Readthrough: Run Away Home, Chapters 1-4
Mar. 12th, 2015 10:14 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
We begin with Ginty being seen off to Keswick: it's a characteristic detail, I think (and one that makes me sympathetic to Ann, who gets rather a raw deal in this book) that Ann minds that Ginty doesn't wave goodbye, where Nick and Lawrie hardly notice and couldn't care less.
Nicola plotting how to deal with the coughing-bear dress rings very true to such adolescent predicaments to me, but Lawrie's whingeing seems a trifle overdone, even to strike a foreshadow of a disrupted Christmas.
And, our first sight of Edward! I think one of the things this book--Forest's patchiest to my mind--does very well is characterise this troubled, really pretty unloveable character. What motivates Nicola to cover for him, do you think?
Giles Marlow dresses like a knitting pattern. Over two years without a long enough leave to get himself home does seem a bit rough, mind, so let him have his civvies for now. And poor old Geoff: in-universe explanations for why the Service is being quite so exigent? The reference in Chapter 4 to Chas watching Secret Army dates the action to 1977-9.
Geoff's long absence does allow Forest to introduce the discussions about gender roles that arise shortly afterwards. "Wives must", ugh, Giles. (There will be a lot of ugh, Giles in the following.) Lawrie's riposte is too daffy to be very effective, but at least there is a riposte, I suppose.
What do people make of Giles's argument with Ann? On the one hand, I feel Ann is being nobbled rather--what little we hear of her anti-war arguments seem unrealistically feeble, I think, for someone who's grown up in a Services household yet managed to develop pacifist leanings; on the other, Forest contrives to make it sound oddly like Giles has lost his argumentative high ground, even though she's determined to see things from his perspective. He tries to bail out when Ann still feels there's points to be made: 'call it quits'; 'repeating arguments Giles was satisfied he'd demolished' (my italics). There's a note of disapproval in 'bringing religion into it', but from the point of view of a believing Christian of whatever denomination faith is surely relevant to the ethics of war, and has unquestionably historically shaped them? Giles's flippancy feels ugly to me, if it's sufficient to make Ann 'distressed and confused'.
I'll leave discussion of the scuffle with Edward to the comments: there's a nice unmarked look back to Ready Made Family in Nicola's immediate alarm that she's witnessing a kidnapping, where Giles is happier to trust to adults' good faith.
I'm interested in the ways Forest finds to curdle our sympathy with Ann: her concern for a runaway child on a winter night turns within a page to her demonstrably foolish statement that having the law on one's side is the same as being in the right. It seems framed in an unnecessarily binary way: it would be much more satisfying, and somehow more characteristic of Forest, if Ann were to argue, for example, that she didn't like the idea of him going back into institutional care, but surely it's preferable to hypothermia or him being picked up an Uncle Gerry type?
Ann carrying things for Lawrie forms an interesting parallel to Giles's rather insistent gallantry on the point of carrying things and driving people places, too: a man offering to take a burden is a gentleman, but a woman is a drudge. Huh.
This is the first time that Giles has seen Trennels since the summer holidays the family spent there with Jon
Lawrie turning from her misery to contemplating a trip to Paris for her grandmother's funeral is great, I think: perfectly topped by Nicola's recognition that Mme Orly would appreciate it too.
There's been some discussion of Rowan's advice to Nicola already, but what do people make of it? I recognise with a sense of mild horror the less-than-logical creed with which I was brought up: it never really does any good to talk about anything, because if the relationship is 'genuine' you'll just miraculously understand one another, and if it's not it's not worth bothering with. Interestingly, though, it's shortly followed be the revelation that Rowan and Pam have shared some confidences. This has been your regular scheduled fic prompt.
Pam's mentioning Rowan's lack of a social life suggests guilt about allowing her to take on the farm, perhaps. But the Marlows seem to have been accepted into the milieu of Westbridge and environs, nonetheless, as the invitations indicate.
The barbecue-cum-midnight steeplechase! I once came close to almost writing fic about it, but fell heavily at the fence of not knowing anything about the curious and hazardous-sounding practice of midnight steeplechasing, which I tried to remedy by buying Moyra Charlton's The Midnight Steeplechase. This has been your regular &c.
In the discussion of alternative Christmas Day activities, Ann seems again to be cast as killjoy; though it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to imagine that Mrs Marlow might be disconcerted if she rings an empty house on Christmas Day (minor but telling revelation that Giles doesn't phone to wish his family a merry Christmas, because apparently, it would mean too much. Ugh, Giles.) And apparently the plan before the picnic idea is mooted was to haul Mrs Bertie in to cook Christmas dinner in the evening, which doesn't seem very bloody noblesse oblige to me. Rowan's rationale for getting Giles to talk Mrs Bertie round touches again on the theme of gender roles.
Giles's encounter with Karen, Edwin and the family: this has been your regular &c.
I think that opening presents on Christmas Eve is positively odd, but then other people's Christmas traditions always are. The mention of Ginty's presents is a foreshadow of her birthday.
Nick and Lawrie's party dresses! (It seems that Mrs Marlow relented from her irritation at the Changear episode and the coughing bear might have been uncontroversial after all. Different people's taboos about second-hand clothing always interest me: 'new second-hand' from strangers was read by Mrs Marlow as 'desperation', but Nick and Lawrie have been wearing fifth-hand clothes all their lives! I had a university tutor who was happy to buy second-hand jackets, shirts and pullovers but recoiled at the thought of second-hand trousers). The dresses are hard to visualise, but I like the notion that they're so completely different.
Giles' bafflement at Doris and the Chest ('positively pelican'--moderately recondite reference for the target market?) amuses me: actually, though I suspect his main function in these chapters is as exposition catch-up device, I wonder if a case could be made for his discombobulation at having missed two action-packed years of family life going some way to explain his peculiar lapses of judgement later on? He does, we learn, have the occasional twinge of guilt at letting Rowan take on the farm, which expresses itself in trying to do Rowan's chores for her; she in turn is irritated by what she perceives (probably rightly) as some pretty have-your-cake-and-eat-it sexism.
The little reminder of Eddi's Service in Nicola daring Rowan to check if the cattle are kneeling is charming.
Any thoughts on Ann choosing to remain behind?
I quite enjoy the lost in the fog bit. Peter, still with the Mummerzet? My acquaintance from without Britain and Ireland remark with exasperation on precisely the aspect of our signposting that Forest notes, and also on the quaint silliness of English village names, which is gently and effectively sent up here (it's easy to slip into broad parody with Magnas, Parvas and so on, but Forest stays just on the right side, I think).
Lawrie again seems excessively whingey here, though her qualms do a good job of suggesting that madcap spontaneity can just fall awfully flat. Still, a suitable spot is found, and Peter displays his talent for sloping off 'exploring' when there's work to be done.
Could Giles actually be more ghastly than in this after-dinner conversation? UGH, GILES. Rowan's plans to be more proactive come Lady Day seems a good point to mention this fabulous fic by
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Surfrider is introduced, and I like Nicola's 'sun on the sea when there's no sun', which has a 'from the life' feeling about it.
I'll leave discussion of the Oeschlis' story mostly to the comments. Though all parties have behaved badly, Felix seems to get off very lightly from both the Marlows and their author for kidnapping a baby and communicating with his mother no more often than annually.
Rowan's acerbic 'Do you a power of good to hear the havoc you can cause' brings Peter as teenage father unsettlingly to mind. This has been your regular scheduled &c.
Giles's omelette-making skills again touch the theme of gendered domesticity: the story of the omelette challenge in the dubious bistro is surely worth a short fic?
The notion of getting Edward back to his father is raised at first as desultory hypothetical half-fantasy, and the different range of reactions from the siblings is interesting in terms of characterisation: Nicola's outrage, I can't help feeling, stems (slightly obscurely) from being closest of all the family to Chas and Rose, also children who've been scarred by parental manoeuvrings, though nothing on the Oeschli level. Peter seems to take it least seriously, though it's Giles who makes the most flippant suggestions, and Rowan (at last) raises the possibility of 'real life' trouble if copped. Ann seems just to have a blind faith in authority, which doesn't quite fit with my conception of her character.
The conclusion of the chapter does a great job of suggesting the scratchy tension between all the siblings (Giles and Rowan perhaps excepted: I'm interested in their relationship--fic?). Not a very happy Christmas Day.
A short chapter, but an evocative one. I love 'Provokiev': a bit of a gamble on Kay's part, as a present for a nine year old boy, even a railway nutter, I think, but Chas seems to like it. Chas and Rose having a 'hide-place' seems more significant than just the typical need and liking of children their age for private dens: there is a sense of a kinship of hurt and troubled children in how they relate to Edward too, uncommunicative as the latter is. I'm glad Chas has found a schoolfriend in Barry, though. It's a very Forestian touch, I think, that the plot is set in motion here by imaginative action: a fateful coalescence of a TV drama, the TV news and Chas's own need for escape from a far-from-easy family situation.
Well, I think that will do from me for now. Have at it!
no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 03:11 am (UTC)This is my first reading of RAH, and as someone who spends a fair bit of time on a parenting forum and on there have read more than one scenario of just this kind (or an attempt at it) I am genuinely struggling with this book's plot at a basic level. I'm reading ahead, and while enjoying the massed sibling interactions, I'm fairly certain this is going to beat those coked-up flutters as my least fave Forest.
Just...ugh.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 09:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Judith's redemption
From:Re: Judith's redemption
From:Re: Judith's redemption
From:Re: Judith's redemption
From:Re: Judith's redemption
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-13 07:40 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 06:25 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-13 06:15 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-13 06:15 pm (UTC) - ExpandFelix's rescue attempts
From:Re: Felix's rescue attempts
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 05:29 pm (UTC)I hated this book when I first read it, for exactly this reason. Judith is demonized for the counter-kidnap 'dirty tricks' and her subsequent involvement of the care services, but Felix (that 'nice lad' who was so 'anxious to do the right thing') is assumed to be morally justified in the original kidnapping, entirely on the grounds that Judith isn't willing to move abroad.
AF is on record as being a fan of Villette, but to me this has echoes of Tenant of Wildfell Hall, in which a mother resorts to kidnapping her own son (in terms of the law at the time) to rescue him from his alcoholic, violently abusive father. In Wildfell Hall, the law is shown as cruel and unjust and the mother's actions heroic. Here, the implication is that the law is an ass and 'poor, rash, trusting' Felix did something brave and clever in rescuing his infant son, but what was Judith's crime that Edward needed rescuing from? Being female? Being frightened of living in a foreign country?
The Marlows then decide to get involved, and embark on a heroic but insanely dangerous (and illegal) course of action in order to see that the 'right thing' is done - but the moral basis of their action is deeply suspect, and they don't question it. If I thought they were only concerned about Edward's unhappiness and getting him to where he wants to be, I'd be happier, but there are all kinds of other motives mixed in there. It's not a black-and-white situation, and the Marlows are not the good guys. In the context of a series that's all about following one's inner moral code and 'doing the right thing', this makes it a very difficult book to read.
nnozomi's fantastic continuation fic (linked in the main post) articulates so many of the qualms I have about the events of this plot, and their fallout and implications - definitely one to read, after you've finished the book.
This is my second attempt to re-read the book, and this time I am more alert to the idea that AF may be subverting that genre of heroic post-war novels in which ordinary people do insanely-dangerous-and-illegal things, but it's all OK because of Extreme Circumstances (I'm thinking of Trustee from the Toolroom as an example). I'm hoping that she is also subverting the ideal of Giles as all-powerful authority, the Marlow Code of extreme stoicism, and the family attitude towards Ann… we shall see.
jss
(no subject)
From:Felix/Judith/babies kidnapped from prams
From:Re: Felix/Judith/babies kidnapped from prams
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 01:01 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 08:18 am (UTC) - ExpandComparison with Trustee from the Toolroom
From:Re: Comparison with Trustee from the Toolroom
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 10:40 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Comparison with Trustee from the Toolroom
From:Re: Comparison with Trustee from the Toolroom
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 10:35 am (UTC) - ExpandComparison with Trustee from the Toolroom
From:Trustee from the Toolroom
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 10:38 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Trustee from the Toolroom
From:Re: Trustee from the Toolroom
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 09:33 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Trustee from the Toolroom
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-19 01:09 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re: Trustee from the Toolroom
From:...
From:Oeschlis
Date: 2015-03-14 04:35 am (UTC)Re: Oeschlis
From:RE: Re: Oeschlis
From:Re: Oeschlis
From:Re: Oeschlis
From:Re: Oeschlis
From:Re: Oeschlis
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-14 11:18 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Oeschlis
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-15 07:17 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Oeschlis
From:Felix taking baby
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-17 10:42 pm (UTC) - ExpandFelix taking baby
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-17 10:43 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Felix taking baby
From:Re: Felix taking baby
From:...
From:no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 06:44 am (UTC)An anti-authoritarian reflex born from seeing too much of the inner workings of Authority/Miss Keith's study? And I think you're absolutely right that Nicola's reactions to Edward and his situation stem from her relationship with Chas and Rose.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 07:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-03-16 10:47 am (UTC)It reminds me of the railway scene in Thuggery where Lawrie allies with Red Ted against a fellow passenger: youth closing ranks against meddling adult authority.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 08:36 am (UTC)If it's 1977-9 then I think there are what we thought of at the time as "Swingeing military cuts" and I suspect Giles and Captain Marlow may be being conspicuously present for job-saving reasons. Or, of course, living it up in Oslo and points East, and avoiding the hordes of females at home.
It may be the influence of the present day, and all we've now come to know about children's homes, but "going to a Home" and "picked up an Uncle Gerry type" aren't exactly antitheses in my mind. While I don't think Nicola picks up on that aspect, though she does focus on Wackford Squeers, I'd be surprised if Giles hasn't got some inklings of the kind, especially given the make-up of Lower Decks.
Also, given a lot of homes were run by church-affiliated charities, perhaps it's another reason why Ann is reflexively defensive of them, especially given Giles' dismissal of her "bringing religion into it."
I'm not quite sure whether Forest knew what a tit she makes Giles sound, through most of chapters one and two, but in some respects it's more impressive if it's subconscious.
More when I'm caught up properly.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 08:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Giles vs. Ann
Date: 2015-03-13 11:31 am (UTC)But this one I do not get. In the interest of full disclosure, I think my own preconceptions are getting in the way. I am an adult convert to a historic peace church, while Ann, of course, is not, but she is presented as a believer, albeit an annoying & sentimental one, who does try to live by the precepts of her faith. She is not a hypocrite. "All those sweetly pretty thoughts are genuine", looking happy after voluntary chapel, etc. etc.
So why doesn't she START by "bringing religion into it"? Is she so intimidated by Giles & her(presumably skeptical) listening family that she tries rational argument first & only reveals her true motivations when she's pushed hard? Does she see her faith as a personal thing, & not as a force for social change? I suspect that's the answer, but I'm open to suggestion.
It does set up nicely for her backing Authority against Edward--she genuinely can't see the disconnect between law & justice.
Also, didn't get it in 1982, & still don't. What IS "Squeers' stuff"
thedogsdinner
Re: Giles vs. Ann
Date: 2015-03-13 02:37 pm (UTC)I seem to remember that corporal punishment was abolished in children's homes before it was abolished in state schools (1987) but not very much before so would probably still have been used in the late seventies.
Mrs Kent
Re: Giles vs. Ann
From:Re: Giles vs. Ann
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-14 11:22 pm (UTC) - ExpandPam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
Date: 2015-03-13 12:05 pm (UTC)The Ann/Giles argument over war is rather frustrating in that we don't really hear much about what's said. Presumably Giles is arguing from a realist viewpoint, that war will always be with us so no point pretending otherwise, rather than suggesting that war is a Good Thing, but hard to know. Is Ann being a pacifist - it doesn't actually say this - or just doing rather a lot of lamenting? I agree with others the treatment of Ann is not great - she's become a kind of caricature , putting forward (presumably) the views AF dislikes in the most unsympathetic way possible. Though I suspect I'd probably be annoyed by her sermonising too.
Lawrie is definitely one of the best things in the book, I feel - I love the funeral in Paris bit, and Nicola's response, and Lawrie envisaging her future acting career/marriage - and again, Nicola's response.
Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
Date: 2015-03-13 12:55 pm (UTC)We could even wonder whether she is so overdoing it helpful and caring because she really, really wanted to smother Lawrie in her cradle (and still has subconscious homicidal urges towards her siblings).
Ann - war and religion
From:Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
From:Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
From:Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
From:Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
From:Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
From:Re: Pam/Molly Nicola/Ginty
From:no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 12:20 pm (UTC)too broad a suggestion and therefore meaningless?
no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 11:29 pm (UTC)It reminds me of how lightly Mr Frewen gets off compared to Esther's mother, despite a distinct lack on his part of offering either Esther or Daks a comfortable home life.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-15 09:33 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:marriage/gender roles
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Unteachably bad driving
From:Re: Unteachably bad driving
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 01:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-03-13 01:16 pm (UTC)Felix I tend to imagine as another havoc-causing teenager at the time, perhaps on some sort of a study-abroad program from his Swiss gymnasium? although the eventual description of him does make him sound a bit older. (If the genders had been reversed, one could imagine him as another version of Claudie.) You're absolutely right that he comes off as a well-to-do gent. (One wonders if he never came up with a stepmother for Edward?)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Judith and Felix's ages.
From:Re: Judith and Felix's ages.
From:Judith's background
From:Re: Judith's background
From:Re: Judith's background
From:Re: Judith's background
From:Re: Judith's background
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-15 07:15 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Judith's background
From:Re: Judith's background
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-15 10:07 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Rowan's advice to Nicola
Date: 2015-03-13 07:27 pm (UTC)For some reason, I found it difficult to understand the point Rowan was trying to make here - about it being unnecessary if people are really friends - or how she was qualified to comment without knowing a single detail about what had happened. I was vaguely reminded of Jan Scott's comment about lifelong friendships coming as often as unicorns, though.
The reference to school and its works sinking below the horizon was convincing as supporting reason for Nicola not phoning - I recognised the sensation of school/workplace fading rapidly in importance once a holiday begins.
I first read RAH after AF's death, knowing it was the last book, and I was maddened to realise that the Nicola/Esther issue will forever remain unresolved ...
Re: Rowan's advice to Nicola
Date: 2015-03-18 12:15 pm (UTC)Another thought. When Nicola says in EOT "I can buy Daks!" does she actually buy Daks from Esther with her windfall money (presumably not as much of it as buying a pony would have cost) and if so, has Esther just stolen her dog back? If so it is a rather irrevocable act in Esther's head.
Re: Rowan's advice to Nicola
From:Re: Rowan's advice to Nicola
From:Esther and Daks
From:Re: Esther and Daks
From:Re: Esther and Daks
From:Re: Esther and Daks
From:Re: Esther and Daks
From:...
From:...
From:Giles, ugh!
Date: 2015-03-13 07:29 pm (UTC)Re: Giles, ugh!
Date: 2015-03-13 07:43 pm (UTC)It's quite satisfying when Giles puts Peter in his place ("where would you like to be dropped? Here?") - I can imagine the rest of the family inwardly cheering - they all groan when Peter starts his Mummerzet, but no one else has ever been able to think of a riposte.
There's a 'cutting room floor' section where Giles and Karen talk about the possibility of Karen divorcing Edwin, in which I think Giles shows a slightly better side ...
Giles and Peter
From:Re: Giles and Peter
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Buster's "inconvenient" death
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-15 06:58 pm (UTC) - ExpandRE: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-15 09:57 am (UTC) - Expand...
From:...
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:RE: Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-18 06:35 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Giles's return
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-20 12:29 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Giles's return
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-20 12:31 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Giles's return
From:Re: Giles's return
From:Re: Giles's return
From:Re: Giles's return
From:...
From:Re: Giles, ugh!
From:Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
Date: 2015-03-14 07:32 am (UTC)She's not given any lines in the argument with Giles, we are just told effectively that she is 'losing' the argument and getting flustered. She may have been making some very sensible points given they are potentially talking about nuclear war. (I like the idea of Ann as a CND supporter.) I rather imagine Giles' first response to her opening line was something along the lines of 'well, if it wasn't for war we'd all be speaking German'. I'd like this argument to be a case of 'show don't tell' so we could judge for ourselves.
Then when they are talking about Christmas and they are rejecting the idea of going to Karen and Edwin's, somebody says Edwin would probably hate it and Ann protests that 'he might enjoy it very much indeed'. Really? She was actually there during the Easter holidays and knows exactly what he was like when surrounded by Marlows en masse in a confined space. She has never been shown as that blindly 'thinking the best' of everyone before. In fact her competence as a guide leader and prefect suggests a fairly shrewd estimation of peoples' characters.
Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
Date: 2015-03-14 10:51 pm (UTC)Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Re: Re: Where is Ann and what has AF done to her?
From:Edward in Care
Date: 2015-03-15 06:53 am (UTC)Re: Edward in Care
Date: 2015-03-15 02:43 pm (UTC)Would be interesting to know more about the legal situation. If Judith and Felix are married when he snatches Felix, then presumably they have equal rights over him at that point? Because no court would yet have ruled on it. So, at least, Felix is not in breach of a custody agreement giving primary care to Judith? Is it "kidnap" if one biological parent takes a child in this situation, given that he's not going into hiding or denying access or such, or is he guilty of some kind of lesser crime? Did Judith and Felix subsequently divorce? Is the fact that they are in regular communication and she knows where Edward is evidence in the law's eyes that the parents have reached a tacit understanding and his upbringing? (I'm talking legally, rather than morally.) Is it because the UK/Switzerland lack extradition agreements etc that Judith can't take action, or is it because there hasn't actually been an actionable crime? However, if Felix is guilty of kidnap, I can't see why Edward's citizenship makes any difference - he would clearly be a British citizen too regardless of what has happened subsequently.
Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care - dates
From:Re: Edward in Care - dates
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:Re: Edward in Care - dates
From:Nicola watching 'repeats'
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care: gender swap of parents & ethics
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:...
From:Felix's custody rights in the UK
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-20 06:31 pm (UTC) - Expand...
From:Re: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-16 07:13 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Edward in Care
From:Re: Edward in Care
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-03-16 04:35 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Edward in Care
From:What Edward wants vs what's in his best interest.
Date: 2015-03-16 03:27 pm (UTC)Jack merlin, not logged in.
Re: What Edward wants vs what's in his best interest.
Date: 2015-03-19 07:38 am (UTC)But I hadn't factored in the good point about encouraging him to run away - like the initial taking of him, it wouldn't go down well with the Local Authority for good reasons.
"What should happen to Edward" is wisdom of Solomon stuff and it is frustrating to have so little backstory to work on - still that's what fanfic is for I guess!
A Miranda moment.
Date: 2015-03-16 04:50 pm (UTC)But this is just a big old mess. Maybe drug smuggling pigeons are so nonsensical that I can just go with the flow, but kidnapped babies, struggling mothers and runaway children are just too real to be dealt with as a jolly holiday adventure for those plucky Marlow children.
It seems to me that AF wanted to write her sea voyage so Judith and Felix's back story had to be made to fit even though it's then so full of holes that returning Edward is no longer the heroic, right thing to do that it's presented as being.
Re: A Miranda moment.
Date: 2015-03-16 05:16 pm (UTC)I think for one thing in Thuggery they find themselves involved despite themselves, by accident of events. They have to do something - that's not true here. For another, it's only the younger ones, Patrick, Peter and Lawrie, who get involved (even sensible Nicola is excluded). It all happens in a day, so no time for second thoughts. And they are broadly on the side of the law, in trying to bust a drugs' gang, even if they do end up breaking it in other ways. (But then I'm one of those rare Thuggery fans.)
That said, I'm enjoying RAH more than I expected (I really disliked it last time I read it) and I don't think it's fair to say that the Marlows are presented as straightforwardly heroic - though that's a discussion for future chapters.
Daft plots
From:Harnessing the horses
Date: 2015-03-16 06:20 pm (UTC)Re: Harnessing the horses
Date: 2015-03-16 07:27 pm (UTC)Re: Harnessing the horses
From:Re: Harnessing the horses
From:Re: Harnessing the horses
From:Felix taking the baby
Date: 2015-03-17 10:45 pm (UTC)Re: Felix taking the baby
Date: 2015-03-18 08:29 am (UTC)Pip
What is the Tree?
Date: 2015-03-18 06:39 am (UTC)Pip
Re: What is the Tree?
Date: 2015-03-18 07:01 am (UTC)I wasn't sure whether 'tree after tea' meant the opening of these presents (which is what we see happening), or decorating the tree. Traditionally, trees used to be decorated on Christmas Eve rather than weeks earlier (some people still hold to this) and that would fit with the Marlows' old-fashioned, upper-class lifestyle - but I couldn't really tell from the text itself.
MHeloyse
Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Re: What is the Tree?
From:Travel Jinx
Date: 2015-03-18 07:02 pm (UTC)Re: Travel Jinx
Date: 2015-03-18 10:59 pm (UTC)