Posted by Ed Kiser on July 15, 2002 at 20:05:36 from 64.12.96.103 user Kisered.
In Reply to: The things that AR did not tell us posted by Mike S on July 06, 2002 at 22:01:23:
I did a scan on the five lake-based stories, and I find the word
"crossbow" only used twice - same event really - when she fired
a message-arrow from the rear of the launch into the shore of
the bay where the John was at work on the repair of the mast.
The text says she fired the crossbow at the shore, and that she
then tucked the crossbow away out of sight.
There is no other references to the "crossbow".
I had often wondered just where would Nancy get such a weapon.
Perhaps it was one of the oddities that Jim Turner kept in his
study. But in any detailed discussion of that interesting room,
where so many other oddities were listed, there is no mention of
there being a crossbow in that room. In Pigeon Post and Picts and
Martyrs is found the more detailed descriptions of that room.
When the Amazons first encountered the Swallows on Wild Cat, they
used at that time a more conventional bow and arrow. Even as a
child, I was somewhat concerned that they actually FIRED an arrow
at the Swallows, which missed, thanks to John's quick command to
fall on their faces so the arrow passed harmlessly over head. It
concerned me as to what would have happened if they had not dropped
at the precise moment to avoid that arrow.
Having gone through my childhood years in the late '30's and mid
'40's, the idea of playing "war" was a common play concept,
consisting mostly of pointing a finger at someone, saying "BANG!
You're dead." Followed by the target's observation, "No I'm not,
you MISSED." Then the argument followed as to who got whom.
In spite of that background, it seemed to bother me, even as a
child, that from time to time, these RANSOME people were to play
at "war". Maybe it was that at the time it was written, it was
around the same time that I was playing "war" in some vacant lot
also. Maybe it simply was the thing to do during those times,
where the idea of "war" was not a game, but was ominous in its
potential reality.
The worst moment in their Play "war", was in Secret Water, when
the Amazons went on the side of the Eels, and actually attacked
the Swallows. This attack actually resulted in blows being
exchanged, including one in which John rammed his head into Nancy's
gut, which could really hurt someone. For John to hurt Nancy
no matter what the game, just upset me. I think that is a good
deal of the reason why I did not particularly care for Secret Water,
because HE HIT HER and HURT HER. That should not be the case.
Pointing a finger and saying, "BANG you're dead", now that did
no harm, but ramming his head into her gut - that was just not
right. I did not like it then; I am still bothered by that now.
There was one other time it seemed that the Swallows and the Amazons
supposedly went to "war", and that was when the Amazons tried to
sneak up on the camp at Swallowdale, but due to their red caps,
were spotted as they crawled up to the area, so the Swallows
were able to grab their camp and disappear into Peter Duck's
cave, so the Amazons would up rushing up to attack - nothing -
there seemed to be no one there. Once the Swallows showed
their presence, the original idea of "war" seemed to be forgotten
over the surprise over finding such a neat hide-out in that cave.
I still think it is a bit strange how as a child, I played "war"
but for my dear Ransome friends to do it against each other,
especially in a manner that actually caused any pain, such was
not acceptable as "play". We kids played, but we did not try to
hurt each other. Now, maybe other kids played a bit more
violently, but we did not - it was just a game. The worst
thing we ever shot at each other was a water pistol, loaded with
some very cheap perfume so it became obvious if you were hit.
Nobody in our games got hurt. Nancy did get hurt. Should never
have happened. I hated it.
Ed Kiser (enjoying those daily thundstorms and
downpours in S. Florida)