Posted by Peter H on February 24, 2008 at 13:48:03 from 86.147.155.117 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: This isn't about 'dinner' posted by Jock on February 23, 2008 at 20:05:51:
On the question that Duncan raised about “ whether, subtly and unobtrusively, AR gives any similar, 'political' advice to his more supportive young readers” it might be relevant here to turn to the opinions of the late Paul Foot. Paul Foot was firmly on the left of the political spectrum and wrote accordingly. He was also a fan of AR. He tackled the “Are the S&A books political?” question thus:
“Here is [AR] writing this most wonderful revolutionary propaganda, and then writing these books about children. Is there a connection? I think a ‘Dave Spart’ figure would say there were some parts of the children’s activities that were communistic. I think that’s rubbish. I think he enjoyed the children’s stories for their own sake . . . . . He respected the imagination of children, and that’s what the whole education system is designed to suppress, isn’t it? . . . I think the success of his books is that they encourage imagination and independence. This is true of all good children's literature - that the adults hardly appear. You don’t want to strain it, or make some stupid elementary thing about how there’s an inevitable connection. There isn’t an inevitable connection, but deep in the recesses is the belief that human beings are pretty good really”
(Reproduced with acknowledgments from a talk given to TARS in 1993 and republished in Mixed Moss in 2004)
I think that the above analysis, albeit an informal one (Paul Foot used very few notes), is hard to better – bang on target. (Also a few justified rounds of ‘artillery’ as well.) I agree that AR was only really concerned with the nature and personalities of his characters, and saying that most people are decent at heart if given the chance.
Which brings me to Captain Flint. Yes, he does get sympathetic treatment, but surely that is because he is a good bloke. He is also quite real – he is no ‘plaster saint’. As regards the social side of things, CF could be said to have been fortunate in that he appeared to have the means to support himself and do much travelling. We know he wasn’t extremely wealthy, because he needed the proceeds of ‘Mixed Moss’. I am not sure about him leading “a fairly leisurely life”. From the texts, he seems to have put a lot of energy (and possibly funds) into opening up mines:
“But it’s copper we’ve been trying for,” said Captain Flint. . . . . . “It’s just as we guessed above Pernambuco . . .” (Pigeon Post)
“You’ve never seen the mine since Slater Bob and Timothy and Captain Flint really got working on it,” said Peggy . . . . . . but if old Bob and Timothy and Captain Flint had put such a lot of work into it, that prospecting . . . must really have been a success.” (The Picts and the Martyrs)
CF strikes me as being perhaps a 19th century figure, seeking his fortune overseas as well as at home, as many young men from reasonably prosperous families did. But only “reasonably prosperous” – if the families were immensely prosperous, the men would join the business and keep it going or, alternatively, do nothing at all. It was where there was a bit of money but not much, that you got Captain Flints. But I am wandering into speculation, which won’t do. I suggest for a true evaluation of CF, try the Chapter “The Uses of an Uncle” in Winter Holiday.