Re: "I don't believe you..."


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Ed Kiser on November 17, 2003 at 14:56:24 from 64.12.96.8 user Kisered.

In Reply to: Re: "I don't believe you..." posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett on November 17, 2003 at 10:31:46:

Andrew-

It is not so much doubt on the part of the adults, but its the children that show doubt in each other. Susan seems to be the one with the greatest lack of faith, as she is the one to claim that somebody is just dreaming, or "ragging" as she put it.

Of course, in BS, there is the situation of doubting adults, as that is the theme of the whole plot, and in SA, CF thought the Swallows set fire to his roof, and later, suspected them of doing the burglary, but when you look at the other cases, its the children that are doubting each other.

Roger for some reason has the reputation of unbelievability, and yet what it really is not a case of being untrustworthy, but just willing to play a joke perhaps, or kid around. But he is obedient to an obsession: "You said to put on TWO of everything." [SA] They got impatient with him when he seemed to be slow to identify where he found the gold, but he was just milking that victory for all it was worth.

Nancy seemed to sense some doubt about Roger. "After all, Roger will be Roger." But what is the origin or basis of her doubt? The only thing there is that he is the youngest, but that in itself does not justify their lack of belief.

Titty gets a lot of disbelief, based on her tendancy to make up stories, so her telling of hearing the burglars in the night is just laughed off, primarily by Susan. Yet when Dorothea took over the typecast of being the story teller, she did not suffer the indignity of not being believable, in fact, she was greatly respected, as being the driving force in the solution of the problem in BS. Of course, the D's had the disadvantage of having grown up in towns, and to the others, that is a definite problem, but they had to prove themselves, by their use of ice skates, by his ability with "stinks", as the professor in PP. Even though he made a mistake in his identification of gold, he was still believed until CF proved him in error.

Other than inexperience, and youthfulness, there is no event that can be used as a basis of anyone not believing another, yet they have these doubts. Maybe it is the "nativeness" in Susan that makes her so quick to doubt the truth in the reports of the younger ones.

They may have made mistakes, but there was never any attempt to lie. So Titty got lost in the fog in SD. So Titty was a bit careless about watching the time and was a bit late in getting to the Wade in SW. But again, it was Titty that captured the Amazon in SA. It was Titty that found the well in PP.

Perhaps these doubts are just methods used by the author to enrich the plot.

"A good name is more valuable than great riches."

Ed Kiser, South Florida


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
Eel-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first

Before posting it is necessary to be a registered user.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]

Courtesy of Environmental Science, Lancaster

space