Maybe worth saying that though these are Kingscote values they are not Marlow values (AF values presumably?) in that the Kingscote staff obsession with building character is generally presented as rather silly, and likely to be to the detriment of whatever play, team or guide patrol for that matter is being used for that purpose. The Marlows seem to think that pure merit should be rewarded. that is how Nicola picks her cricket team after all.
In this respect I think AF is very different from authors like Brent-Dyer who have the school knocking various girls into shape, and seem to endorse the role of boarding-schools as being to produce and mould girls of a certain type. Generally AF seems to suggest that people retain their characters, good or bad. I do think the earlier books are a bit different in this respect mind you - in End of Term, there is a sense that both Ginty and Lawrie and seeing the error of their ways, as a result of their experience in the play. Ginty is like a transfer showing its true colours (?) and so less inclined to sympathise with the twins swapping for a team; Lawrie reflects on how she is spoilt and babyish while sitting in the bath...however, subsequently both Lawrie and Ginty resume their paths as monumental egotist and self-obsessed light-weight (sorry, I know both are more complex than that suggests) and remain as far away from the Kingscote ideal as ever....
I don't know whether this was because AF decided that it would be more interesting to have Lawrie/Ginty retain their idiosyncrisies, or whether because she decided that's how people are - they don't mature in the way Authority wants - or because they just did their own thing (as characters will do). but I do think this aspect makes AF a very modern as well as a subtle writer - that morality is complex, and the apparent approved morality of institutions so very suspect. Which is why I was so surprised when I discovered she had such a tough and reactionary moral outlook herself...
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-13 09:33 am (UTC)In this respect I think AF is very different from authors like Brent-Dyer who have the school knocking various girls into shape, and seem to endorse the role of boarding-schools as being to produce and mould girls of a certain type. Generally AF seems to suggest that people retain their characters, good or bad. I do think the earlier books are a bit different in this respect mind you - in End of Term, there is a sense that both Ginty and Lawrie and seeing the error of their ways, as a result of their experience in the play. Ginty is like a transfer showing its true colours (?) and so less inclined to sympathise with the twins swapping for a team; Lawrie reflects on how she is spoilt and babyish while sitting in the bath...however, subsequently both Lawrie and Ginty resume their paths as monumental egotist and self-obsessed light-weight (sorry, I know both are more complex than that suggests) and remain as far away from the Kingscote ideal as ever....
I don't know whether this was because AF decided that it would be more interesting to have Lawrie/Ginty retain their idiosyncrisies, or whether because she decided that's how people are - they don't mature in the way Authority wants - or because they just did their own thing (as characters will do). but I do think this aspect makes AF a very modern as well as a subtle writer - that morality is complex, and the apparent approved morality of institutions so very suspect. Which is why I was so surprised when I discovered she had such a tough and reactionary moral outlook herself...