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

Girls: Small Children
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4406
Author:  jennifer [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Girls: Small Children
We see a fair number of small children over the CS series, including the triplets, Peggy and Rix, the Robin and the younger Maynards. What do you think of the EBD's portrayal of small children? Is it realistic, or not, and if not, why? Does the view of small children change over the series?
Author:  evelyn38 [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have always thought EBD did not know many small children. At one point she says (words to the effect of) " Jo would have thought her children very stupid if they could not learn the alphabet in two days", yet on the other hand, her 4-6 year olds all speak like 2 year olds.

And why do all the four year old say "ve" instead of "th" ?I am sure mine never did; it was usually "f" or "d" sounds instead (eg fief, for someone who steals things).

As for children being "trained" from an early age to "instant obedience"; well, don't get me started......
Author:  Elbee [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've always felt frustrated at the way Robin is treated like a toddler, even when she gets to be about 9 or 10 eg still needing help dressing and bathing. I think she is kept very young for too long.
Author:  Alison H [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
It varies! IMHO :D . The scenes in Exile with Rix and Sybil scrapping, the older kids calling the younger kids babies and Madge telling them all to be quiet are great :lol: . I wish we got more scenes like that - most of the children in the Die Rosen nursery have distinct personalities from an early age, but without being "labelled" in the way that the triplets are, and the interaction between them is lovely.

However, the various scenes a few years earlier with "angelic" Robin obediently "trotting" about get on my nerves; and the many scenes in the Swiss books in which the younger Maynards are brought into the Saal for a short while to be displayed to visitors and then removed by Anna would work OK in a book set 50 or 60 years earlier but just don't really work in the 1950s. Mike Maynard is quite interesting, though.

The "baby talk" is very annoying :lol: !

Overall, I don't quite know what it is but somehow I find most of the "nursery" scenes in Tyrol - Rix asking the King of Belsornia about his crown, David wanting to name Sybil after Rufus, etc - lovely, but the scenes in Switzerland with the younger Maynards just don't work for me in the same way :? .

Sorry for the essay - boring day at work!
Author:  kramerkaren [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'll add the teething until extremely old and the napping twice a day until they are 5-6 years old as some of the things that made me go: :roll:
Author:  Emma A [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not sure that EBD knew much about childhood development in the very early years. When I was writing my alternative Chalet School and Jo, I had to include Peggy and Rix, who were only two, apparently, but could talk and walk quite successfully! I didn't realise at the time quite how unlikely this was, not having known any two-year olds when I was writing.

Like Alison H I always thought that in the Swiss books that Joey's relationship with her children became far more unrealistic. They were far more regimented and had less time with their parents than the triplets or the elder boys did. And yet they all appeared to grow up relatively well-adjusted!

The babying of the Robin has always bothered me, too.
Author:  JayB [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Two year olds should be able to walk independently and speak in short sentences.

Robin is an aberration - the way she's treated isn't appropriate for a six year old, never mind a ten year old. EBD's other nine/ten year olds - Maria Marani, Daisy, Mary Lou, Felicity etc. - are perfectly normal.

Then between New and Exile, Robin suddenly grows up so that by fourteen she is quite mature for her age.

EBD's ideas on training to instant obedience are quite unrealistic; she'd obviously never had much to do with toddlers.
Author:  Sunglass [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Her typing of very young children as angels or demons is a bit alarming, I think - it smacks to me a bit of those people who make their toddlers wear teeshirts that say 'Little Princess' or 'Here Comes Trouble'. Mind you, those are invariably gendered, and I think one thing you can say for EBD is that she does allow for the possibility of madcap/tempersome/bossy/physically lively little girls, and at least one non-macho little boy in Charles Maynard.

Robin as a child drives me mad - all that pseudo-cute lisping, lingering descriptions of her 'lovely babyface' that seem unsuitable for anyone older than a toddler, and everyone being viciously judged for not falling down before her/not kissing her goodnight/accidentally causing her to worry and hence inevitably fall into a decline. It's funny that someone who has Jo Bettany (I think!) complain about that 'sickening Little Eva' in Uncle Tom's Cabin, should have created a child character who is a combination Little Nell, Beth from 'Little Women' and any number of other Victorian child death weepies!

But I agree with other commenters that EBD only occasionally gets small children right. In general, she has hilariously odd views on what developmental stage a child might be at and the triplets' 'enchantingly courtly' manners in, say, Jo to the Rescue smack more of a Victorian treatise on child behaviour/the fond fancies of someone who's never had much to do with kids than something written during WWII by a teacher.

As someone else said, her naughtier children, like her more problematic CS girls, are her most interesting and realistic. I think the problem, as with lots of aspects of the CS, is that, as her sense of purveying a lifestyle to be aspired to and (like Jo pruning copy-able pranks from Cecily Holds the Fort), not wanting to portray 'bad' children going unpunished for fear of its effects on the reader.
Author:  Mel [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like the triplets in Jo to the Rescue who are lively and articulate at 3/4 but Geoff and Phil are very badly realised. "Be dood Phil!" is embarrassing. The treatment of Robin is appalling too. One feels that she is treated so carefully, not only becase she is frail, but because she is so dainty and beautiful - a stray angel who does not know the ways of Earth perhaps?
Author:  Elle [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
evelyn38 wrote:

And why do all the four year old say "ve" instead of "th" ?


I really hate that! I don't know why it winds me up so much, but it does!
Author:  Karry [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
JayB said
Quote:
Two year olds should be able to walk independently and speak in short sentences.
At the age of two Ruth was able to tell our next door neighbour she had baby brother and he was in an incubator!
Author:  Sugar [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Posting on a specific issue here relating to speech development from a professional point of view.

JayB said
Quote:
Two year olds should be able to walk independently and speak in short sentences.


No they should not. Between the ages of 2 and 3 one of the milestones is "uses short sentences like "me want more" or "me want cookie" - ie 2 Key word expression. At the age of 4/5 (Reception Age in UK)the milestone is a sentence between 4 and 5 words.

Mel wrote:
I like the triplets in Jo to the Rescue who are lively and articulate at 3/4 but Geoff and Phil are very badly realised. "Be dood Phil!" is embarrassing.


b/d/g are all voiceless constanonts made when the vocal codes are partially closed and have the same oral motor movements. Children under 4 do find them very difficult.

evelyn38 wrote:
And why do all the four year old say "ve" instead of "th" ?


Not all 4 y/o do. However, "th" is the latest phoneme to be spoken correctly as the voicing distinctions are not aquired. It is an articulation and developmental issue. A speech and language practitioner might not neccessarily treat a child who couldn't pronounce "th" until they were aged 7/8 unless there were other issues. "F/v" = "th" and "l" for y are examples.

I think EBD had a good understanding of speech development and its extremely difficult to write child speech that sounds realistic.
Author:  Pado [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:55 am ]
Post subject: 
It's almost as if in the early years EBD had friends with small children and retold some of the cute nursery tales she heard from them. Or she borrowed liberally from some "kids say the darndest things" column in the local newspaper.

Later on, though, her children as as two dimensional as her male characters. Or actually, all her later characters.

Which raises the question: when did the series jump the shark?
Author:  jennifer [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:29 am ]
Post subject: 
I find it very erratic.

I think by 2 walking is pretty standard, and they can say a variety of words, but I find it pretty hard to understand a child that age I don't know personally. On the other hand, my friend's daughter, at three, was using words like dishevelled correctly in conversation, so it can vary.

I do find the charming manners portrayed by two and three year olds pretty unrealistic. I might expect someone that age to say hello to a visitor (equally likely, they might make shy), but not make polite conversation with strangers, in grownup syntax.

The Robin is just strange. She's six when she comes to the school, which in modern terms is an age when someone would be starting full time school. Robin is regarded more like a toddler or a big doll - she's picked up and cuddled by the other girls, oohed and aahed over, sleeps in a crib, can't wash herself or dress herself.

Compare that to Stephen at age eight, where Joey says

Quote:
"The complete elder brother! Still, he's to be trusted anywhere, and that's all that matters. He and Len are the most responsible of the whole eight. I can always trust either of them to look after the rest."


Mike is also eight when the cliff incident happens, and Sybil is eight during the scalding water incident, and they're both under expectations that they will act much more maturely and responsibly than you can really expect for a child that age.

The younger Maynard kids sometimes come across as display pieces, rather than real children. They're trotted out to show to company, or if a new girl needs to bond with Joey while bathing the babies, but they don't have much identity other than that.
Author:  Tara [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think part of the problem is EBD's very long writing life. Her early books have lots of links with late 19th/very early 20th century writing where children remain very young by our standards. They often sleep in cots and are being dressed by others at ages which seem much too old to us, and EBD has traces of that clinging to her when general society had moved on.
Robin is very interesting, too. Again, the angel/monster dichotomy was very common. and EBD actually questions and tries to redefine it a bit - Robin is the archetypal 'Engelkind', but her occasional naughtiness is a sign of health, and she's an important character for quite a long time. She can't ultimately escape the stultifying nature of the role, though. She can't cope with the realities of the adult world (her settlement work), and chooses the closure of the convent, almost disappearing from the books, to all intents and purposes dead, like her Victorian forebears (most of the angel children ended up deceased!). But I think we often forget what vast changes in society EBD's writing life encompassed; it's absolutely amazing that we can still relate so wholeheartedly to her universe.
Author:  Lisa_T [ Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Although by entering the convent, you could also argue that Robin was epitomising the angelic stereotype as far as she could without actually dying! :lol: :lol: It would have been more interesting, in a sense, if we'd seen her stick to her guns and carry on doing settlement work or whatever. On the other hand, it's made quite clear in Joey Goes that Robin has a strong sense of vocation, and feels compelled to enter. That's a saving grace.
Author:  Bethannie [ Sun May 04, 2008 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't know if it's because I'm a wee bit older than some of the other CBBers ( somewhere in my forties if you must know) or if it is the fact that I was brought up by a strict German mother, but I think EBD paints a fair picture of children.

We must always remember that these books were started in the 1920s. It is only natural that the method of child-rearing appears strange by 'modern' standards.

When my mother had guests for Kaffee, my siblings and I were expected to be introduced to the guests, be polite and well-bahaved - and then disappear to our own rooms. Mum loed us all very much, but children did not mix with adults. (We had no nanny, we amused ourselves from an early age).

By the way, we girls were also taught to cursey to our older relatives!

I think that Robin was treated as expected for a delicate child at that time. look how long Joey is kept in bed by the nuns after giving birth! Health was seen differently then.
Author:  Lesley [ Sun May 04, 2008 8:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think the way the Robin was treated was an aberration, she was considered a baby for far longer than anyone else in the CS. EBD would have done better making her at least three years younger when she first joined the school - at age 3 this would have seemed reasonable. At age 6 it was not - and no one else of that age, not even Margot, who was also considered fragile, was babied to such an extent.

At the age of 4 my younger sister would be left until the end of a ward round in hospital because the nurses knew that she would take her own blood. That would have been 1968.

The thing about a mother remaining in bed after birth was going on well into the 1960's - I don't think it had anything to do with the delicacy or otherwise of the mother - more a way to give the mother a break! It's probably changed partly because medical opinion has changed and partly because of the need for the beds in the maternity wards! Joey, having coped with seven pregnancies, three of them multiples, in only about 15 years, cannot, in my opinion, be considered delicate. :lol:
Author:  Lisa_T [ Sun May 04, 2008 8:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bethannie wrote:
I don't know if it's because I'm a wee bit older than some of the other CBBers ( somewhere in my forties if you must know) or if it is the fact that I was brought up by a strict German mother, but I think EBD paints a fair picture of children.

We must always remember that these books were started in the 1920s. It is only natural that the method of child-rearing appears strange by 'modern' standards.

When my mother had guests for Kaffee, my siblings and I were expected to be introduced to the guests, be polite and well-bahaved - and then disappear to our own rooms. Mum loed us all very much, but children did not mix with adults. (We had no nanny, we amused ourselves from an early age).

By the way, we girls were also taught to cursey to our older relatives!

I think that Robin was treated as expected for a delicate child at that time. look how long Joey is kept in bed by the nuns after giving birth! Health was seen differently then.


I think you're middle of the road as far as age goes! :wink: But what you say about how you were expected to behave with visitors is really interesting. EBD makes a big thing about how Tyrolean children are trained to obedience and courtesy from an early age, and that Madge. Joey and Co pick this up and attempt to implement it - with varying degrees of success. Do you think your experience is a generational or cultural one, or a bit of both?

Re confinement - I think I'm right in saying that at one stage a woman was expected to spend 4-6 weeks after childbirth doing precious little. I think it was partly for health reasons and partly linked to the biblical/OT idea of a woman being 'unclean' after giving birth.
Author:  Alison H [ Sun May 04, 2008 9:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not sure when churching went "out" in the West - I think the actual ceremony's still practised in Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches - but certainly at one time women weren't meant to go out until they'd been churched, 40 days or so after giving birth. Although presumably that only applied to women who had servants to do the work for them.

That idea would've gone out by the time of the CS, but I would think the depiction of women staying in bed and resting for a while after giving birth (if it was practical) was still fairly accurate at that time.

I find the way that everyone refers to Robin as "the baby" when she's 6 very odd :roll:. We never see much of Ted and Robin together so it's hard to get a picture of what Robin's life might have been like before she came to the CS. Ted strikes me as the sort of person who'd've been fine if he'd had some big strapping sons to go climbing with him or play football/rugby/cricket with him, but wasn't quite sure how to handle a delicate, "angelic" daughter after Marya died ... but maybe that's just me!
Author:  jennifer [ Mon May 05, 2008 2:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Interestingly, in Taiwan women still undergo a period of confinement after birth. Traditionally they would go to their mother's house (or their mother would be living with them) and they would spend the first month basically in bed, nursing and being fed nourishing food. There's a whole class of special medicinal foods for nursing mothers.

It still happens pretty commonly, although now there are special centres where the mothers can stay, rather than at home. After a month, there is a special party to celebrate the baby and mother coming back into society (with more special food, of course).

My female Taiwanese colleagues who have had babies (ranging from mid 20s to mid 30s) have all done this. Of course, the total maternity leave is only two months.
Author:  PaulineS [ Mon May 05, 2008 12:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Women stayed in hospital at least seven days and many fourteen until the late fifities early sixties. But so did people having a hernia repair, now everyone is expected to be active the day after. It was discovered that bed rest was a time of recuparation it was discovered that the risk of deep vein thrombosis, (DVT) and people needed to be up and about quickly.

Young children should be walking by age two, but language use is more varied and children being brought up in a two or more language enviroment are often later in talking clearly. The Maynard children would have been exposed to English from their parents and German from Anna and Rosalie at least, and sometimes they would have had French as well.
Author:  JS [ Mon May 05, 2008 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Maybe someone living in some of these countries can help with this, but I had an idea that in Germany and possibly France, it's the 'done thing' for women and their babies to have at least a week off in a health farm type place shortly after the baby is born. I seem to remember that it's something that's covered under social insurance, so it's not a posh, private-only sort of thing.
Author:  Karry [ Mon May 05, 2008 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Churching was alive and wel in the late 50s. The first time my mum went out after giving birth to me was to be 'churhed' the second time was for my christening a few days later. Interestingly enough, my family were not regular church goers, but this was the tradition!
Author:  Sunglass [ Mon May 05, 2008 7:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
JS wrote:
Maybe someone living in some of these countries can help with this, but I had an idea that in Germany and possibly France, it's the 'done thing' for women and their babies to have at least a week off in a health farm type place shortly after the baby is born. I seem to remember that it's something that's covered under social insurance, so it's not a posh, private-only sort of thing.


None of my French friends have done it, and I've not come across it - is it perhaps a custom from the past? France is certainly set up to make it far easier to have children, return to work and find good, affordable childcare...
Author:  Kate [ Mon May 05, 2008 7:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
My grandmother certainly didn't go to my mother's christening (setting off a bizarre concatenation of circumstances which transpired in her being christened and registered the wrong name!). That was in the late 50s, but I don't know if it was because of 'churching' or if she just wasn't well.
Author:  JS [ Tue May 06, 2008 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sunglass wrote(in response to me)
Quote:
wrote:
Maybe someone living in some of these countries can help with this, but I had an idea that in Germany and possibly France, it's the 'done thing' for women and their babies to have at least a week off in a health farm type place shortly after the baby is born. I seem to remember that it's something that's covered under social insurance, so it's not a posh, private-only sort of thing.


None of my French friends have done it, and I've not come across it - is it perhaps a custom from the past? France is certainly set up to make it far easier to have children, return to work and find good, affordable childcare...


It was something I wrote a feature on about eight years ago - it was comparing different sorts of healthcare systems - but I can't remember the country and for some reason, can't find the feature online!
Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Fri May 09, 2008 7:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sunglass wrote:
None of my French friends have done it, and I've not come across it - is it perhaps a custom from the past? France is certainly set up to make it far easier to have children, return to work and find good, affordable childcare...

One of my French friends has just had a week of "thalassothérapie" with her baby, but said baby is about six months old now.

I have a feeling that the French NHS, needing, like ours, to make cuts, is less inclined to prescribe a week at a spa; not long ago, everybody was entitled to a week a year, whether they needed it or not!
Author:  lavender [ Wed May 14, 2008 10:13 am ]
Post subject: 
I wish that I had been allowed to stay in bed for 3 weeks after my daughter was born! I suppose you would need servants for that to be a real option though.

It annoys me that the expectation now seems to be that you should ping the baby out, be straight out of hospital and back in the saddle (and a size zero) within the shortest amount of time possible.

As the mother of a "nearly four" year old, I am also always annoyed by the statement that the children had been "trained to instant obedience ". I don't think EBD could have had very much to do with toddlers at all.
Author:  evelyn38 [ Wed May 14, 2008 10:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think children trained to instant obedience must be rather dull, as well as unlikely.
Author:  Kate [ Wed May 14, 2008 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
I find the idea a bit creepy actually.
Author:  evelyn38 [ Wed May 14, 2008 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know what you mean; they sound like small animals or automatons rather than children. Apart from potty training, I don't think I ever used the word "training" with my kids, or thought about bringing them up in terms of training them.....
Author:  Kathy_S [ Wed May 14, 2008 10:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think the "trained to instant obedience" business is more a reflection of EBD-contemporary childrearing sermons than of any experiences she might or might not have had with actual children. In terms of the wording, both King James and Douay would have used "train," as in
Quote:
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. (King James version, Proverbs 22:6)
For a typical sermonette, see this one (author b. 1870). That's a very Protestant example, but we got virtually the same content -- just no references to Luther. (Didn't do too well with the instant obedience, though -- hence the oft repeated sermons.)

Think also of all the children's books in which failure to "obey orders" brings about disaster. By early CS times, the "orders" bit morphed from the rather excruciating Elsie Dinsmore variety into more secularized versions, e.g. in Guide novels, but the idea was still pretty strong.

What EBD does do, is present the obedience as reinforced more by wanting to please parents/God than by the more draconian forms of punishment. I think this might have been considered fairly progressive. At least I doubt that, at that point, anyone would have accused her characters of "guilting" their offspring.
Author:  La Petite Em [ Thu May 22, 2008 4:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
In Joey and Co. in Tirol, you do get to see small glimpes of the younger Maynards and they really do seem to have some character- Charles and Mike in particular. However, you rarely see this beyond that book. I also feel sorry for Ailie who is given the same description from the day she joins the school as a young child to when she is the May Queen- although not babied she is constantly seen as an imp who looks very young, but no one seems to know how bright or hard-working she is!!!

The young child that I feel the most sorry for is Cecil. We know nothing about her!!! She has a boy's name.... and my laptop is named after her :P)
Author:  Reepicheep101 [ Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:43 am ]
Post subject:  Children
I find that when Robin is young she is always kind of favourited and in Eustacia of the CS, Madge had once said that there were only two really effective punishments in Robin's case. Also a lot of the other juniors only get talked about once or twice. It's pathetic though that the juniors 'babies' as the seniors and middles call them can't even change clothes, have a bath by themselves even thought they are around 9 and 10.
Author:  claire [ Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
I used to think it was ridiculous Robin being refered to as a baby, then I found myself refering to my youngest as 'the baby' - he's nearly 5!! (by the time my eldest was 15 months I didn't call her a baby, admittedly it was because I had another baby by then) but I don't find it that unrealistic - given the family type environment
Author:  Kate [ Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Some of the mums of the children I teach call them "the baby'. The youngest is 5!
Author:  Simone [ Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Got to admit - We sometimes refer to Polly as the baby and she's five

But compared to her sisters (19 & 21) she is! :lol:
Author:  Lesley [ Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well my parents and I still refer to my two brothers as 'the boys' and they are now 41 and 37 respectively!

I can understand Madge and Joey referring to her as a baby as the youngest in their 'family' but I think the thing that grates with the way Robin is treated is that she is not allowed to grow up past 6 years old, even when she is 10, 11 or 12. She is still treated as a baby - and not just by family but by the rest of the School - some of whom didn't even know her at age 6.

Re-reading Eustacia recently and the way Robin reacts when Joey was stuck in the blizzard - the girl is ten years old - I have a five year old niece who wouldn't act like that - let along her nine year old sister.

Even in Exile she is still looked upon as a baby - she's the one that Miss Wilson pushes onto the innkeeper - she's 14 at lthat point - there were at least 2 girls younger - Daisy by about 3 years. EBD just couldn't seem to appreciate that she was no longer a six year old.
Author:  Tara [ Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
She's very delicate as well, of course, which makes a difference, but EBD sometimes doesn't seem to have much idea. In one of the non-Chalets (can't remember which) one of the children comes up crying over a cut knee, and she's about twelve!
Author:  JayB [ Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Even in Exile she is still looked upon as a baby - she's the one that Miss Wilson pushes onto the innkeeper - she's 14 at lthat point - there were at least 2 girls younger - Daisy by about 3 years.


Wasn't that because she'd gone first and was clinging to Herr Goldmann, and was therefore a) the one most in danger from the crowd at that point and b) the one Miss Wilson was most easily able to grab? (And she grabs Herr Goldmann too, so she's not solely concerned with the Robin.)

I thought Robin had grown up a lot at the start of Exile. She's calling Madge and Jem by their first names, she's talking to Jo as an equal and she's taking responsibility for the children. Later she has her own adventure with Hilary, and is perfectly competent and contributes sensibly to solving the problem; it's Jo who's on the verge of collapse over it.
Author:  MJKB [ Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Portrayal of small children
Does anyone think it extraordinary that young children, including the Robin, were sent to bed, winter or summer, at 6.00 pm? HOw on earth were they expected to sleep at that hour of the day? Surely a more reasonable time would have been 7.30 - 8.00.
I went to boarding school in the late sixties from the age of 9 to 12 and we did not have lights out until 10.00 pm. There were a couple of girls even younger than I. Mind you I remember with a shudder having to get up at 7.00 in the morning when a nun would stick a holy water font in your face intoning "Dominus Vobiscum", to which the response was "Et cum spirituum."(I think!).
Oh, and one of the nuns offered to bath me because I looked a good 2 or 3 years younger than my age but I absolutely refused that indignity. Which reminds me of another strange thing at the Chalet School. How many times were teenage girls put into hot baths by matron and 'rough dried', in order to stave off a chill following yet another ill fated mountain climb. If that had happened to me at that age I'd have been permanently scarred.
Author:  MJKB [ Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Churching went out in the 'seventies. My first nephew was born in 1973 and my mother tentatively asked my sister was she going to be churched. You can imagine the reply!
I must say I applaud the days when women had that lovely long rest after giving birth. I had an emergency section fourteen years ago and wheedled 11 days out of my obstetrician. (She was an ex nun and I was terrified of her!). I had the most wonderful 11 days bonding with my daughter. If I could have swung another week I'd have done it. I heard recently of a friend's friend who was turfed out two days after a section. Thats savage, I think.
Author:  Alison H [ Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Portrayal of small children
MJKB wrote:
Which reminds me of another strange thing at the Chalet School. How many times were teenage girls put into hot baths by matron and 'rough dried', in order to stave off a chill following yet another ill fated mountain climb. If that had happened to me at that age I'd have been permanently scarred.


I always think that that sounds rather dodgy too :roll: . I can't remember which book it's in, but IIRC Joey gets bathed and rough dried by Matron when she's 17 or 18 :shock: . I suppose the thinking was that it was OK because Matron was a medical person, but it must have been very embarrassing to say the least.
Author:  Nightwing [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Portrayal of small children
Alison H wrote:
I can't remember which book it's in, but IIRC Joey gets bathed and rough dried by Matron when she's 17 or 18 :shock: . I suppose the thinking was that it was OK because Matron was a medical person, but it must have been very embarrassing to say the least.


This more or less happened to me when I was about 13, and probably I would have been incredibly embarrassed under normal circumstances, but as I was in the early stages of hypothermia and therefore currently impervious to embarrassment... :lol:

Perhaps Matron just needed something to do? Constantly feeding tonic to people and making them hem their sheets must get horribly routine.
Author:  LizzieC [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:44 am ]
Post subject:  An idea has just struck me!
Nightwing wrote:
Perhaps Matron just needed something to do? Constantly feeding tonic to people and making them hem their sheets must get horribly routine.


Perhaps Matey arranged many of the CS incidents because she found they made her life so much more exciting and much less routine?

:twisted: :lol:
Author:  JayB [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Portrayal of small children
MJKB wrote:
Does anyone think it extraordinary that young children, including the Robin, were sent to bed, winter or summer, at 6.00 pm? HOw on earth were they expected to sleep at that hour of the day? Surely a more reasonable time would have been 7.30 - 8.00.


I imagine that by the time they'd had baths, teeth cleaning, prayers etc, lights out would have been quite a bit later. Everything would take longer with small children, who couldn't do so much for themselves, and there were always several little ones for Rosa or Anna or whoever to deal with at once. 10-12 hours sleep is recommended for small children, so this isn't out of line with a getting up time of 6.30-7.00.
Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Portrayal of small children
MJKB wrote:
Does anyone think it extraordinary that young children, including the Robin, were sent to bed, winter or summer, at 6.00 pm? HOw on earth were they expected to sleep at that hour of the day? Surely a more reasonable time would have been 7.30 - 8.00.
I went to boarding school in the late sixties from the age of 9 to 12 and we did not have lights out until 10.00 pm.


Goodness, I was at boarding school between the ages of 10 and 17 and it wasn't until the Sixth Form that you needn't put your light out until 10:30 pm. Mostly, bed-time got half an hour later per common-room, to stagger them a bit.

I know I was in bed by 6:30 and reading until 7:00 when I was small - certainly, when I first went away to school, not having Lights Out until about 8:00 pm felt really quite daringly late!
Author:  Reepicheep101 [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Portrayal of small children
MJKB wrote:
Does anyone think it extraordinary that young children, including the Robin, were sent to bed, winter or summer, at 6.00 pm? HOw on earth were they expected to sleep at that hour of the day? Surely a more reasonable time would have been 7.30 - 8.00.
I went to boarding school in the late sixties from the age of 9 to 12 and we did not have lights out until 10.00 pm. There were a couple of girls even younger than I. Mind you I remember with a shudder having to get up at 7.00 in the morning when a nun would stick a holy water font in your face intoning "Dominus Vobiscum", to which the response was "Et cum spirituum."(I think!).
Oh, and one of the nuns offered to bath me because I looked a good 2 or 3 years younger than my age but I absolutely refused that indignity. Which reminds me of another strange thing at the Chalet School. How many times were teenage girls put into hot baths by matron and 'rough dried', in order to stave off a chill following yet another ill fated mountain climb. If that had happened to me at that age I'd have been permanently scarred.


Yes, even when Robin is 10 years old she is still going to bed at 6:00, being tucked in and sleeps in a cot! I think that they have kept her a baby for much too long and Madge never showed the same affection to other juniors as she did to Robin like when Amy Stevens was 8. And honestly the juniors have to get bathed! Insane, I could do a whole lot more when I was eight. EBD certainly had a bizarre approach to little kids. I felt frustrated in the books when Robin got upset by the slighest little thing or a tiny bit tired and then everyone gets so worried. Oh its so dramatic, she's going to die. Chill people. Everyone feels a little lazy in the morning.
Author:  Reepicheep101 [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lesley wrote:

I can understand Madge and Joey referring to her as a baby as the youngest in their 'family' but I think the thing that grates with the way Robin is treated is that she is not allowed to grow up past 6 years old, even when she is 10, 11 or 12. She is still treated as a baby - and not just by family but by the rest of the School - some of whom didn't even know her at age 6.

Re-reading Eustacia recently and the way Robin reacts when Joey was stuck in the blizzard - the girl is ten years old - I have a five year old niece who wouldn't act like that - let along her nine year old sister.



I know, Robin was too het up and I felt soo annoyed when Jo said to Eustacia: If the Robin's ill, it's all your fault. Personally I think the Robin fretted too much and get herself into such a state she felt ill the next day.
Author:  Cat C [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Robin aside, I don't think EBD does too badly with small children - apart from anything else developmentally, children between the ages of about 6 months and five years vary enormously in terms of what they manage to do when, and even card-carrying parents can be amazingly amnesiac about what can be expected of children at various ages (it's something Libby Purves discusses in her book 'How not to be a Perfect Mother).

Just for example, I've known of some children who walked at 8 months (absolutely terrifying, according to their mother - they lived next door when I was about 10), and others who don't get around to it until 15 months or so, and speech is just as variable - younger children with siblings a couple of years older quite often can't get a word in edge-ways, although it's obvious they understand a fair bit, whereas some children just don't stop talking once they've started.

In terms of child speech 'errors', aka developmental phonology, children can do all sorts of odd things, but I can't get too worked up about the lack of variety portrayed by EBD given that lack of adult speech was hardly essential in terms of plot.

As for f/v in place of 'th' (known as th fronting, btw) there are some adults who still do that!
Author:  jennifer [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, the Robin's portrayal before "New House" is rather infantile - it's like she stays about six for six years. It's even more striking given that by the second half of Exile she is a prefect, and described as very mature. I love the statement in Goes To It

Quote:
Our best hope is Robin. She has always been older than her age.


I would think that a pre-requisite for being sent to boarding school would be to be able to bathe, dress and feed yourself, at a minimum!
Author:  Alison H [ Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Joey "babies" Robin more than anyone else does, and is actually strangely obsessive about her. When there's a measles outbreak at Die Rosen in Jo Returns , there's a bizarre passage about "Jo's magnificent eyes" becoming misty or something at the thought of Robin possibly getting measles, and she doesn't even seem bothered that Peggy has got measles and is very ill as a result. She's rude to Grizel when Grizel wants to have a chat and she (Joey) is only interested in seeing Robin, and she takes a dislike to Joyce Linton because Joyce doesn't give Robin - whom she's only just met - a goodnight kiss. It's a wonder that Robin grows up into such a lovely person - teenage/young adult Robin is a wonerful character.

Yet Joey never seems to act like that with her own children: she piles responsibility on Len and Steve from an early age, and expects Mike and Felix to wait on her and her afternoon tea guests! It'd be interesting to've seen her with Phil and Margot during their childhood illnesses and see what she was like then.
Author:  jennifer [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Alison H wrote:
Joey "babies" Robin more than anyone else does, and is actually strangely obsessive about her.


That's a good point - in addition to Joyce, she dislikes Elaine for a similar reason, and there is her irrational reaction to Eustacia for indirectly causing Robin to worry, thereby threatening her very life.

Given the way Robin is babied, and indulged, and petted, and constantly told how sweet and pretty and angelic she is, it's surprising she doesn't turn into a self absorbed, helpless brat.
Author:  Nightwing [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:37 am ]
Post subject: 
I've always thought that the Robin (when she's younger) is a very Victorian character - she's delicate and has a tragic past, but she's beautiful, sweet, naive, etc. When characters dislike her I think it's supposed to show that there is something fundamentally wrong with them - because the Robin is so beautiful, sweet, naive etc that who in their right mind could possibly dislike her?

Obviously, this type of characterisation doesn't really hold up any more - and maybe it didn't at the time, either, which is why she almost seems like a completely different character in the second half of Exile. Joey and her have a completely different relationship by then, too - Jo still treats her like a younger sister, but more as her contemporary than as someone to baby.
Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even in the first half of Exile, Robin has begun to grow up. She still sounds a little babyish, but that's mostly because she still speaks with a slight French accent, which she loses (rather improbably) when they move to Guernsey. But she is not the baby she once was.
Author:  MJKB [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Robin is the 'Beth' of the Bettany/Russell/Maynard clans. It is interesting that she enters the convent thereby giving up a conventional married or single life. Had Louisa May Alcott been Catholic she may well have had this escape route for her Beth. Both characters are regarded as being too good for this world.
Author:  Mel [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes it's interesting that the two frailest girls, Margot and Robin are packed off to convents. EBD didn't know very much about the austerity of convent life. I think she was 'saving' them from childbirth.
Author:  JayB [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
...in the second half of Exile. Joey and her have a completely different relationship by then, too - Jo still treats her like a younger sister, but more as her contemporary than as someone to baby.


Jo's priorities have change by then, of course. She's married, soon to become a mother. Much as she still loves her, Robin no longer comes first with her, and she can't baby her and fuss over her as she used to. And so Robin is allowed to grow up.

(I wonder if Jo's obsessing over the Robin was a reaction to Madge getting married and having her own and Dick's children to look after? Jo no longer came first with Madge, so she looked around for someone she could come first with. Jo's relationship with Robin verged on unhealthy at times - I wonder how it would have played out if Jo hadn't married.)
Author:  Nightwing [ Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
MJKB wrote:
Robin is the 'Beth' of the Bettany/Russell/Maynard clans.


That's a fair point (although Beth is decidedly less cloyingly sweet, in my opinion!) I know people here have drawn parallels between Joey Bettany and Jo March, too. Does that make Madge, Meg? And maybe Sybil is Amy... :lol:


JayB wrote:
I wonder if Jo's obsessing over the Robin was a reaction to Madge getting married and having her own and Dick's children to look after?


I actually wondered if the way that Joey babies Robin reflects the way that Madge to some extent babies her, as that's the clearest model Joey has for a older/younger sister relationship.
Author:  kaitlin101 [ Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Girls: Small Children
I get so frustrated that everyone petts the Robin and tells her how wonderful she is. I know she has had a tragic past and is quite delicate but IMO that does not give any special reason for her to be "favourited" by Madge and the girls. I mean Madge as head should give the same attention to all the juniors. I'm not saying Madge is a bad head but seriously I get soo annoyed when Madge says things like "The Robin has had a big fright and is quite ill" "No, the Robin is too weak" It just seriously gets on my nerves :twisted:
Author:  Tor [ Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Girls: Small Children
Quote:
Does that make Madge, Meg? And maybe Sybil is Amy...


just saw this nightwing, and realised I said the exact samething on the Leader thread! :lol: :lol:

Great minds think alike (fools etc etc)! but you get priority!
Author:  jennifer [ Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Girls: Small Children
Robin's delicacy is pretty strange, though. There's no sign of it when she is first brought to the school - there, the petting is due to the fact that she's much younger than the other girls, and adorable and sweet.

Then, a couple books later, she's delicate and needs great care - fewer lessons, an earlier bedtime, lots of milk. It reaches the point where she has to stay at the Sonnalpe until she's an adult to avoid serious illness, and is so fragile that an evening of worry is enough to threaten to send her into decline.

But we never actually see her ill. Unlike Joey in the early books she doesn't get colds or bronchitis, and she avoids all the infectious illnesses that go around.

Then in Exile and the books after that she appears perfectly normal. She survives various flights for their life with no harm, she joins the school as a prefect and is later head girl, she helps Joey with the house, and completes a degree at Oxford. However, she's too delicate to manage settlement work, although she's strong enough to join a teaching order.

But the angelic but delicate child who is too good for this earth is a pretty standard feature in early children's literature. The only problem with Robin is that she doesn't die young and pure, a la Beth March.
Author:  MJKB [ Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Girls: Small Children
She may not die young, but as a nun she is likely to die pure!
Caroline German discusses the decline in Robin's health in the preface to her excellent book, Juliet of the CS. This is set after and Jo and before Princess. In it Robin gets an attack of bronchitis and her recovery leaves her still vulnerable and therefore, accounts for the change in Robin's constitution. Great read!
All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/