Time and the Marlows
Jun. 27th, 2008 01:53 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
I have now read all the modern-day Marlow books I can lay my hands on, which is all but The Marlows and the Traitor (which I remember quite well from when I was 11 or so) and The Thuggery Affair (which I gather is no great loss).
I love these books and mourn the lack of any more. In fact: sorrow! I will probably read the Player ones on the strength of them. The characters are so well drawn and well understood and not always likeable either, which makes them feel very real (except for Giles whom I dislike for being so arrogant and full of himself--and unkind in Autumn Term; I hope he never marries) and I also like how we see a part of their lives with so much more having happened and about to. We'll never know what happened between Nicola and Esther when she went back to school, or how Judith recovered from Edward running away, or how Kay coped with her family, and after all, RL is untidy like that too.
Does anyone know whether AF had any plans for future books and what would have happened in them?
The one thing I find jarring in the books is the very obvious placement of each in a different time and often decade. Why did AF feel it was necessary? The mention of the war in the earlier ones is part of them and places them, as does Ginty having to go through an operator to phone London, but apart from that a reader could, if allowed to, imagine the books to be set in their own era; country life and boarding school haven't changed much. Kingscote in the 50s wasn't much different to my school decades later. So I find gratuitous references to the Beatles, Up Pompeii, punks, Morecombe and Wise etc not just jarring but unnecessary to the story and Pastede On. If the Marlows were watching TV without the programme being mentioned, I would just keep reading, but mention a specific programme for no reason and I stop in my tracks, disconcerted.
The deliberate insertion of current slang feels odd too, or is it just because it's no longer current? Did people really call clothes 'gear' back in the 70s? OTOH I do love what I assume is specifically Marlow family slang like natch, trimmensely (both of which I used as a kid), and sorrow. Come to think of it though, 'sorrow' can't be a Marlowism because Patrick says it too.
I'm curious about Peter's dreadful nickname of Binks. How do you get that from Peter? Is it a baby name they keep on calling him? I'm totally with him on his objections to it, but the others persist in using it. Is it some sort of common baby name in England that might stick? My mother had a friend called Bunty and I could never understand how she put up with it. [shudders]
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 03:24 pm (UTC)I don't find him middle-aged so much as very only-child, and a product of his education. He goes to a day-school when he goes anywhere, and with no siblings or contemporaries whose approval he must gain, he's free to explore his own interests and develop his own views. Which may well be at odds with the prevailing contemporary culture. Plus he spends a great deal of his time with adults, and probably absorbs their views and ethos without really realising it.
The Marlows, on the other hand, go to boarding-schools where, of course, one must conform or die; the bulk of their time is spent with contemporaries, and they must at least pretend to share the interests of their peers at the expense of their own, or face the appalling isolation and loneliness that a misfit at boarding-school experiences (look at Marie Dobson). At the same time both Nicola and Lawrie vie, in their different ways, for the attention and approval of their older siblings. Patrick has none of these worries!