The CBB :: View topic - Article in today's Observer

through

[^/[^Print]\]

The CBB -> News & Views

#1: Article in today's Observer Author: Ruth B, Location: Oxford, UK

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:24 pm
—

Quote:

Sunday August 12, 2007
The Observer

The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls
by Rosemary Davidson and Sarah Vine
Viking £18.99, pp304

You only have to take one look at the fantastic sales figures for The Dangerous Book for Boys (one year in the top 10 bestseller charts and counting, and now the subject of a bid from Disney for the film rights) to realise that it would only be a matter of seconds before a publisher had the astonishing wheeze of trying to repeat the formula, only this time for girls. And here it is: The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls. Congratulations, Viking: the cynicism involved in publishing a title predicated on recapturing the lost innocence of childhood and then flogging it for £18.99 a pop takes some chutzpah.

Like The Dangerous Book for Boys (exactly like), the design, illustrations, line-drawings, typeface and language are all deliberately retro-chic. But as anybody with even the most passing acquaintance with the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act might realise, invoking gender stereotypes from the interwar years is perhaps best described as 'problematic'.

Everybody thinks that children should move about more, climb trees, play outside and do more things that don't require constant adult supervision. The brilliance of The Dangerous Book for Boys is that it packaged these activities as fun. The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls, on the other hand, is an entirely different beast. Essentially, it is a primer for any girl whose ambition is to be a Fifties housewife.

The authors set out their stall in the very first chapter on needlecraft: 'Time was, most girls knew how to sew, embroider and generally do a range of fiddly things with yarn, thread and needles. Then came equality and feminism ... out went home economics. In came really useful stuff, like ... er ... learning to use a lathe.'

Please. Everybody - male and female - should know how to sew on a button, just as they should be taught how to cook. But to package these as 'Girl' activities alongside chapters on ponies and make-up isn't helpful to anyone. There are lots of activities and suggestions in the book that come into the category of harmless fun (although the great beauty of most craft and cookery books is that they employ a modern invention called 'photography' to help show you how), but, taken as a whole, it's not: it's retrogressive claptrap dressed up as nostalgia.

On the plus side, I can't imagine many girls will fall for it. Or not any I know outside of Edwardian children's books and ITV1's Heartbeat. Who are these girls who are keen to learn about the importance of adding 'well-rotted manure to your garden', who wish to sprout lentils for a 'tasty salad', make nettle soup because of its nutritious vitamin content and will be interested to learn that planting garlic alongside roses keeps greenfly away?

The same girls who might want help writing to Father Christmas while simultaneously absorbing the lessons on how to pluck their eyebrows, throw a 'flower fairy party', mark out a tennis court on their 'lawn' (or, a minor concession here to anyone who doesn't happen to live in a Georgian rectory with attached grounds, 'concrete yard') and temper chocolate, which, pay attention now, you have to heat until it reaches 40 degrees centigrade, cool until it's 27C and then heat again until it's 32C? What, you don't have a cooking thermometer? Just ask Mummy to get one when she's out buying an egg coddler, an Easter egg mould and a complete set of tennis whites.

Then there are things that 'every girl should know'. Every girl, that is, contemplating a life as a diplomatic wife in Anthony Eden's cabinet circa 1956: never cut your bread at dinner with a knife and always pin up your hair before bedtime and cover in a cotton cloth. What? But, then, these girls aren't meant to be the cleverest. There are some suggestions for homeopathic remedies for warts or, if that's not pseudo-scientific enough, you could always try a banana skin; there are also helpful chapters on palm-reading and horoscopes.

The great lie to this book is revealed in its suggested reading matter, although the authors, Sarah Vine and Rosemary Davidson, note that some of them 'may be out of print'. Really? You mean little girls don't read Georgette Heyer any more? Or Nancy Mitford and the Chalet School series? Well, hurrah for that, I say! It's almost enough to make you believe in progress.

I think my first view on reading this review was to think, "did small girls ever read Nancy Mitford and Georgette Heyer"? Then I was a bit disturbed that I sort of agreed with the sentiment. But is not reading books like CS really progress? When you consider that in the same newspaper a university professor was ranting at the inability of his students to spell or punctuate their essays properly, is the fact that young girls are no longer reading a series that contains a character such as Miss Annersley, who is so particular about the correct use of the English language, such a bad thing? I know she certainly influences my English usage!

#2: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:43 pm
—
Note that the reviewer didn't put in any of their own recommendations for what the girls of today should read -> I wonder would they approve of Dawson Creek novellas, or Bratz paperback comics? Rolling Eyes

#3: Re: Article in today's Observer Author: Lexi, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:59 am
—

Ruth B wrote:

I think my first view on reading this review was to think, "did small girls ever read Nancy Mitford and Georgette Heyer"?!

*waves hand nervously in the air*

I did! Very Happy

Still do, in fact!

#4: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:13 am
—
I certainly did, although perhaps not as a small girl - certainly as a young girl.

I must confess I found the review deeply unpleasant - I haven't read the book in question (yet! But I have nieces, and nieces need Christmas presents!), but some skills simply don't go out of style. We may or may not choose to eat mostly ready-meals from the supermarket, but we ought to know how to cook a meal from scratch. And we may not have gardens to tend right now, but if life is anything these days, it isn't static!

I think that sneering at skills because they are traditionally "feminine" is almost as bad as requiring young women only to learn such skills!

#5: Re: Article in today's Observer Author: Ray, Location: Bristol, England

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:14 am
—

Ruth B wrote:

But is not reading books like CS really progress? When you consider that in the same newspaper a university professor was ranting at the inability of his students to spell or punctuate their essays properly, is the fact that young girls are no longer reading a series that contains a character such as Miss Annersley, who is so particular about the correct use of the English language, such a bad thing? I know she certainly influences my English usage!

This is all well and good, but learning punctuation from EBD is a bad idea - and as good as Miss Annersley is with English, it's EBD's rather eccentric comma usage that has, regrettably, made more of an impression on me...

Ray *supposes some grammar's better than none, though...*

#6: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:14 am
—
I read Gergette Heyer and Nancy Mitford when I was young, and proud to say so.

#7: Author: Sarah_K, Location: St Albans

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:28 pm
—
I have to say there is a part of me that is disturbed by the way those two books portray gender, I know plenty of small girls who'd much prefer the Dangerous Books for boys!

On the otherhand I would have adored the Glorious Book for Girls (I remember bugging my parents to agree to buy me an oldfashioned treasury of girl's stories and recipes etc. when aged about Cool

and it seems stupid to dismiss the entire book.

Plus the wholesale dismissal of the CS and authors like Georgette Heyer seems shortsighted considering the rather brilliant female role models they present!

#8: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:41 pm
—
Our history teacher told us to read Georgette Heyer for an accurate portrayal of Regency life.

There's a place for girlie things and a place for boys' activities, but there's also a lot of common ground in the middle.

In general, we all need to get out more and be more active.

#9: Author: Sarah_K, Location: St Albans

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:44 pm
—

Jennie wrote:

Our history teacher told us to read Georgette Heyer for an accurate portrayal of Regency life.

One of my university lecturers told me that Georgette Heyer's Infamous Army was one of the best descriptions of the Battle of Waterloo she'd ever read!

#10: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:54 pm
—

Sarah_K wrote:

I have to say there is a part of me that is disturbed by the way those two books portray gender, I know plenty of small girls who'd much prefer the Dangerous Books for boys!

I think that perhaps where these things went wrong in earlier decades was in trying to stereotype such skills by gender. Everybody ought to learn at least some of the skills the reviewer was sneering at, whatever their gender, as, indeed, should everybody try at least some of the adventures/skills in the boys' book!

I think part of the problem was that there was, both in the 1920s and the 1950s, an over-reaction to the gender blurring that took place during the two World Wars. I rather suspect we are due for another one any decade now.... Which is probably not a Good Thing, but then pendulum swings seldom are.

#11: Author: Mia, Location: London

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:59 pm
—
Uck I bet I get twenty copies of this book for Christmas from the unimaginative aunts Sad

#12: Author: Catherine, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:48 pm
—
I seem to remember owning an 'Every Girl's Handbook' or something when I was a kid ...

I wonder what the reviewer identifies as a small girl? Personally, I wouldn't even class ten to twelve year olds as small girls and there can't be that many ten to twelve year olds interested in Georgette Heyer.

I never read Nancy Mitford but read Georgette Heyer as a teenager and I wouldn't say I was a small girl when I discovered the CS books.

Nor do I understand why the reviewer should consider it progress to have moved away from the likes of the CS ... yes, home economics is mentioned but then so are so many other things!

#13: Author: Squirrel, Location: St-Andrews or Dunfermline

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:50 pm
—
Home Eccy is very true to life today as well. Well, I'm not all *that* removed from school even now, and it was compulsory for us to take it, at least for the first 2 years of high school

#14: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:48 pm
—
From today's Times Online (scroll to end of linked page to see source):

Quote:

Gloriously girly

I have had a bit of a pounding recently about a book that I’ve co-written, The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls. Some people – mostly women – have taken offence at the unashamedly girlish content. They appear to think that just because it teaches you how to sew on a button this in some way betrays the feminist cause. First, they’re making a category error: this book is not supposed to be a cultural critique of modern girlhood: it’s a book of things to do. Second, everyone should know how to sew on a button, regardless of their age or sex, as not knowing will mean you go out and buy another cheap shirt manufactured in an East European sweat shop, thus only encouraging the exploitation of women less fortunate than you.

The problem is this: hardline feminists despise femininity. They don’t understand that taking back our femininity is not the same as having it imposed upon us. It is a subtle distinction but a vital one.

#15: Author: RroseSelavy, Location: Oxford, UK

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:45 pm
—

Mrs Redboots wrote:

I think that sneering at skills because they are traditionally "feminine" is almost as bad as requiring young women only to learn such skills!

Hurrah for such a sensible statement!

I haven't read this book but the author and some other woman were discussing it on the Today programme a few weeks ago. The non-author (can't remember who she was) was vehemently criticising the focus on 'feminine' things such as - oh, the disgust in her voice - sewing.

#16: Author: Gerrie, Location: Ireland

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:34 pm
—
Does anyone else still read Georgette Heyer? I love her books and only discovered them recently. I read the Observer article and laughed that all the authors she was dismissing were the ones who influenced me most!

#17: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:41 pm
—
Yes, I still read Georgette Heyer, and moan in the Library because they don't have all the titles.

I confess, I knit and sew, I cook and do feminine things, but I also garden, paint and decorate, and do whatever takes my fancy.

I made sure my two sons could cook, wash and iron before they left home, so they didn't starve when they had to cater for themselves.

#18: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:48 am
—

Gerrie wrote:

Does anyone else still read Georgette Heyer? I love her books and only discovered them recently. I read the Observer article and laughed that all the authors she was dismissing were the ones who influenced me most!

I certainly do, when I come across them. I only own a couple at the moment, These Old Shades (arguably her best ever!) and Devil's Cub, but occasionally pick something up in a charity shop.

#19: Author: Lexi, Location: Liverpool

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:41 am
—
I most certainly do! I've got all of them and am trying to get hardbacks when I find them cheap. I do love the old Pan paperbacks though, they smell lovely. I even have the rubbish and obscure ones like The Great Roxhythe (which was very difficult to get hold of when I bought it)

I've converted some of my friends to them as well Very Happy

#20: Author: Sarah_K, Location: St Albans

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:54 am
—
Did anyoen else watch the Stephen Fry weekend? In the programme about his guilty pleasures he included Georgette Heyer books (and mentioned he'd first read them in the San when he was still at school!) Laughing

#21: Author: Lisa, Location: South Coast of England

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:26 pm
—
Oh wonderful! I love Stephen Fry Very Happy

*pats him condescendingly on head*

Jennie said:

Quote:

I confess, I knit and sew, I cook and do feminine things, but I also garden, paint and decorate, and do whatever takes my fancy.

Moi aussi! I love reading Heyer, embroidering, making clothes, gardening
*whispers* even ironing has its attractions when accompanied by a glass of red & the BBC Pride & Prejudice - don't tell EBD
... does that make me less of a person because I enjoy these so-called 'girly' pursuits? Actually, no - it further enriches my life! Funnily enough, my female friends who don't 'do' sewing etc regard me as a bit of a tomboy because of my love of water sports. (Although I suppose that's quite CSesque! Smile

)

When I met the SLOC he was so fascinated by my needlecraft hobby that he actually cross stitched a small picture to give to his Nan and it still hangs on the wall to this day. I wonder what the article writer would make of that!

It's also amusing how many on the board have various academic qualifications and careers - I'm surprised we managed that! There are those that are independent women, mothers .... on this board there is such a wide range of people - those that love the typically feminine occupations and those that abhor them - but we are all characterised by our enjoyment of EBD and more generally the Girls' Own genre - so clearly the appeal is both wide-ranging and doesn't cause damage Laughing

*re-reads post and sighs. Oh to be concise and witty Rolling Eyes

#22: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:47 pm
—
I find the contrast between this book and the Dangerous Book for Boys alarming and reactionary, but I entirely reject the link between reading Heyer, the CS and Mitford as a small girl and some kind of fragrant 1950s version of 'femininity' - whatever that term means in any specific context. (I am indubitably female - am I therefore also 'feminine' by default? Despite the fact that I neither embroider nor pluck my eyebrows, have a cleaner and a partner who does all the cooking? Though I did make a lemon yogurt cake yesterday, just for kicks.) One doesn't suck one's notions in an undiluted way from individual authors - even at the age of ten the expectation of various CS parents that their daughters will come home at nineteen to 'help Mummy' with managing the house, arranging the flowers and wrangling the younger fry, made me roll my eyes. Neither did reading lots of Mitford make me assume that having a hunter and a London season was an indispensable way of making my debut in the world!

I think the author of the review quoted needs to give young girls credit for being critical readers, who recognise the historicity of novels! Let's face it, if all of us on this board drew our adult values undilutedly from the CS books, we'd be regarding careers and marriage as an either/or situation.

#23: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:12 am
—

Sarah_K wrote:

Did anyoen else watch the Stephen Fry weekend? In the programme about his guilty pleasures he included Georgette Heyer books (and mentioned he'd first read them in the San when he was still at school!) Laughing

We watched it, and I commented to my SLOC that it was seriously scary how many of Fry's pleasures I shared!!!

#24: Author: ibarhis, Location: Dunstable

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:25 pm
—
Although I find the review unnecessarily unpleasant, I looked at the book several weeks ago with a view to buying it for the daughter of a friend of mine but decided that the only people I could possibly give it to were sufficiently into irony to appreciate the content of the book rather than its tone! (Probably over 40 at that...)

#25: Author: Gerrie, Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:42 pm
—
Wow. Stephen Fry loves Georgette Heyer! - now I can hold my head up to my friends who slag me for reading them. All of the Heyer books have been re-released by the way by Arrow which is how I got into them. I agree, Mrs Redboots, These Old Shades is fantastic, but I think Sylvester is my favourite...though An Infamous Army is great as well....and Venetia, The Toll Gate, The Nonesuch (I can't pick one!) I just think she is one of the best writers I have ever read. Apparantly Noel Coward read her for her technique. I love the way her books build up into hilarious french farce by the end. And isn't Stephen Fry just the best?

#26: Author: Jennie, Location: Cambridgeshire

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:55 pm
—
I also love the Mapp and Lucia books, where Georgie (male) loves doing his needlepoint and cooking.

I don't think cooking and sewing necessarily makes me a girlie girl. I do plenty of other things, and in fact can change a car wheel, change the oil if need be, and am the only person who ever cleans out the car.

The way I look at it is that I have a lot of life skills of the sort that everyone ought to have. Cooking helps me to stay alive, and in my case never involves wearing a frilly apron and mascara.

I have worn a skirt twice this year, so far, which is a record for me.

#27: Author: Rosie, Location: Land of Three-Quarters Sky

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:38 pm
—
It hadn't crossed my mind that the book was meant to be taken seriously as a lesson for small girls... I found the boys' one was like Scouting for Boys without the Scouting!

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

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:29 pm
—
I skimmed through this last night, and if you set aside the sexual stereotyping aspect of it it's actually quite good. Okay, some bits are a bit patronising in the way they're worded, but a lot of the stuff in it is actually quite useful.

I have to say though, it might have been an idea if the authors had reaccquainted themselves with the books they were recommending BEFORE they wrote their descriptions of them. I've spotted two errors already.
Apparently in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, the children are fighting to stop the White Witch from plunging Narnia into perpetual night....
Eternal winter - yes, Perpetual night - no!!!

And apparently in the CS series "Madge Bettany sets up a school in the Austrian Tyrol for her sister Joey, whose health is too fragile for the treacherous London fogs...."
Now, I know EBD DID suffer some confusion about whether Taverton was in Cornwall or Devon, but even she wasn't muddled enough to confuse the West Country with London!!! Rolling Eyes

(Sorry, someone woke my inner pedant! I'll try and get it back in its box!)

But hey, a mention of CS in something fairly mainstream is always good anyway, AND they're encouraging kids to go looking for secondhand books (they suggest using ABE ) a valuable life skill to accquire! Wink

#29: Author: Mrs Redboots, Location: London, UK

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:43 am
—
There was an extremely good review of it in this week's Spectator by Juliet Townsend. Here are two extracts:

Quote:

The Great Big Glorious Book for Girls is a handsome volume in the same format as the boys' version. While it is obviously intended to benefit from the success of The Dangerous Book for Boys, it is well worth possessing in its own right. The authors cover most areas of expertise, one being a practical country type and the other urban and domestic. Natacha Ledgidge's illustrations reinforce the deliberate feeling of nostalgia. This is a loving journey back to childhood as it was in the 1950s, but it is none the worse for that . . .

The sections on make-up and boys are probably the least useful, as girls would be more likely to get this sort of advice from magazines, but the range of suggested activities is excellent and would be a real boon for anyone organising a children's holiday club or a traditional birthday party. Above all, it ensures that there is no excuse for that maddening holiday moan, 'I can't think of anything to do.'

The full review can be read here

#30: Author: NineLivesBurra, Location: York, North Yorks

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:49 pm
—
I read Georgette Heyer as a child.....I read almost anything.......lol.

I don't like the review, to be honest and I agree that the author seems to feel that anything feminine is bad......so strange really. Someone once told me that I would get more flies with honey and by being feminine, I could get far more.... Smile

I love being feminine.....lol.

The CBB -> News & Views

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

Page 1 of 1