Posted by Peter Ceresole on August 18, 2007 at 20:52:10 from 80.176.146.133 user PeterC.
In Reply to: Re: 'Toff' ruled out (was Amazons Toffs? posted by Peter H on August 18, 2007 at 19:06:39:
I submit that after a session on-line, the following definitions rule out any chance at all that any of the Turners are toffs:
Actually, this is a very interesting discussion, but if reality is to intrude... I reckon that AR knew the Turners (and the Walkers) in his water, and expected his readers to know them too. I certainly did, and never asked myself any questions about his intentions. Anybody who has lived in Britain or its colonies would know. It's like knowing the gender of French nouns; I don't know why I know, and neither do most French people, but they do. It's that bred-in-the bone stuff. And AR used it with great skill to create fascinating characters- he was nothing if not a wonderful story teller and craftsman and as a result told stories that contained much essential truth. Anthony Powell put it perfectly (he usually did):
People think that because a novel's invented, it isn't true. Exactly the reverse is the case. Because a novel's invented, it's true. Biography and memoirs can never be wholly true, since they can't include every conceivable circumstance of what happened. The novel can do that. The novelist lays it down. His decision is binding.
This doesn't mean that these discussions aren't huge fun and very interesting; they are, and are all part of the pleasure of Ransome.