ext_22937 ([identity profile] lilliburlero.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] trennels2014-06-20 06:31 pm

Readthrough: The Marlows and The Traitor Chapters 1 & 2

The Marlows and the Traitor takes place over four and a half days, and the chapters are arranged accordingly, so I thought the schedule might go something like this:

20th June: Chapters 1 & 2 (Wednesday)
27th June: Chapters 3-76 (Thursday) [addendum: the volume of commentary got a bit unmanageable, so I did four chapters instead of five]
4th July: Chapters 7-10 (Thursday Night (2), Friday and Saturday Morning)
11th July: Chapters 11-13 (Saturday Afternoon and Sunday Morning*)

(*wh. sounds like a little-known novel by a Mildly Miffed Young Man)

Author's Note: I took this to refer to the problem of Dartmouth changing its minimum entrance age from 13 to 16, then 18, which means that a 14-year-old Peter could not be a cadet at the time of publication in 1953. But on re-reading it, I was struck by Forest's comment "the happenings described must have taken place between September 1946 and May 1949". Well, the novel is very clearly set at the Easter holidays after Autumn Term, and in the next book, Falconer's Lure, we learn that it is summer 1948. So I haven't a notion what she's on about here. Anyone care to enlighten?



The opening paragraphs are wonderfully atmospheric, I think, and much of the success of Traitor relies on the creation of atmosphere above all.

Retrospective mortification is one of Forest's motifs, and 'the boat thing' is a splendid instance of it. She withholds the details from us--all we know at this stage is that there's been some incident at Dartmouth involving a boat, and he was thoroughly told off for it ('blistering ticking-off on the hard' is a great phrase). We don't even know by whom Peter was reprimanded yet. I think that works really well to suggest Peter's mental skirting around the issue: he keeps going over it, and yet it is also in a sense too painful even to be fully articulated to us, the readers, in his internal monologue.

"As a family, the Marlows were rather good at minding their own business." I'm not sure, objectively, how true this is, but they are certainly an unsentimental bunch. It is rather wonderfully echoed in the more deeply dysfunctional independence of the Foleys. I am at the same time, ineffably touched by Nicola's friendship with Robert Anquetil, and her general gift for friendships with adults (see also her détente with the rebarbative Edwin). But that is for another day.

Family liking: a fascinating subject in the series, I think. Forest is either nodding or being very subtle here: in Autumn Term Nicola says Rowan is "the nicest" after Giles, here we're told Nick "liked Peter the best" after Giles. There's perhaps a difference between "the nicest" (which Rowan, for all her many virtues, surely is not) and "liking someone best", or perhaps Forest just didn't check. Giles is Peter's favourite too, which strikes me as unlikely, and not just because of my well-documented feelings about Marlow, G.A.: I'd imagine that Peter feels rather as if he's got to live up to Giles, which isn't, in my (admittedly not first-hand) experience of sibling relationships, a recipe for cordiality.

Pam Marlow's tendency to slightly impulsive financial blow-outs is surely a reaction to the years of struggling on a lieutenant's pay with a growing brood of children, and I think it's a lovely character detail. In a discussion elsewhere I was reminded of the hostility of certain 1970s theorists of children's literature to the upper-middle-class values and milieu of the Marlows, and especially to the representation of a family that educates its children privately, and later, owns horses and so forth, as 'hard-up'. One does get the sense that Forest, like many authors of the mid-20th century, felt that there was a certain romance in being posh-but-broke, even perhaps a kind of make-do-and-mend moral superiority in it. But although the Marlows don't seem to know the grinding anxieties of actual poverty, their financial situation is sometimes represented as difficult enough to cause more than inconvenience. Any thoughts or feelings?

Related: the Thorpes are clearly Lower Middle Class and Nouveau Riche, as demonstrated by the tight, bright nether garments of the female members of the family. The Marlow children's recoil from Johnnie is unsentimentally and accurately done, I think but also reveals considerable snobbery.

Nicola's seasickness is a delightful detail, and I love the reference to Hornblower and Nelson suffering from the same ailment. To it, and to some interesting points about Marlow interactions which reflect rather poorly on the senior and naval members of the family, we will recur.

The Fancy Dress Dance is rather marvellously postwar austerity amusement. My grandfather (b.1919) retained a taste for this sort of fun well into old age, much to the exasperation of his juniors, so I associate it with the War Generation. But Peter and Ginty are notably unkeen (it's a beautiful detail that Peter even manages to relate this to his possible failure to be a good naval officer, joining in 'festivities in foreign ports') while Lawrie, of course, delights in the opportunity to act and show off. Cant you just see her doing this to her siblings' total mortification?

Peter's poor taste in friends likewise delights me--and is of course related to his rave for Foley. What do people make of Foley's offer of a lift to Selby? [ETA content warning in re: the comments: discussion of possible grooming for sexual abuse]

Peter's fear and Nicola's nonchalance as the storm begins to get up in neatly done, I think: Peter's fears and his overcoming of them (not always successfully) is another motif. This brings us to a continuity error, which I was not competent to diagnose, but which was pointed out to me by [livejournal.com profile] legionseagle. Foley simply doesn't, it seems, have time to moor Talisman and be sauntering along the prom by the time he is depicted as doing so. And where exactly has he left Talisman, given that he takes her out again that afternoon? Nor does he seem to have been made very damp by the storm he's just been at sea in. They must be super oilskins he's got. In some ways that's a shame, because had Forest noted it, Peter might well have explained away Foley's behaviour as a matter of pride--not wanting to acknowledge a pupil when he's in a state of considerable dishevelment, when, of course, the real reason is both exactly that and rather more sinister. There's also the question of where exactly St Anne's-Byfleet is, to which we shall also recur. There is something uncanny about Foley, though, as if Peter's account of 'the boat thing' has summoned him from the sea: and perhaps the unsettling effect of that is worth a small sacrifice of realism.

That Foley's failure to acknowledge Peter is related by Nicola to The 39 Steps always puts a smile on my face.





Mrs Marlow's worries are very realistically sketched, I think: she's normally unflappable, but the tensions of managing the eight of them do sometimes explode into the anger of fright.

I also greatly enjoy Ginty's adolescent discomfort at the thought of drawing attention to herself, despite her somewhat oddly-described good looks: greeny-blue eyes tilted like a squirrel's sound spooky, and her teasing her mother by calling her Momma (presumably American, and thus vulgar?)

The family's horror at Peter's outright rudeness to Johnnie Thorpe seems a little hypocritical, given that he is only saying directly what they have all more or less made clear to Johnnie they think. But it's a great piece of social observation nonetheless.

Lawrie's borrowing Nicola's knife as a good-luck charm is a nice little point (it must work on a principle of magical inversion, since that knife has not conspicuously brought luck in the past) and there's surely a little submerged verbal joke on the name of Foley's cutter there. Talismans might after all, be evil.

Nicola and Peter's discussion of Foley possibly having a twin creates further resonance between the Foley family and the Marlows, but also with The Prince and the Pauper.

I enjoy the little episode with the pony, and Nicola's reflection on Peter's prep school master's comment on his diving. I do sometimes feel that in re: bravery, Forest is extraordinarily tough on her characters. If you funk, you feel the full weight of authorial disapproval, but if you attempt--as Peter sometimes does to the point of foolhardiness--to confront fear (and Peter's of heights is close to phobia rather than just normal trepidation in the face of danger) you also earn a sideswipe.

The Mariners passage is a favourite of mine: I love the atmospherics of discovery, the differences between Nicola and Peter's reactions to the crows' nest (I sympathise with both!) Nicola's eerie intuition when she sees Talisman.

I'm struck again by the glimpse of Pam Marlow's character: having been furious at Peter and Nicola's irresponsibility earlier, she now thinks nothing of waltzing off and leaving them under Ginty's supervision for days. Obviously this is mainly for Plot Purposes, but it chimes interestingly with the story of Geoff and Pam's engagement and marriage in the face of opposition from her mother (which Forest invents rather later on). It implies a marriage that's still rather impulsively passionate (perhaps long separations help here) after twenty-odd years. I'm rather touched. Still, it doesn't show very good judgement--there are plenty of 15-year-olds who could be trusted to look after their younger siblings, especially in the controlled environment of a hotel, but Ginty might well not be one of them.

Finally, Lawrie's sending up of Nicola's wanting to see the ships at Farrant is deliciously barbed and squirmy, playing beautifully on that separation of home and professional/school life that is such a nice feature of the books. And of course Lawrie's sending-up 'voice' is yet another nod to her talent for acting.



Well, that's it from me. Looking forward to your comments--have at it.

[identity profile] biskybat.livejournal.com 2014-06-21 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)
The above from me - forgot to sign in.
hooloovoo_42: (Default)

[personal profile] hooloovoo_42 2014-06-22 12:29 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, my mother was left alone as a primary age child, when her parents went out to work at 6am. In a house with an open fire!

If Ginty was past the compulsory school leaving age, she was probably deemed to be old enough to look after the younger ones.
hooloovoo_42: (Default)

[personal profile] hooloovoo_42 2014-06-22 12:32 am (UTC)(link)
If the twins are third form, they'd be 11 or 12. Do we ever know when their birthday is?
hooloovoo_42: (Default)

[personal profile] hooloovoo_42 2014-06-22 12:34 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think the "genteel poverty" is just an English/British thing. I would expect that many European middle class families were similar at that time.

[identity profile] schwarmerei1.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 07:18 am (UTC)(link)
You don't think the class stratifications were more entrenched in post WW2 British society compared to continental Europe?
hooloovoo_42: (Default)

[personal profile] hooloovoo_42 2014-06-22 08:05 am (UTC)(link)
I can't make any judgement on whether class is/was more or less entrenched, but I don't think that Britain was the only place that the situation occurred.

[identity profile] thekumquat.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 09:58 am (UTC)(link)
It was the only one translated into German, IIRC. I'd love to read that.

(Anonymous) 2014-06-22 09:59 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, the second man is a mystery. Why did Foley stop for Selby at all but then why not? Most people would have. Selby wasn't to know there was anything fishy about the other man.

I still think Foley was simply covering himself so that he could say to Selby if necessary and in a roundabout way not to mention the other man. Disquieting enough on its own and not what you'd expect from a teacher especially from that kind of rigid environment.

Children who'd had experience of being sexually threatened would recognise it in fiction; I still don't think a 13 year old who hadn't would think of it and I can't see why they would unless it's made explicit. Perhaps I was a particularly niaive child but I clearly missed out on references that were obvious on returning to the same book as an adult.

[identity profile] intrepid--fox.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 09:59 am (UTC)(link)
Early summer holidays, not that it's ever mentioned, but Nicola is 13 in FL and still 13 in RMF, and it's not mentioned as an event in Cricket term, which suggests it's after the end of term. Also, the fact that she's carrying around Giles's present of a wallet in FL suggests that it's a recent gift, I think.

[identity profile] biskybat.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 10:00 am (UTC)(link)
Sorry, missed the sign in again. Comes of doing things in a hurry.

[identity profile] occasionalhope.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 11:04 am (UTC)(link)
Also, one Birthday Treat is the Chichester Festival, which was a summer thing.
hooloovoo_42: (Default)

[personal profile] hooloovoo_42 2014-06-22 11:43 am (UTC)(link)
I agree that many private schools aren't rigid in their year groups. A friend of mine's birthday was 1 September, but as she went to the High School from Kindergarten upwards, she was allowed to move up into the higher year.

My birthday is July, so I was always one of the youngest. At our state comprehensive, I managed to skip a year by doing an accelerated O level course and going straight from 4th year to 6th form, so was only 6 weeks older than some kids doing O level when I took my A levels. The disadvantage of doing that rather than moving up earlier was that we missed a whole year of the Hard Sums and practicals that were the bedrock of A level Maths & Fizzicks.

[identity profile] nineveh-uk.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 11:54 am (UTC)(link)
The Marlows strike me as having a great deal of disposable income, it's just that they spend it and don't seem to do anything about saving to have a bit in reserve in the form of cash rather than capital. They've been saving on Lawrie and Nicola's school fees for several years longer than might have been expected (and indeed Karen's), but there's no indication they have actually held on to any of this, so when their financial circs do change a bit they have nothing to fall back on without some inconvenience. For a fictional comparison, they're like a "before" portrait of the Chesters in Brent-Dyers' La Rochelle books; in real life I'm reminded of R4 pieces on financial advisors in the present day dealing with clients who refuse to understand that the 3rd skiing holiday of the year is not an absolute essential. But that is getting ahead of the reading order.

[identity profile] buntyandjinx.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 04:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you again to nzraya and coughing bear for allowing me to re-read a book I must have borrowed about 50 times from the public library

I love Nicola's "I've always wanted to be [soaked to the skin] and now I am." Typical Marlow wanting to know something so far only experienced in fiction. Also, a precursor of things to come in terms of supposedly thrilling adventures - exploring empty houses etc, etc (no spoilers), which could have come straight from a book - turning nasty and life threatening.

Also love the little insight into Mrs Marlow doing her best to be a "tough, unharassed parent" but with her heart secretly in her mouth. The only indictation in the series that I can recall where there's an indication she actually gives a monkey's. Though seconds later, she - typically - disappers to see the Captain.

As for Johnnie Thorpe - he's just the first of many noveau characters (tight and bright trousers all you need to know) that the Marlows disdain. Marie Dobson being the ultimate case in point. I can never work out if AF condones the snobbery or not, my sense always is she did - but am new to this board and happy to be corrected.

[identity profile] jackmerlin.livejournal.com 2014-06-22 07:22 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think the Marlows are portrayed as being hard up until we get to FL; and it is the cost of running Trennels that causes that. Certainly, at the beginning of Autumn term we are told that there have been shopping trips to have new uniforms measured and bought whereas in later books the twins are shown wearing their sisters' hand-me-downs. And the cost of paying the fine for Nicola stopping the train is only touched on very lightly - even though it was a substantial amount of money. (£158 in today's money)
coughingbear: im in ur shipz debauchin ur slothz (widget)

[personal profile] coughingbear 2014-06-22 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I very much agree that Mrs Marlow especially is a spender not saver, but I do wonder how much they could realistically have been saving out of Commander Marlow's pay. (I suspect the background problem here is that Forest hasn't really thought about how to reconcile him being a naval officer who will naturally send his children to boarding school, and that there are eight of these children.) I have been trying to work out how much he would have been paid, but it's tricky - there was a marriage allowance, and something for children, but I can't find the exact figures for that. His basic pay before allowances would have been about £850 a year when at sea. When they originally married, as a lieutenant I think he would have been getting about £400-500 a year when at sea, a bit less in a shore job (depending on exactly when we think they got married,a of course). Perhaps Nick and Lawrie at home being delicate (& with corresponding medical fees) may not have cost much less than when they are at school.

Of course, they probably should save the legacy, if nothing else - otoh, I have some sympathy with wanting to stay in a hotel in 1947 or thereabouts, and food and rationing being someone else's problem for a while!

[identity profile] sprog-63.livejournal.com 2014-06-23 05:44 am (UTC)(link)
Army and Air Force Officers had/have large proportions of children's boarding school fees paid - so children can have stability of education. Is/was this true for Navy too? That would still leave a fair chunk for Marlow parents to pay as it was multiplied by 7; but perhaps bring it within possibility?





[identity profile] learnsslowly.livejournal.com 2014-06-23 06:01 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, I believe that would apply and so, as you say bring it to within reason. They would actually have to be boarder for this to apply, so if Nick and Lawrie's day school was fee-paying it might not actually represent a saving. This would stop if their father resigned his commission, so somewhat alters the stakes in FL.

[identity profile] sprog-63.livejournal.com 2014-06-23 06:44 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think, as I say elsewhere, that Foley actually has designs on Selby--nothing we learn about him later develops that idea, in any way, so perhaps Selby was mistaken, or Foley was just playing mind games. But if Forest did intend something of the sort, how much subtler a portrait of a potential sexual predator he is than the one we get later in canon; terrifyingly likely and realistic (known to his potential victims, placed in a position of trust wrt them; a little odd, perhaps, but attractive and charismatic), where the later example in Ready-Made Family is lurid and conventional.

I never read Foley and Selby as being about grooming-for-sexual-abuse, for precisely this reason. You have a concept of sexual abusers as you describe; and as you say, RMF shows that AF's wasn't that sophisticated. Given that even now, knowing what we know about abuse, in many primary school all that is taught is "stranger danger" I cannot see that AF could have been this subtle about it in the 1940s/50s. Like you, I find Ankaret's fic about Ginty/ Foley utterly convincing, but that's within period understanding in a way that Foley-grooming-Selby in this way isn't, to my mind.

For what it is worth ... I read that Foley stopped to let the other man out and then picked up Selby incidentally (possibly, almost without thinking about the consequences). The conversation in the car may have had a bit of mind games in it. Selby's disquiet (and therefore Nicola's) is about that knowledge that an adult is behaving out of character, stepping outside the bounds of what they should be doing, but the child has no idea why or where this is leading; furthermore, because the child is beholden to the adult in some way, no kind of challenge or query is possible. That dynamic is a part of grooming-for-sexual-abuse which is why in 2014 that possibility is there for the reader. But AF was writing about traitors and other boundaries altogether. Foley may well have been sizing Selby up re his attitude to Navy and rules etc. Grooming, certainly, but not for sexual activities. Wouldn't a different Selby make an excellent "sleeper"? Additionally, Foley's conversation with Selby serves to distract him from wondering about the other man ... just as it distracts Nicola and the reader?

[identity profile] sprog-63.livejournal.com 2014-06-23 07:00 am (UTC)(link)
So it does: I never thought of that! So Rowan is rescuing not just the men's careers, but her sisters' education too. Not sure whether this makes any difference to my thinking or not.

[identity profile] nineveh-uk.livejournal.com 2014-06-23 07:04 am (UTC)(link)
I've always tended to assume that they are backed by some sort of private income, as a lot of upper-middle class families in mid C20 children's books tend to be, but I'll admit that I have no idea whether there is anything to suggest or counter that in canon.
coughingbear: im in ur shipz debauchin ur slothz (widget)

[personal profile] coughingbear 2014-06-23 07:17 am (UTC)(link)
I think there is a mention in Ready-Made Family of Geoff Marlow being a penniless lieutenant when they married, which was partly why Pam's mother objected.

Of course, Forest may not have worked this out at the time she wrote this one!

Page 2 of 4