Why have Forest’s books been neglected?

[antfan.livejournal.com]

I don’t think any thread has directly addressed this: just why have such brilliant books languished out of print, with Antonia Forest hardly known in her lifetime, while lesser authors have taken the limelight?

 

The only explanation I’ve seen is that she was perceived as upper class and elitist, when the fashion was all for “sordid realism” (the Marlows and their Maker).  But I wonder.  Growing up in the 1970s and 80s I don’t remember much gritty realism, but library shelves bulging with KM Peyton’s Flambards, Noel Streatfeilds and a sprinkling of Diana Wynne Jones…Even that ultra cool American Harriet the Spy had a nanny and a cook, for goodness sake.

 

I think any explanation has to cover two parts: the child reader and the children’s book establishment.  My thoughts are these:

 

1)       For child readers, AF is hard.  I found AF substantially harder (though ultimately more rewarding) than Noel Streatfeild, for example, and Kingscote a much tougher place to understand than the Chalet School.  AF’s historicals in particular were way harder than contemporaries such as Barbara Willard or Rosemary Sutcliffe.  In practise, this sophistication of language and content means her child fan base was likely to be confined to a narrow group of very advanced, probably girl readers.  Add to that, the books weren’t coming out very regularly.  For these reasons, it was hard for a body of child fans to build up and provide the word-of-mouth momentum to keep the books in print (regardless of the views of adult librarians and critics) in the way that happened with the Chalet School or Ruby Ferguson’s Jill pony books.

2)       For the adult literary establishment, I suspect its the fact that they are genre novels – rather than upper class - that is key.  Critics and prize judges despise genre in children’s books and adults’ alike – and AF’s novels are school stories and family adventure stories (with pony elements too).  I think some of AF’s deeper themes (to adult eyes) such as death and religion are more easily overlooked for being sandwiched into stories concerned with netball or cricket. (It would be interesting to know how they were reviewed at the time – if at all.  And of course the adult readers should have registered the fact that the quality of the writing about cricket was absolutely excellent!)

 

I still can’t quite understand it – after all, we love the books!  I’d love to hear what people think about this.

 

Comments

[stripydinosaur.livejournal.com]

I definitely think that the huge gap between the first and the last book contributed to their neglect - after all, the target audience for Autumn Term would be grown up by Run Away Home. I discovered them in my school library in 1991, and I know I was the only person to ever take them out!!

[robincarmody.livejournal.com]

antfan - I think you've got some strong points, but you do need to understand the sheer extent and scale of the self-hatred among those members of the children's literature establishment who formed their views after about 1965. They really are riddled with an intense embarrassment and shame at the fact that they were born to privilege, and want to show their solidarity with those they see as an oppressed class at every turn. The one thing they hate most is being reminded of where they came from, and AF does that. Peyton is probably a One Nation Tory: certainly the Flambards TV series was slanted way to the Left of the books (but then one of its writers was an unapologetic Marxist) and I have always thought that she changed the ending to an ideologically conservative one in 'Flambards Divided' because she disliked the way Alan Plater and Alex Glasgow had interpreted her work, with Mark realising the need to accept radical change and Dick talking about how "we" (i.e. the poor) "deserve" to own the land (none of which is in the books).

School stories (and, of course, Enid Blyton) were hated by two different generations of critics for two different reasons: the first lot hated them because they saw them of being of limited literary merit, but then the 1960s generation came along and hated them for ideological reasons (and at the same time hated the "superior" books that the first generation of Blyton-haters had championed). AF's school stories were never "commended" for the Carnegie Medal, but her earlier non-school books were. The turning point, politically, was probably when 'The Owl Service' won, 40 years ago now (!) ... after that, AF could never have recovered what critical standing she had acquired.

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

The turning point, politically, was probably when 'The Owl Service' won, 40 years ago now (!) ... after that, AF could never have recovered what critical standing she had acquired.

Interesting... could you fill me in on this turning point? I read 'The Owl Service', but too long ago to figure out how it could have turned the political tide.

[tabouli.livejournal.com]

My guess is that (2) is the main reason why AF didn't receive more literary acclaim: as you muse, literary critics are an uppity bunch, and looking for literary merit in a series of boarding school stories (sniff!) isn't exactly their style.

As for (1), I'd say the sophistication of her work is the reason why AF's work hasn't ever sold as well as, say, Enid Blyton's. EB's work covers more or less the same genres (boarding school and upper class children's adventure stories) and has been phenomenally successful despite its denunciation by critics. My take on this is that EB is much more accessible: whatever people say about her literary merit, EB is a great storyteller and keeps things simple, digestible and pacy. AF's work is dense and nuanced and references all manner of weighty subjects in a complex way. Having grown up with St Clare's and Malory Towers, I read my first AF at 12 and immediately preferred this, but when I tried passing AF to a friend who also loved EB's school stories (and was easily smart and sophisticated enough to manage AF), she didn't take to them at all, because she didn't want complexity in a school story - she wanted escapism.

[lizarfau.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of it has to do with the genre issue. Had all of the Marlows books been Kingscote books, I think she would have been much better known. But having the series covering a whole range of genres probably made them harder to market.

I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and didn't actually come across her novels until 1980, when I was at university. The bookshops and libraries were full of Enid Blyton, Elinor M. Brent-Dyer, Malcolm Saville, Nancy Drew, etc - but no Antonia Forest. I did, however, grow up in the Birmingham area, and apparently AF's books were banned from Birmingham libraries, so that probably explains her absence a little. I was introduced to AF at university - it was recommended to me by a friend, for whom Autumn Term was recommended reading on the librarianship course she was doing. (As you can see, we weren't at university in Birmingham ... )

[robincarmody.livejournal.com]

Where were you at university, out of interest?

[robincarmody.livejournal.com]

That much is true. AF works on a higher level than much of her theoretical target audience: we have to accept this.

The same applies to writers such as William Mayne, but of course *they* are (maybe were in Mayne's case since his imprisonment) immensely critically revered because they don't have the baggage that middle-class liberal guilt trips on (OK, maybe the Cathedral Quartet *does*, but that doesn't seem to have been venerated by the new school of critics, who have always seen it as a rather primitive early work).

[robincarmody.livejournal.com]

It didn't turn the political tide on its own, of course. But it did represent a shift towards awareness of 'snobbery' and the social damage it can do, towards an investigation of social conflicts rather than either accepting or (more often) simply ignoring them. It represented the wider changes going on in the 1960s, and I suppose it was the moment - if there was one in particular - when the judgements of those who awarded the Carnegie Medal decisively shifted in that direction.

Before that, many/most winners were the sort of book venerated by the critics who dismissed Enid Blyton for her lack of literary merit, &c - books which would themselves be attacked by Blyton's later critics for the exact same reason that they attacked Blyton.

[(Anonymous)]

The almost universal theory is that books about children are for children, books about adults are for adults. Very few exceptions - Frost in May, Cat among the Pigeons (Christie), one or two of Rumer Godden's, but it's very hard to write a book about children and have it categorised in the adult section.

Maybe AF's books were mislabelled. They are not children's books. Even the ones with the obvious children's-book plots (school stories, Marlows & Traitor) are far more well-written than the Blyton/Brent-Dyer/Streatfeild genre, and several of the others could easily be transferred across the shelves to the adult section of the bookcase.

Example - if "Ready Made Family" had been written from Karen's point of view, but otherwise identical, can you doubt it would be in the adult section?

Example 2 - Patrick & Jukie' ride in "Thuggery Affair" - kid's lit? hardly.

Example 3 - Nicola, and then Rowan, on the beach in "Run Away Home" - it's a long long way from Meg Cabot.

Here's my [heretical?] conclusion - AF was NOT a writer of children's books!

[colne-dsr.livejournal.com]

Above comment was by me.

[nemosed.livejournal.com]

They were *banned*? Whatever for?

On the other hand, the public libraries where I grew up didn't have any Enid Blyton, on the basis of lack of literary merit. I was never entirely convinced by this argument, since apparently "Babysitter's Club" and "Goosebumps" books met their highbrow requirements. Presumably the real difficulty with Blyton would be all those outdated politically incorrect notions.

[geebengrrl.livejournal.com]

I, uh, 'liberated' the Ready Made Family from my school library. I was the only person to take them out since the 1970s (this was 1990)

[geebengrrl.livejournal.com]

I think they didn't come out regularly enough. Arthur Ransome, for example, turned out a new Swallows and Amazons every year, in time for christmas. I wonder why her publishers kept publishing her - if she wasn't very popular, she presumably wasn't making much money for them.

I am intruigued by the comment above that her books were banned in Birmingham (I want that on a tshirt, by the way) - could this be a symptom that a large number of adults perhaps thought the books were unsuitable in some way? Given that at the times she was publishing, parents would have exercised much more influence over which books were bought?

[lizarfau.livejournal.com]

AF's books were seen as "too middle-class" by the powers-that-be in Birmingham libraries, apparently.

Mind you, one of the Birmingham libraries I borrowed books from as a kid mis-shelved Claudine at School in the children's section, which pretty much sums up their competence! I read a few pages, aged 10ish, and then discarded it, somewhat bemused and very disappointed that the pranks in it didn't seem to be of the kind in Enid Blyton's books.

[lizarfau.livejournal.com]

I was at Aberystwyth. My friend was studying librarianship at the nearby College of Librarianship Wales.

[lizarfau.livejournal.com]

Her publishers seemed to value her - I read somewhere that they always intended to publish the final Marlow she was writing (if she'd finished it). And they looked at - and published - Tim Kennemore's novels on her recommendation. Perhaps quality really counted back then, whereas now, sadly, I doubt she'd be published past book 3, as sales count for everything.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I am inclined to agree that this is a factor, if not necessarily the whole story. I didn’t like Forrest as a child, though I was certainly reading books as difficult, or containing references I didn’t understand and so on, at the age at which I picked up “Autumn Term” and put it down again*. Had Forrest been writing today, she might have had more luck, given that the ‘crossover book’ has become trendy and the journalistic flavour of the month. This applies to another children’s book of the early 80s, now out of print Lionel Davidson’s utterly bizarre and hallucinogenic “Under Plum Lake”, which has the most heart-breaking ending of any book I’ve ever read, and which I simply cannot imagine most children being able to comprehend emotionally.

*Mind you I'm still not a big fan of Autumn Term. The Marlows and the TRaitor might have had a different outcome.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

Thinking about the audience for other school stories, most of them are a fair bit younger than the children in the books - kids have often grown out of Enid Blyton long before getting to age 11-13 when Malory Towers characters etc are introduced. Whereas a 7-9-year-old really isn't going to grasp the subtle characterisation in AF's school stories.

The AF school stories got reprinted in the mid 80s, which led to my buying Autumn Term just after being hit with the bombshell "by the way, we're moving abroad and you're going to boarding school next year - pick one of these three". I didn't really get Autumn Term, but realised it was a lot more realistic than Blyton, the Chalet School, or even Trebizon which was at least up to date, so ending up buying the other three, and over a few re-reads, realising that they told me a lot more about human nature than any other books I owned at the time (ie before I'd acquired various 'young adult' books, where I think AF would fit well if it weren't for the backwards snobbery that well-off people don't have 'issues' to deal with).

I think there's a place for a modern series of children's books about boarding school life in the wake of Harry Potter. But books about children that actually are aimed at adults are very rare. It's odd - I always felt boarding school was the whole world in a small space, just like Miss Marple says about St Mary Mead - the whole of human nature is in a village, which is why she's an expert on it.

[antfan.livejournal.com]

This is interesting - I remember Alan Garner was around and much approved of (a primary teacher read us Weirdstone of Brisingamen as a class novel) and I remember I couldn't get on with him at all. I found him utterly incomprehensible. The only book of his I read myself (and hated) was Elidor, and looking at it again now, although I can see it has poetic qualities, I also think it is a pretty mystifying read for a child - alien, lacking in wit or humour, and fairly disturbing. I don't think I noticed any social conflict issues. I wonder if people now hold Garner's books in the same affection as AF's?

Your comments about Flambards are interesting too - I didn't know about the different take of the TV series.

The children's book establishment seems incredibly irritating - then and now. I do think it is a good thing for children's books to extend beyond the social realms of boarding school or Noel Streatfeild's genteel poverty (just as the advent of Grange Hill was was also a Good Thing). It's great that Jacqueline Wilson can write best sellers about a foster child - a child I recognise as the "difficult child" in my class at primary school, yet who was never recognisable from any book I read then. But why must it always be one thing or t'other? A world of Jacqueline Wilson books would be utterly depressing (it IS depressing that JW is all many girls seem to read) and of course it does not make a book good just because it has a worthy theme or particular social background.

What were the other approved books besides Alan Garner? I was a big reader, and the only book I can remember reading with real enjoyment with a possibly working class, urban background was The Turbulent Term of Tyke Tyler (which did win the Carnegie, now I come to think of it). A fun read but not a world you could really become involved in, as with AF.

Also remember reading somewhere that The Family From One End Street was disapproved of at one point for being "patronising" - I guess children's writers just can't win.

[antfan.livejournal.com]

also forgot to say, the critics seemed to miss the fact that many kids from poorer backgrounds don't actually want to read drab realism, but would like a bit of escapism too. My mother, a working-class child of the 1950s, was happy to read Abby Girls and Lorna Hill - it seemed excitingly different from her day-to-day world.

[white_hart]

I wonder if people now hold Garner's books in the same affection as AF's?

I do! But I always loved fantasy.

[antfan.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Somebody on another children's book list I read was lamenting how children's librarians aren't able to read the books today before they buy - in the good old days, she remembers they did and were able to censor the Pullein Thompson sisters for their right wing views.

I guess in children's books success hangs either on the imperatives of the commerical market, or some rather agenda-driven critics and librarians, and AF somehow feel between the two...

[antfan.livejournal.com]

I partly agree. But Ready Made Family from Karen's point of view would surely be a very different book - presumably dealing much more with aspects such as sexuality, jealousy, problems of choice, guilt loss of independence etc and we would surely see Mrs Marlow, Edwin and Rowan from a very different perspective. You'd end up with a book that in subject matter/theme is pretty much identical to Other People's Children's by Joanna Trollope - except that ironically JT's writing is inevitably going to be a lot simpler in language and psychology than anything written by AF, whether fron child or adult perspective!

I do think AT's books are children's books by virtue of their primary subject matter: school cricket cups and plays, adolescent friendship, sibling relations ...but the irony is that stylistically AF is a more difficult author than many "adult" novelists. This means that her "ideal reader" is a highly literate, fairly precocious child/adolescent - a somewhat unusual beast.

Hmm. Would love to see those AF adult novels. Maybe she would have had more success as an adult writer. Also, come to think of it, I do think you are right about the historicals. I don't think I ever really appreciated those as a child....they are very adult reads.

[antfan.livejournal.com]

Yes, William Mayne ....remembering finding him pretty mystifying too (although I did quite like No More School). Remember reading Francis Spufford's book The Child That Books Built (I think that was the title) and he describes being puzzled by William Mayne: initially attracted to the subject matter, he could never work out what the books were actually supposed to be about, and remembering feeling very much the same childhood reaction.

Hmm. I wouldn't have fared well with a bookcase full of William Mayne and Alan Garner...

[antfan.livejournal.com]

Just has a look on the web for AF's showing in the Carnegie

1957 : A Grass Rope by William Mayne (OUP)
Commended
The Warden's Niece by Gillian Avery (Collins)
Songbird's Grove by Anne Barrett (Collins)
Falconer's Lure by Antonia Forest (Faber)
The Blue Boat by William Mayne (OUP)
Story of the Second World War by Kathleen Savage (Bodley Head)
The Silver Branch by Rosemary Sutcliff (OUP)

1961 : A Stranger at Green Knowe by Lucy M Boston (Faber)
Commended
Peter's Room by Antonia Forest (Faber)
Miss Happiness and Miss Flower by Rumer Godden (Macmillan)
Ragged Robin by James Reeves (Heinemann)
February's Road by John Verney (Collins)

William Mayne obviously very popular with Carnegie judges - his name sprinkled all over.

Why were they so "self-hating" - the children's literary establishment?