistresses, which is particularly ironic given Joey's habit of renaming new girls as a reformative technique.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:18 pm
—
Why on Earth not 'Sam' when they use Len, Con and Margot - all three of them shorts? Rolling Eyes

#24: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:47 pm
—
Len, Con and Margot are only known by their short names. Sam is only known as Sam in an affectionate sort of way. It would probably be inappropriate for a staff member to be affectionate in class.

^ That possibly makes more sense in my head.

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

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:57 pm
—

Kate wrote:

Len, Con and Margot are only known by their short names. Sam is only known as Sam in an affectionate sort of way. It would probably be inappropriate for a staff member to be affectionate in class.

^ That possibly makes more sense in my head.

Yessss.

It would be inappropriate if she were called 'darling' or sweetie-pie' yes, but Sam as a short for Samantha is no different to Con instead of Constance and certainly more appropriate than 'Len' for Helena. When you say affectionate do you mean that it's the name she is used to from family? Confused

#26: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:15 pm
—
lol I knew I wouldn't be able to explain myself properly.

It's the way in which the names are used that makes a difference to me. For example - my full name is Catherine but I'm known to most people as Kate. And I want people (teachers and authority figures included) to call me that. My brother's name is Michael and he is occasionally abbreviated to Mike by friends. But it would be very very weird for a teacher to call him that. It's nothing to do with the names, as such. For Michael to be known as Mike, it is assumed that there is an affectionate relationship. For me to be known as Kate, there doesn't have to be, as that is just what I am known as.

Yes, my thought process is as clear as mud...

#27: Author: Chair, Location: Rochester, Kent

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:35 pm
—
I understand your thought process, Kate.

#28: Author: Ray, Location: Bristol, England

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:01 pm
—

Kate wrote:

lol I knew I wouldn't be able to explain myself properly.

It's the way in which the names are used that makes a difference to me. For example - my full name is Catherine but I'm known to most people as Kate. And I want people (teachers and authority figures included) to call me that. My brother's name is Michael and he is occasionally abbreviated to Mike by friends. But it would be very very weird for a teacher to call him that. It's nothing to do with the names, as such. For Michael to be known as Mike, it is assumed that there is an affectionate relationship. For me to be known as Kate, there doesn't have to be, as that is just what I am known as.

Yes, my thought process is as clear as mud...

No; I know what you mean. At school, I was Rach (or Ray, or oy you, depending on who was doing the talking!) to my friends, but as far as the staff were concerned, it was only *ever* Rachel - and I think most of them would have probably looked at me like I had at least two heads if I'd suggested otherwise (much as I actually *WOULD* have preferred otherwise!).

Ray *who far prefers the short but is stuck with the long for business purposes*

#29: Author: Clare, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:12 pm
—

Ray wrote:

as far as the staff were concerned, it was only *ever* Rachel - and I think most of them would have probably looked at me like I had at least two heads if I'd suggested otherwise (much as I actually *WOULD* have preferred otherwise!).

Which shows how things change cos we always ask kids if they prefer to be called by their 'short' - especially when they are addressed in that way by other kids (e.g. Daniel only ever gets his full title when he's overstepped the mark, and so on).

#30: Author: Changnoi, Location: Milwaukee, USA

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:44 am
—
I re-read--sorry for stepping in late.

Well, I had remembered I didn't generally like it, and I didn't. But the one thing that I HATED was Miss Annersley's study discusion with Val following her return to school. Miss Annersley tells Val that it was her fault she was kidnapped.

The girl has been kidnapped and drugged and god-knows-what-else. She's back. Yes, she was disobedient. But to tell her that it was her FAULT? When people get kidnapped/assaulted/mugged/abused, we don't tell them it was their FAULT. Even if someone got mugged because they were walking drunk through a bad neighborhood at night with their wallet in their hand, we don't say, "Remember, it was your fault." We say, "Well, this sucked, and I'm really sorry it happened, but maybe you should be a little more careful in the future."

Val tries to argue here, saying that by no means was she trying or asking to get kidnapped, and Miss Annersley cuts her off and says that she needs to clearly understand it was her fault that this happened.

Sometimes, when girls do things that have bad consequences, Miss Annersley thinks that they have been punished enough by those consequences. In the case of so-foolishly allowing oneself to be kidnapped and drugged because of one's hair color, Miss Annersley does not appear to think that has been sufficient punishment and has to tell the poor girl that it was her fault instead.

Hate. Maybe I am over-sensitive to this, but I just couldn't believe that Miss Annersley said it.

Chang

#31: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:26 am
—
It does have the flavour of 'oh, you shouldn't have been in that neighbourhood at that time of night, so it's your own fault you were raped' sort of logic. There's a difference between common sense and being responsible for someone else's action.

Mind you, I think Val should have been brought to task for having run away regardless, but not linked to being kidnapped. She's 13, which is more than old enough to know that you don't run away from school for the afternoon to chat with your brother, and you *don't* accept rides from strangers.

For those alone, without kidnapping involved, I would think that revoking all privileges for the rest of the term and requiring her to be under constant supervision would be the mildest punishment I'd inflict, primarily because she can't be trusted to behave in a responsible fashion.

#32: Author: Rebecca, Location: Oxford

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:01 am
—

jennifer wrote:

I can see what the distinction is - Copper *isn't* a short form of a name, or another given name, it's a completely different nickname. I can't see the staff using names like "Floppy Bill", "Crumpet", "Mops", "Fauna", or "Jumbo" even out of class.

Going a bit OT, one of the classes a friend of mine was in at school had a rather weak teacher and the class insisted that it was school principle that they could be called whatever they wanted and the register did consist of nicknames like the above that no other member of staff would have dreamt of using...

#33: Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:43 pm
—

Clare wrote:

Ray wrote:

And yet i was in school in the 60s, and the only time I got my full name when when I was in trouble. I was always Pat to the staff. The Headmistress at my boarding sachool called me Patricia, but only spoke to me when I was in trouble!

#34: Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:56 pm
—

Changnoi wrote:

Val tries to argue here, saying that by no means was she trying or asking to get kidnapped, and Miss Annersley cuts her off and says that she needs to clearly understand it was her fault that this happened.

I always took this to mean that, if Val hadn't got into the car with strangers, she wouldn't have been kidnapped; although that's probably debatable - I suspect that they would just have put her into the car if she hadn't got in of her own accord. But she wouldn't have been anywhere for the kidnappers to find her, if she hadn't run away from School to see her brother in the first place. So, in that sense, it was her fault, and Miss Annersley was trying to bring home to her the consequences of her initial disobedience.

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

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:22 am
—
I just finished reading this last night. My thoughts

- Wouldn't Manley have just killed Flavia? That might have been the worse thing he could have done because then her father would have had to live with the guilt. Although I suppose maiming her and turning her into a drug addict might have been just as good. My 21st century mind was thinking of a whole bunch of other things he could have done but there is no way EBD would have mentioned them, if she'd even known what they were.

- I think that Miss Annersley was awfully harsh on Val. I understand she was trying to drive the fact that getting into cars with strangers was bad but at the same time the girl was kidnapped and drugged for six days, I think that deserves some compassion.

- I found Len's last comment about Manley to be interesting "we are judged by the chances we were given here." In other words God might forgive Manley because he was never really given the chance to be anything but awful. At the same time he did murder his brother in cold blood and so I don't have too much sympathy for him. But I think EBD was trying to explain his behaviour. The idea that some people are just rotten to the core is not something people want to accept.

#36: Author: Changnoi, Location: Milwaukee, USA

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:38 am
—

Lottie wrote:

Changnoi wrote:

I understand this, and I see that this is what Miss Annersley means. But to say it is HER FAULT that she's been kidnapped seems to me to place blame on Val for the choices of others. The kidnappers chose to kidnap Val without a lot of provocation on her part. It wasn't generally known the school that there were kidnappers about looking for a red-haired girl, and, in other books in the Swiss era, girls are allowed to take rides from strangers without consequences (Evelyn Ross in Challenge is alllowed to take a ride from Eugen even though she doesn't know him). Miss Annersley can blame Val for the choices that she made, and she can say that these choices were her fault. Also, if something that Val could have/should have forseen had occurred due to her delinquency, that is her fault as well. (Example: if she missed lessons and lost marks because she wasn't in class, that would be her fault because she had been able to foresee this would happen when she decided to go). But I don't think anyone who was unaware of kidnappers on the Platz looking for a red-headed girl about Val's age (as Val was) would foresee or should be able to foresee being kidnapped, as it relies on the presence of kidnappers (not common), the kidnappers' thinking that Val is someone else (not common), and that the kidnappers will act on their desire to kidnap (also not common). I feel like Miss Annersley blaming Val for her own kidnapping is akin to blaming someone who got hit by a drunk driver in a motor vehicle accident for driving at all. Just as you don't reasonably foresee being hit by a drunk driver every time you get in the car, nor do you expect if you live on the Platz in the 1950s to be kidnapped when walking betweent he San and the School.

Chang

#37: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:53 am
—
I think there's some sort of psychological explanation for that, in the way people view consequences as being deserved vs undeserved.
Basically, if something happens to someone when they're misbehaving, then the consequences are the result of the disobedience, and it is seen as the person's fault, where under other circumstances, it would be seen as an accident, or deliberate assault.

So Val was misbehaving by running off from school, and is kidnapped. The kidnapping must therefore be her fault, because she was breaking rules when it happened.

#38: Author: LizB, Location: Oxon, England

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:14 am
—
Perhaps Miss Annersley overreacted as she was feeling some guilt herself because she'd not warned the girls of any danger and/or feeling that the school had failed Val because she'd felt the need to go and talk to her brother rather than having someone within the school she could turn to.

#39: Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:22 am
—

Changnoi wrote:

Evelyn Ross in Challenge is alllowed to take a ride from Eugen even though she doesn't know him

But Eugen tells her that he is a doctor! Rolling Eyes

#40: Author: Mel, Location: UP NORTH

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:31 pm
—
Val was being deliberately disobedient, so in Chalet Land that means something nasty will happen to you, maybe kidnapping or falling through the ice or falling off a mountain.

#41: Author: Vikki, Location: Sitting on an iceberg, freezing to death!!!

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:06 pm
—

Pat wrote:

Clare wrote:

Ray wrote:

Possibly it depends on your parents when they enrol you at the school? If you're ALWAYS known by a short form at home and your parents express a preference for you to be called by that short at school as well?
For example, I've ALWAYS been Vikki, never ever Victoria unless I was in trouble, so presumably when my parents signed me up for school, they made the school aware of this, because I'm certainly not aware of ever having been called Victoria by a teacher at primary school, and my secondary school didn't even KNOW I was Victoria until GCSE when I had to be on the official paperwork for exams.

(not quite sure how much sense I'm making here, but I know what I mean....)

#42: Author: Joyce, Location: Hong Kong

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:23 pm
—
[/quote]
But Eugen tells her that he is a [i]doctor[/i]! Rolling Eyes

[/quote]

Ha!! I've always read that part thinking "he's a stranger you silly girl!" But obviously that is the answer.

I think Miss Annersley meant it was Val's fault because she made it easier for the kidnappers to find her because she disobeyed the rules. Not that getting kidnapped was specifically her fault.

I agree though that Val would supposedly had been more careful and would probably have not wandered off if she had been told of the threat.

So Miss Annersley should have said something to warn the girls, though how she would do that without causing widespread panic and wild rumours to circulate, is HER problem.

I always wonder about the kidnapper telling her the gun wouldn't kill but would mark her. What kind of decent kidnapper has a gun that wont kill?! Smile

Cheers,
Joyce

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

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:50 pm
—

Joyce wrote:

I always wonder about the kidnapper telling her the gun wouldn't kill but would mark her. What kind of decent kidnapper has a gun that wont kill?! Smile

I always felt that was EBD trying not to make it too scary for her readers who were young girls of eight and up - because any gun can kill if held to the head or over the heart. Miss Annersley would have been aware of that too.

#44: Author: Cath V-P, Location: Newcastle NSW

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:10 pm
—
I always read this as Manson being a very accurate and calculating marksman, who has worked out exactly how to inflict irreparable damage while not killing...wnich I found very worrying.

Of course this does make his subsequent defeat a bit unbelievable....

#45: Author: Joyce, Location: Hong Kong

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:40 am
—
obviously I was more cynical even as a child! Smile

I simply read it as the man was an idiot to say anything. Waving a gun around is enough to scare people without getting into details.

Even EB's villians waved real guns around.

Cheers,
Joyce

#46: Author: Loryat,

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:20 pm
—

Joyce wrote:

I always wonder about the kidnapper telling her the gun wouldn't kill but would mark her. What kind of decent kidnapper has a gun that wont kill?! Smile

I read that as meaning that Manle wouldn't use the gun to kill her but that it could if he wanted to.

#47: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:20 pm
—

Loryat wrote:

Joyce wrote:

I always wonder about the kidnapper telling her the gun wouldn't kill but would mark her. What kind of decent kidnapper has a gun that wont kill?! Smile

I read that as meaning that Manle wouldn't use the gun to kill her but that it could if he wanted to.

Me too.

#48: Author: MaryR, Location: Cheshire

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:10 pm
—

Loryat wrote:

Joyce wrote:

I always wonder about the kidnapper telling her the gun wouldn't kill but would mark her. What kind of decent kidnapper has a gun that wont kill?! Smile

I read that as meaning that Manle wouldn't use the gun to kill her but that it could if he wanted to.

Whereas I read it, like Cath, to mean he wanted to inflict the most painful and lasting suffering on her if she didn't do as she was told. After all, being blinded for life is not anyone's idea of fun. His threat to make Copper addicted to drugs was of the same ilk - that being much worse than the clean cut of death.

#49: Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:00 pm
—
I'm sure that it wasn't a normal gun. Doesn't it go off when Len and copper attack him and shoot liquid? I thought that might be acid, which would mark without killing.

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

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:02 am
—
It says "a fine spray shot harmlessly towards the ceiling". I'd always taken that to be a whole stack of very small bullets, such as buckshot. However, I can see how it might be acid or something similar. But if it was acid, surely some of it might fall back to the floor and could still harm someone. Falling bullets, while painful, can't kill anyone as they fall on their sides, rather than point down.

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

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:23 am
—

Joyce wrote:

I agree though that Val would supposedly had been more careful and would probably have not wandered off if she had been told of the threat.

So Miss Annersley should have said something to warn the girls, though how she would do that without causing widespread panic and wild rumours to circulate, is HER problem.

Couldn't she have just said something about not going off with strangers in general to the school and potentially what could happen if one did?

#52: Author: Lisa_T, Location: Belfast

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:30 pm
—
And then you get people like Jack Lambert who would very likely put two and two together and end up with half a dozen. It's a fine line. A boarding school can easily become a hot bed of hysteria, and the merest hint of a hint..... Bedlam.

Re Val- in Miss Annersley's defense, the point I think is that in many ways this was the final straw for Val. She's been in trouble constantly- and her latest exploit has resulted in her being kidnapped and drugged and nearly exposed to worse! Being in loco parentis, I'm not surprised the Head over-reacted slightly. TBH, I've never read the study scene thinking "She's being so unfair" more : "Ouch. Glad that wasn't me..." It's one of the few instances where EBD shows that Miss A can be frightening rather than saying it.

That's one of things that stands out: in AF's books, Miss Cromwell (is that right?) can have me literally squirming in my seat- and I was the kind of student who enjoyed sarcasm and dryness from my teachers! In CS neither Miss A or Miss Wilson have that effect on me very often- probably 'cos EBD cheats with the perennial 'behind closed doors' line.

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

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:11 am
—

Lisa_T wrote:

EBD cheats with the perennial 'behind closed doors' line.

After starting to write drabbles I do find I can understand why EBD cheats with the 'behind close doors' line. It so hard writing something that would be completely believeable that would cause someone to repent because of what Hilda or Nell says and not have everyone think I didn't believe that! I must admit I'm so tempted to do an EBD sometimes. Wink

#54: Author: Lisa_T, Location: Belfast

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:57 pm
—
Well, yes I agree- but to the extent EBD does it?! Very Happy

#55: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:40 am
—
And from a RL perspective, how often does a single, sober talk (or flaying sarcasm) actually reform someone? I can see it being a help, or a turning point, but the whole bad girl -> pillar of the school in a single incident always seems a bit contrived to me.

Someone reforming like that would have to deal with changing long established patterns of behaviour and reactions, which could take time and effort.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:46 am
—
That's a good point, Jennifer, and I think one of the reasons why we find Grizel such an appealing character - there is no immediate and permanent reformation.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:30 pm
—
I think there are two points here:
First, and fairly obviously, the 'single, sober talk' doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's usually a response to a fairly dramatic incident which, in itself, shocks the sinner into repentance and the readiness to change. I'm not at all sure how often this happens in RL Wink

, but it's certainly a standard theme in fiction, where reformation usually has to be effected within a very limited time-scale.

Second, and this is where EBD scores in having produced such a lengthy series, she has time (when she remembers!) to show minor 'bad' girls (eg Prudence Dawbarn) changing without any dramatic catalyst, but just because thye've grown up.

I do agree about the difficulty of writing a scene portraying the perfect and effective answer to every difficult pupil!

#58: Author: Lisa_T, Location: Belfast

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:38 pm
—
..and Joan in 'Problem' and subsequent books portrays this reasonably realistically. She doesn't go from the Bad Girl of the School to ...well, anything, really. She does rather fade into the background. OK, so that makes her boring. It also makes her less of a headache as a pupil! Laughing

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

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:01 am
—
One complaint I have about this and all other books in this year at the Chalet School, is there is very little about the Prefects. I really liked this group of girls and would have loved seeing them as prefects but they are almost virtually ignored all the way through much to my disappointment. Personally I don't think Rosamund would have made a terrible Head Girl and put her in much the same light as Elinor Penell. A very nice girl but without any particularly outstanding qualities. Kind of like a Jo Scott. I would love to see Ricki, Sue etc as Prefects and was always really disappointed EBD virtually ignored them. I don't think she ignored any other group of Prefects as much as she did this one.

The CBB -> Formal Discussions

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

Page 1 of 1