Posted by Peter Hyland on March 16, 2006 at 13:52:40 from 86.130.136.36 user Peter_H.
Foreword:
This posting is not directed at any particular person, but at anyone who might care to read it. My intention is NOT to try to tell people what they may or may not post, nor to try indirectly to ‘censor’ Tarboard in any way, nor to 'score points' or anything like that.
The Importance of Beckfoot
This imaginary house surely holds a special place in the minds of all Ransome lovers. It is at the heart of the ‘Lake’ books. We all have our own ‘picture’ of it – my own ‘picture’ has been with me since childhood and a first reading of S&A. I can see it in my mind’s eye now – I know where each room is, and where things are. I can see Capn Flint’s study, and I also know exactly e.g. where Peggy picked up the bellows. But my image is totally personal to me – other people no doubt have their own images, all different (as, of course, did AR himself). I am perfectly happy with my ‘Beckfoot’, but I would never, ever, try to foist my ‘picture’ of Beckfoot on anyone else.
Pinning down the Butterfly
I think it is because Beckfoot is so central in the stories and because it is so beloved to each of us, that it can invoke very strong feelings, as has been seen on this board recently. I would like, therefore, to make a plea, a polite heartfelt request, that we do not try to pin down every last detail in this wonderful house. Yes, I know it can be ‘fun’ for some, to charge gleefully in and speculate to the last centimetre where the knives and forks are kept or whatever, but when the whole of Beckfoot has been mapped out, what has been achieved? For some of us, what has been achieved is the smashing of a dream, a reduction of a wonderful mythical place down to the level of an estate agent’s ground-plan. It isn’t just Beckfoot either – other places and events are subjected to this ruthless harsh analysis. John taking his pyjamas off to loosen the guy-ropes in the rain has just been given the ‘treatment’. It is all an attempt to ‘pin down the butterfly’, to clip a bird’s wings so that it cannot fly and make sure you can hold it close whenever you want. Yes, this can be done, but the freedom and the magic have flown away . . .
I think it should be remembered more often that AR wrote for children, not adult males with PC’s. He pared his text right down, to give the necessary framework for his young readers but at the same time to leave them room to use their imagination, and to ‘inhabit’ the world he had created on their own terms. I feel he would be aghast if he knew of all the analysis and various interpretations being imposed on his simple text now. (To avoid any ambiguity, I must make it clear that I am not decrying in any way the useful examination of words and phrases which may not make sense to overseas readers, particularly in the Anglo-American sphere – Ed Kiser does fine work in this area, and it is appreciated.)
Love of Ransome
There is one other point I’d like to make. The much-criticised Arthur Ransome Society (TARS) until recent years had a policy of funding sailing adventure weekends on the Broads for deprived youngsters every year (Peter R will know about these). They have been discontinued, I think, for lack of current resources, but I would like to see them recommence at some point. TARS also still regularly sends complete sets of AR to the less well-off schools in Britain. I can’t help having an overwhelming feeling at the moment that this is a positive and constructive way to promote love of Ransome’s work, and I really wonder whether things have got a bit out of proportion here on Tarboard. An unfair comparison? Maybe, but it keeps coming into my head.
Please, let’s get back to the stories and the magic, and not keep trying to work out how the ‘conjuror’ did it!