Run Away Home - what are we meant to think?

[tosomja.livejournal.com]

I've just read RAH for the first time and whilst I enjoyed it, I also found it rather disconcerting.  I found myself unsure which side AF was expecting us to take in the Edward saga and wondered what others felt.    If I've got it right, Edward was snatched by his father as a baby and taken to Switzerland, and his mother refused to follow as she didn't want to live abroad.  When Edward came back to visit, his mother then refused to let him go back to his father (who had, after all, snatched him).  As far as all the Marlows except Ann are concerned, Judith is then the demonised one, with comments about how stupid she was not to just follow him to Switzerland, and particularly how dreadful to have put him into care and all efforts are obviously put into reuniting Edward with his father.  Edward is seemingly quite disturbed by the whole thing and is fairly unpleasant throughout the whole thing.

Several things disturbed me about this book.  One was that no one seemed to communicate at all with Edward - I kept waiting for some sort of denoucement involving Edward, Judith and Felix, where there would be lots of weeping and resolving of misunderstandings, and finally an arriving at some sort of joint custody arrangement which Edward was happy with, or at least some moment when Edward would break down and we would get some glimpse of the distress he was going through, and of the complexities of what was going on.   

Another was how united the Marlows were in their pursuit of returning Edward, and how completely they dismissed Ann's opinion about it - what do you think AF wants us to feel about Ann in this book?  Her religious views are obviously against AF's own, and she comes across as rather dogmatic in othe ways - is her support of Judith meant to be another example of how she takes the side of the law without considering the facts and emotions of the case?  

Then, despite this, it seemed like AF was trying to make the point that the case wasn't cut and dried, by introducing Judith's overdose and also portraying Judith as a likeable character when she appears, but that doesn't seem to lead to much genuine reflection on the part of the Marlows, just momentary second thoughts in some cases. 

But then, after reading RAH, I felt that most of the Marlows did not get portrayed as possessing much capacity for self-reflection, and also didn't appear to communicate much with each other! Giles in particular appeared to simply decide what to do, announce it and then do it.  I was reminded of that comment made by someone (Lois Sanger?) in Cricket term I think (am just remembering so have probably got it wrong) about Nicola thinking, like Rowan, that what more could one ask out of life than to be a Marlow.  It seemed like they just acted, assuming that somehow, their very Marlowness would mean they were on the right side.   

What does anyone else think?  Will a re-reading resolve these issues, or are they intrinsic to the book? 

  

,

Comments

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

I find it disturbing and for that reason like it: it lacks a cut-and-dried black-and-white polarity. The flaw in a lot of fiction is that the decisions are easy and obvious, and here they are very much not.

[rosathome.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's complicated, and the more the story unfolds, the more complicated it becomes.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'no one seems to communicate at all with Edward'? The one thing that is crystal clear throughout the whole book is that Edward wants to go back to his father. What else did you need to know? And who would be communicating with him that the Marlows would know about it?

I think that the reasons the Marlows act in the way they do are fairly obvious too. First - it's what Edward wants. Second - being in care is clearly a worse alternative than being with his father, and being with his mother isn't a viable alternative. Third - once they've decided, they have to go through with it. Finding out later that Judith wasn't such a bad sort isn't going to affect their actions.

I also think that while, of course, they're Marlows and there is that sort of 'nothing better in life' arrogance, they're also (mostly) teenagers who do tend to see things in black and white terms. Rowan and Giles are clearly the most reluctant to get involved and that makes sense because they're older. And of course Giles acts in that way - he's not only the eldest of eight (and thus used to taking charge of much younger siblings whose opinions don't carry much weight, because, you know, there's eight of them), he's also a naval officer and the 'adult' at home during most of the book. I wouldn't expect him to sit round having conferences asking for opinions and holding votes.

One of the things I like about the Marlows is that they're such a 'normal' family precisely in the respect that they don't spend their whole time talking about their feelings and analysing their actions. They do things, sometimes they mess up, sometimes they have private doubts and regrets, and occasionally they find they need to talk to someone else about them - but NOT to burden that other person. The scene with Rowan and Nicola at night, for instance, I think is very well judged in terms of the level of confidences discussed but also the prohibition on repeating them further.

Anyway

[rosathome.livejournal.com]

...too much from me!

Sorry - my last sentence got cut off.

[bookwormsarah.livejournal.com]

I think a large part of the point is that Edward is seen as part of the bigger picture, and that no one in authority asks him/takes notice of what he wants. It seems to be as much about people getting carried away in doing things by the law/system and forgetting that there are real people involved. The bit at the panto where ?Rowan (it is a while since I read this) talks to Judith and suddenly seems to see her as a person is very telling - the Marlows do tend to see things a little bit in black and white.

I was rather upset by their treatment of Ann, but this is very much a thread that has drifted through all the books. All the Marlows disregard her, and Nicola does recognise this sometimes (but never attempts to change her behaviour as a result). There is an excellent essay on the treatment of Ann at http://www.maulu.demon.co.uk/AF/articles/familyfailing/index.html I've always felt sorry for her, and hoped she had a good life after she escaped.

[ankaret.livejournal.com]

It's an odd book. I like parts of it very much - Lawrie at the play, for example, and the Christmas in the cave - but I, like you, wonder what Ann made of it when it became clear that she'd been systematically deceived.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I'll probably just comment briefly on this, as I think this is a complex issue, I think related to some extent to political opinions and I don't have the book with me. I do think that quite a bit of AF's conservative libertarian views ( I'm not sure precisely how to describe them - see the letter The Marlows and their Maker) do come out in Run Away Home. Ann is the only Marlow who accepts that social services could perhaps help Edward. Possibly (not unusually) AF is being a bit unfair on Ann's point of view here, but personally I don't really mind the outcome, as she does depict Edward as getting worse and worse in care and presumably he will be better off with his father in Switzerland. Judith is not very well drawn as a whole I think, and tends to come over as a bit of an idiot. However, I agree with bookwarmsarah's comment that she does get some humanity in her talk with Rowan at the play, when Rowan starts to appreciate her genuine suffering.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I think I remember even AF implying that the younger Marlows were wrong in believing that Ann would have told if she'd known what they were doing. Rowan doesn't realize that Giles and Peter might go all the way to France (think I remember that this probably would not have happened without Peter) and so thinks that Ann would have been needlessly worried (not, as it turned out) but probably would not have told. Giles seems to hardly know Ann at all, although she's his sister, and doesn't want to risk it.

[mrs-redboots.livejournal.com]

Giles doesn't really know any of his younger siblings; he seems to be several years older even than Karen. After all, he probably went away to prep school just before he was 8 years old, when Ann would have been a baby still, and I know from experience that you don't really get to know very much younger siblings if you're at boarding-school while they're growing up. Not until both they and you are adults.

I think the unresolved questions are part of the joy of this book - the situation isn't black and white, everybody makes mistakes, everybody could perhaps have done things differently.

Arguably, it's a young adult novel, not GO!

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I agree that Giles would have gone to prep school quite young, but I don't think that entirely explains why he makes so little effort with Ann. He appears very close to Rowan, who is only a year older than Ann.

[mrs-redboots.livejournal.com]

True, although Rowan does come across as more than a year older - of course, once she's been left school for a year, that's not too surprising.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

We don't know to what level the local Children's Department has so far taken the question. Certainly, the fact that Edward was originally snatched by his father would count against him, and the international aspect would complicate that, as well as prolong the deliberations and negotiations.
I don't know that Ann's view is necessarily a "conservative " view. It might be considered a wider view - taking account of the possibility that Edward might very well get what he wants, legally and formally, through the Children's Department of the local Social Servicest
I see that the book was published in 1982, when children were getting more say in custody disputes, but nothing like so much as they get now.
I've always thought that the involvement of Giles, a naval officer, is completely unrealistic (especially the illegal entry to another country) The rest of the family are understandably on Edward's side, given that such a large family would obviously unite on the side of the child's wishes.

[ex-lizzzar998.livejournal.com]

I don't think I said that Ann has a particularly conservative viewpoint. I may have expressed myself badly, but I meant that AF did generally (if in a rather eccentric way) and the Marlows and Merricks often follow her on this. It does seem clear that Edward is very unhappy in care, and desperately wants to return to his father in Switzerland where he grew up and seems to have had a pretty normal, contented life (despite his father's dubious behaviour in snatching him). The Marlows except Ann strongly believe that Edward's opinions and feelings should come before social work doctrine or debatable legalities. I'd say AF essentially follows them in this, although she possibly does introduce some ambiguity. Richenda's comment that children's views would probably be taken more seriously now than in 1982 is interesting - I didn't know this, and it is good to know.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

I think that someone else used the word conservative - but I meant that Ann is often seen and described as that, rather than that you were saying so - whereas my impression is that she sometimes sees a wider view than the others - such as the possibility that Edward could get his wishes, and get them more reliably, by waiting on formal negotiations.

[dunite.livejournal.com]

I think AF used Ann as a necessary counter to the activities of the rest of the family. Ann is in the position of Mrs Marlow, but without the authority to stop them. I also think that she holds strong views, but they don't agree with AF's, so one tends to see her through a rather disapproving veil. Ann is logically (as the result of her beliefs and previously stated opinions) the only one of the family who would have objected, and therefore her objections had to be made rather more forcefully than perhaps our previous acquaintance with Ann would lead us to expect.

AF, with her profoundly Catholic, pre-Vatican II conscience, would have very little sympathy with any modern woolly liberalism, and Ann is a token of that. Ann is certainly more sympathetic to Judith's feelings than the others, and I think this is because she is the only one of them with maternal feelings - Lawrie and Nicola think only of how they would feel in a similar situation to Edward, and Rowan's detachment prevents her from any empathy. The male members of the party are unlikely to have any such emotions.

The one thing that makes the whole thing work, for me, is the exchange in the kitchen while Rowan is telling the story (and I paraphrase), that Edward keeps trying to run away, Judith can no longer cope, and wants him taken into Care. Most of the rest of the family respond with "If she can't cope, and he doesn't want to be there, she should in all decency hand him back to Felix." Ann responds that it sounds that Edward needs looking after, but not in a way that makes it sound as though she thinks that going into local authority care is the best thing for him. Her comment that if Edward was found on the farm, hiding in a barn, they should feed him and then phone the Home, recognises that it would be much better for Edward's welfare and Judith's peace of mind (not to mention the Home's staff) for him to be returned to safety. The children, however, don't see this at all - they are too young to do anything but empathise with Edward's plight - he is, after all, very little younger than Nicola and Lawrie.

I think AF draws very well Chas' and Rose's convinced opinion that their plan to accompany Edward to Switzerland was an entirely logical plan. Although Peter is (not openly) scornful of Chas' plan, what he does himself is not much more logical.

I agree with those who posted about Rowan's and Giles' reluctance to get involved, and certainly agree with Lizzar that they would never have taken Edward to Boulogne if Giles had been in a state to give orders. Peter proves yet again (though perhaps I'm being harsh on him: he is only fifteen or so) that he doesn't have anywhere near the responsibility required to be a good naval officer. He doesn't make good judgments. However, if Giles *had* been compos mentis, the story wouldn't have worked as well, because they would have turned around again!

I rather like the ambiguity of the ending. There's definitely a sense that the whole family has been changed as a result of their activities, and that none of their relationships will be the same again.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

>>>Judith can no longer cope, and wants him taken into Care. Most of the rest of the family respond with "If she can't cope, and he doesn't want to be there, she should in all decency hand him back to Felix." Ann responds that it sounds that Edward needs looking after, but not in a way that makes it sound as though she thinks that going into local authority care is the best thing for him

Yes, she doesn't understand the system, but she has a wide enough view and the maturity to reslize that this won't be the end of it.
(Edward's CCO and the Children's Department (I'm using roughly 1960s terminology, because that's the terminology I know) wil be applying for an order for his permanent care - either with his father or back with his mother with support, or even foster care)

[stripydinosaur.livejournal.com]

One thing I think is common to the Marlow books is that adults in authority - such as teachers, council, police etc - are not shown to be infallible and are certainly not regarded as always being 'right' by the children and I think RAH continues this theme. Both of Edward's parents behave appallingly, really, and so I think the Marlow's actions are driven entirely by what Edward seems to want. He is - after all - about twelve (I think?) and we are viewing this book from an adult perspective; it is harder for adults to think that a twelve year old might know what is best for him than it is for someone Nicola's age. Although Giles, Rowan etc are older, I think the plot is written for someone Nicola's age, and therefore the views within are perhaps more applicable to that agegroup.

Sorry, I've explained this terribly badly, but I'm very out of practice with book discussions..

Incidently, my favourite bit in this book is Lawrie's complete ignorance of most of the trauma!!

[lizarfau.livejournal.com]

I didn't read this until GGBP brought it out two or three years ago and, unfortunately, my view of it was coloured by what was happening regarding child refugees in Australia at that time (making me very pro-returning Edward to his father and very anti-Ann's perspective). I should read it again when my perspective isn't affected by high-profile political issues.

The thing I do like about Forest, though, is the way things aren't black and white - there is no tidy ending. It's so much more reflective of real life than the more traditional GO stories. I think people who don't like Forest don't like that element of real life, that uncertaintly, interrupting a relaxing read. Whereas I find it refreshing, particularly in the period in which AF was writing.

[colne-dsr.livejournal.com]

To answer your last question first - I'm fairly sure a re-reading won't resolve the issues. I don't think they were meant to be resolved. But I'd re-read it anyway.

I bet Mrs. Marlow wouldn't have approved at all about returning Edward to Switzerland - not because of the moral right or wrong issue, but because of the risks involved. After all, it was technically kidnapping, at least for the older ones. Clearly AF had to get her out of the story, or it couldn't work.

My own view is that it's too late for the law to do any good - whatever the rights and wrongs were 11 years ago, what matters most now is Edward, not his parents. And Edward clearly wants Switzerland, so hard luck Judith. Certainly I'm prejudiced against her because of the thoroughly dirty trick she played getting Edward to come on a visit with no intention of letting him go back. Felix seemed a lot more willing to compromise than Judith, and Judith seems to me to want Edward more for her own sake than his.

[antfan.livejournal.com]

I really agree with your original comments about RAH - especially the comments about Giles and Ann. Introducing Giles, who is IMO both a one dimensional and dominant figure, takes away autonomy from the other characters. And after all, the readers are really interested in Nicola and her more immediate sibs primarily, and to have them running around as subordinates to Big Bruv takes away a lot of the interest. In AF's novels generally, as someone pointed out the fact that the Marlow kids don't tend to accept authority from novels unquestioningly, makes them interesting: here they do (from Giles) and it makes it all seem a lot more conventional.

Again, Ann is a real prig in this book, and she doesn't seem to have any redeeming features. In earlier books Ann had her surprising moments - she could be perceptive at times, made interesting observations (eg that Ginty was like Orsino in Twelth Night) had unexpected talents (eg playing Mary) and even Nicola sometimes relied on her. To have her become an outright prissy prig, over both religion and Edward, doesn't ring true somehow.

I think it's interesting to compare RAH with Ready Made Family. RMF also has a storyline that revolves around a set of characters (the Dodds and Karen) that we don't fully get to know, but in that book, Nicola's refelctions, her changing perceptions of Edwin, the use of Persuasion, the fuller discussion of some of the issues (in the bathroom scene for example) and Nicola's ability to take independent action, all make for a much more interesting read. And the Dodds - the victims, like Edward, or their elders - are far more likeable, rounded characters.

[dunite.livejournal.com]

I think Nicola does change, and so does Rowan, as a result of this book. Nicola sees Rowan as someone who can be worried, and whose stoic demeanour masks some insecurities. Nicola comes closer to mortality, with the realisation that both her brothers could have drowned. Rowan realises that taking people at face value isn't necessarily the best way to see things, and that she has seriously misjudged both Ann and Judith.

Ann's attitude towards the unreformed Catholic rite is actually quite realistic. I don't see it as priggish. She has deeply held beliefs, unlike Giles and Rowan, who don't see why she might have good reasons for wishing Nicola would not go to the old mass. She is inarticulate, too, in her explanations and possibly realises that she couldn't say anything to justify her point of view to such agnostics.