Posted by Duncan on May 19, 2003 at 10:54:17 from 152.163.252.103 user Duncan.
In Reply to: Re: Regular topics posted by alan truelove on May 18, 2003 at 20:55:33:
It's interesting because the points you picked out on class aren't the points that interest me in the slightest!!
I think it depends how you approach the text. Not having children and only being allowed to teach grown-ups and being a social historian (a labour historian - I can't escape class if I want to!!!) I've never approached a discussion of class in AR from the perspective of deciding whether they are 'suitable' reading for kids, but instead approached it from the point of view of literary and historical study.
And my conclusions have always tended to lean towards AR being quite unusual in his genre (in so far as his books fit a certain genre) in depicting surprisingly non-elitist, equitable societies (despite the fact that MOST of our heroes are 'privelaged').
(Incidentally, in some ways the D&Gs are more 'free' than the other coots, aren't they?)
I have to confess that if a discussion about AR and class was about whether or not his books are suitable for children I would probably lean towards Peter's feelings about it... Obviously books written in other eras will have references that need explaining and they're not always the easiest to explain (there is the occasional bit of... I think racism would be putting it much too strongly, but casual stereotyping and the use of terms that were then common currency but would now be considered offensive) - but the SA books are among the most readily 'translatable' of texts. What I find so refreshing (still!) about AR's work is the fact that the books are still terribly funny. I've trawled through inter-war newspapers and read just about every 'joke page' that many unwisely chose to include, and I have to say I cracked my face about twice - that's after probably 100,000 + jokes... And yet I giggle to myself delightedly throughout SA books.
But go through some early Agatha Christie... Biggles (I think, perhaps Biggles ISN'T suitable for kids to be honest)... AR's books stand the test of time far better than those of many of his contemporaries.
I suppose one reason why I'm terribly interested in AR's depiction of class relations is because I'm still pursuing my thesis that AR was a socialist (after the William Morris school) and I feel I keep finding things to back up my view.
The two or three 'class' points that you picked out would seem to counteract the points I made... But I suspect that they aren't class points, really. 'Miss Nancy' - just polite language-use I suspect, and we've nothing to compare whether they would have called a less 'privelaged' girl 'Miss' whoever. Most of the girls get called Miss, but Master Roger or Master John is pretty rare (if ever?)
As for Nancy 'pulling rank' on the policeman - I suspect that had far more to do with Nancy's character and the fact that they'd always known each other than because of suggestion that Nancy was 'pulling rank'.
But I agree with you about the holidays - but they would have been very different books if the children had to stay at home and do a few shifts down the pits...