Posted by Fred Boynton on October 22, 2005 at 15:18:44 from 63.21.80.177 user Voyager.
[Memo to self: Lighten up!] Nevertheless, after reading the several articles on AR's technique, I wonder why he introduces Bob Blackett ("BB") the way he does? All the other off-stage parents in the books are accounted for sooner rather than later: In SA the Sws' father is known right away to be on duty in the Navy; in CC the absense of Mrs. Farland is explained early on by the boatman taking the Ds and Mrs. Barrable to the Teasel (she had died when the twins were babies).
Yet it is not until SD that the reader learns about BB. But we could have learned about him as early as the peace parley in SA, when something like, John: "Our father's in the Navy; what does yours do?" would have been a natural part of getting to know each other. I have to wonder if AR didn't "save" BB for this SD moment, though from the articles I have read he doesn't seem to have planned ahead as J.K. Rowling has with her H. Potter books.
If AR had not used the Kanchenjunga climb incident in SD, the Ams' father would have been an unexplained character, which appears to be unlike AR to let happen (in today's world would the Ams' mother be a single parent, their father(s) unknown? Pleasant thought!). Because the Sws' father is alive, he is mentioned in all the books with the Sws in them, just as the Ds' off-stage parents are mentioned in books with the Ds in them. Because the books can be read independently, though better in order, one might expect BB to be explained in all the books with the Ams in them. Here is the relevant text from SD:
In SD the Sws and Ams have climbed Kanchenjunga and find the cairn. AR spends a whole page leading up to Roger's finding the loose stone and the cache behind it (tin box with a folded bit of paper and a farthing). Godine '88 ed., p.335: (Nancy) "...began reading it aloud, and then stopped. Peggy took it and read it aloud, while the others looked at it over her shoulder." The names of Molly Turner, J Turner and BB are on the paper. "'That's mother and Uncle Jim,' said Peggy in a queer voice. 'Who is Bob Blackett?' asked Susan. 'He was father,' said Nancy." (The utter simplicity of that statement! Today we would get a page of sentimental stuff following it.) "Nobody said anything for a minute, and then Titty, looking at the paper, said, 'So that's what they called it. Well, it's Kanchenjunga now. It's no good changing it now we've climbed it.' 'That was thirty years ago,' said John." And BB is soon forgotten.
So why does AR have Susan ask, "Who is Bob Blackett?" He has Peggy identify MT and JT as "mother and Uncle Jim," and she could have identified BB at the same time; but Susan's separate question makes isolating BB in Nancy's answer possible. In the end it just looks as though AR needed to inform the reader about BB so he could go on to make his point.
At any rate, logical glitch or not, I think AR's goal here is to deal gently with a "big issue"--death, but a distant past one that would not unduly upset the normally positive world of the books. And as usual, he presents it from the children's point of view: As a matter of fact, they were alive; BB wasn't.
Naturally the Ams are affected more than the Sws, as BB was their father, so it is Titty who picks up the action. The Ams might not have had a chance to know him (miltary career, etc.), so that he was more unreal than real to them. So his name on the folded paper would have made him more tangible than ever--he really HAD been alive at one time. But after the minute of silence, because no one knew what to say in a situation like that, life--the eternal life of children--goes on. From SA, Mrs. Dixon: "But perhaps you'll be coming again next year." "Every year, for ever and ever," said Titty. "Aye," said Mrs. Dixon, "we all think that when we're young," informing the reader of the POV of the whole series.
Sidebar: To judge by some of AR's critics who find his stories too idealistic, would they prefer a story line in which Nancy's answer to Susan's question might read, "That...(expletive deleted)...was my...(expletive deleted)...father!"? Note the selfish "my" instead of "our," though Peggy is present. How uplifting! How to excuse such a Nancy's (hence the reader's) lack of personal responsibility, denying Nancy (and the reader) the empowering trait of self-confidence (the little engine that could), epitomised by the "real" Nancy. [Memo to self: I SAID lighten up!]
Fred Boynton, SW Florida