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

[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)