labellementeuse | Several Reasons Why I'll Give My Kids Arthur Ransome (part I)

Current Mood: nostalgic

Entry tags:

politics: feminism

Several Reasons Why I'll Give My Kids Arthur Ransome (part I)

So, I think I've mentioned that I've been binge-reading Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons lately, and in the process I've been shocked by how much they haven't offended me. For context, if you're not familiar with this children's book series: It was published (and is set in) 1930's Britain, in the lake districts. It follows the children of two families, the Walkers (Swallows, after their dinghy) and the Becketts (the Amazons, ditto), and occasionally a few other families as well (notably the D's and the Eels.) It's classic adventure storytelling: the kids sail around the lakes, they have disasters and find copper mines and go on adventures - a real staple of the books is elaborate games which are a really heightened and respected version of "let's pretend" games - they pretend to be explorers, pirates, cannibals; adults become dangerous "natives"; they make an uncle literally walk the plank, and have slightly less literal battles to the death. This is all fairly standard stuff, but I have become convinced that the books are unique for several reasons

My affection is in two broad categories: girls and women, and performative exotification (hahahahaha.) We'll start with the first one because it's less wanky.

There are four Swallows, John, Susan, Titty, and Roger (and later Bridget), and two Amazons, Nancy and Peggy. (The D's, Dick and Dorothea, have roles in three or four books, and another book features the Eels - Daisy, her brothers Dum and Dee, and friend Don.) This means that in most of the books, girls outnumber boys 2:1. This kind of analysis is not always terribly illuminating - but this gender ration is almost unheard of. It would be extraordinarily unusual to read an adventure novel, or watch an adventure movie, with this kind of gender ratio - about the only genre that might have so many girls or women is the chick flick genre (and even then, men tend to occupy a significant number of roles.) Not only that, but each of the girls have different and interesting personalities - Susan is motherly, almost "native" in her responsibility; Peggy cooks and cleans like Susan, but there is no sense that it is vocational in the way it is for Susan; she seems content to be dominated by the extraordinary Nancy. I'm more-or-less in love with Nancy (born Ruth, but pirates are ruthless so she changed her name!)

Nancy is outgoing, prone to inventive cursing, assertive, creative, clearly intelligent; she is often the instigator of the S&A's plans, and clashes with John from time to time (it's worth noting that they normally come to very constructive compromises.) Titty is dreamy, interested in literature and French; she is artistic and is most likely to broach the "let's pretend" games. Dot, like Titty, is interested in literature, and is fond of writing romances, but with a more scientific approach (like her brother); she's more easily swayed by others' opinions (especially because the D's frequently feel like newcomers to the group); she is intensely aware of social circumstances in a way Titty is not. Daisy (along with the rest of the Eels) is not really fleshed-out, but she is bossy and more wild even than Nancy. (She's probably also younger.)

None of these women are "the girl", and while they each have different roles within the group, it is made pretty clear that all of the girls and boys can do similar things. John and Nancy, in fact, do almost exactly the same things, in a way that seems almost deliberate; all of the Swallows, Amazons, D's and Eels can row and sail their own boats (rowing I find especially interesting, as it's a physical rather than cerebral activity. John, Nancy, Susan, and Peggy - as the older children - normally take turns rowing, but the others usually get a chance.) The only exception is cooking, which Susan and Peggy (and very rarely, Titty and Dot) do. Equally, because of Ransome's unusual approach to POV, all of the characters have moments of awesome, moments of saving the day, moments of coming up with a brilliant idea, moments where they're the most important and pivotal character for the story.

So: Ransome has a lot of girls and women (his parents are all also pretty interesting) and he's equal-handed with them about almost every task. I particularly love the way Nancy rejects girly activities like cooking and nurturing, and both Nancy and Peggy deliberately and actively reject feminizing strictures (the oppressive Great-Aunt character, who makes them wear frocks and play the piano, is the most obvious example, but Nancy and Peggy are interestingly willing to challenge sexist languages and behaviours in adults around them.)

But I think - as much as I love Nancy - what really resonates with me is Ransome's treatment of Susan. And I think she's particularly resonant because we've all read "The problem with Susan", haven't we? We've all felt slapped in the face when we read The Last Battle. We've all seen how, in the Narnia books, Susan is deliberately excluded from the action when Edmund is included; Susan and Mrs. Beaver are very useful for making cups of tea, but they're not even consulted when it comes to battle plans or moral imperatives. This speaks, to me, to ideas I've been formulating since someone on the flist was talking about how, in Batman, it's always the women who are the morally ambiguous characters - Batman's always condemning Huntress or Catwoman or whoever for not living up to his morality.

I think there is a notion of women's intelligence as either being sentimental, emotional, and irrational - the dreaming, soppy princesses - and intelligence that is highly practical, but limited in application - a kind of motherly intelligence, that's very good at reminding you you need a coat and cooking eggs, but can't be expected to deal with rational questions. There's an obvious gender essentialism here, which I think Ransome's varied women characters deal quite well with; I also think it's not radical for women to point out that, actually, we can reason about things like morality just as well as men can. But there's also an implicit *devaluation* in this of this practical woman's intelligence and mothering actions. And I think that every time a woman says "Oh, I'm not just a mother", every time we reject the legacy of all the Susans, we're actively devaluing a kind of work that is actually really important - this is the same kind of work that a quartermaster does, for example. (I reject gender essentialism, so I dislike characterising this kind of work as "women's work" - I think it's work that can and should be done by men and women. Nevertheless, this is what is often meant by "women's work")

The best thing for me about Arthur Ransome is that he values this mothering work in a way that's basically unheard of. Susan Walker is the lynchpin for the Swallows and Amazons books in a way that Susan in the Narnia books never is. Because if it wasn't for Susan, none of their adventures would ever have happened - their parents only allow them to go camping alone, and sailing, and cook for themselves, because Susan is responsible enough to know what is a good idea and what's a bad one. Susan is even a kind of moral arbiter - in Peter Duck, Susan is the one who makes the decision to go on a dangerous journey, because she makes a moral distinction between them and the bad guys and points out a kind of moral imperative. Several of the books make reference to how "it all depended on Susan", it all comes down to Susan agreeing or being responsible. Susan's work, Susan's intelligences and tasks, are more important than any other member of the crews - and it's woman's work.

I just find that incredibly moving. Don't you?

I think I'm going to have to do the second part later.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I never thought about the gender ratio before, but you're absolutely right; it's highly unusual, and it means there isn't "the girl", in a way that I can't think of even many modern children's books doing. (Lewis has generally even gender ratios among his main characters, but also other problems liek woah. I feel Pullman tends to "other" his female characters in that the most prominent ones, but I'd have to go back and read more of his work to analyse why I feel that.)

I also find it interesting how the books feature an absence of fathers but not an absence of male role models; both Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Blackett essentially operate as single mothers for most of the series, but Captain Flint, Jim Brading, and others provide positive adult male role models. It removes a common YA focus on father/offspring relationships (often at the expense of the mother) without removing adult men from the picture, in a way which books that fridge mothers don't usually do with adult women.

I think Pullman's not too bad, but his works are so weirdly sexualised that it's hard to separate sexual othering and objecting of his women and girls from the general tone of his novels.

Yes, it's an interesting point about Ted Walker and the way Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Blackett (who is actually a widow, so she is literally a single mother) behave. There are elements to that special father/son relationship which can be so privileged in some books - I'm thinking particularly of Secret Water, which is really fascinating because the Swallows are dropped off with a rough map and Ted suggests that they map the islands. and this becomes a HUGE deal for all of the Swallows but most of all John - he's really striving to do this thing, it's the big plot point of the book, and he's bitterly disappointed when he thinks he might fail. And it's not even that Ted would be disappointed - he doesn't expect them to have it done. It's actually quite a moving depiction of the way children behave towards parents, especially towards absent ones, and a father's role and relationships. But I like it because other novels do similar things with Mrs. Walker and Cpt. Flint (not so much Mrs. Blackett, TBH.)

The Blacketts really are absent parents in a way the others aren't - I'd forgotten that Mrs. Blackett was a widow because they feature so little! And that makes Nancy's Amazonian-ness even more curious, because she certainly didn't get it from her mother, or not in any obvious way. I seem to recall the book explicitly commenting that Nancy in some ways gets that from her GA, which is interesting, because you've got this great contrast between the GA, who is a strong independent woman and an absolute terror to everyone around her, and Nancy, who is also strong and independent and likes to have her way, but is much more willing to compromise. It's another good example of how Ransome has different models of female behaviour and leadership. (And then there's Missee Lee, who is also a female leader, but has much more of a sense of duty than anyone else we see except perhaps John.)

Reading Wiki, I am reminded that Roger, Susan, and Titty were named after the real-life Roger Altounyan, a Syrian scientist, and his sisters, which also makes me think that the S&A series is a good one for positive mentions of science; between Dick's astronomy and the map-making and the bird-hunting and the copper-mining, as well as the North Pole expedition, there's a real focus on practical exploration of the natural world which I particularly like. Learning is presented as this positive and *useful* thing, with real-world applications. I'd like to see more of that in kids' books, for sure.

I think Mrs. Blackett just seems a little more absent than Mrs. Walker because the first couple of lake books are more about the Swallows than they are about the Amazons, so we see Mrs. Walker fairly frequently because she comes over every couple days to see them - except Peggy and Nancy actually go home to Beckfoot every night. She's around a good bit in Pigeon Post, where they're based at Beckfoot.

Re: Nancy, the books explicitly say that both the Blackett girls are more Turner (i.e. wild and adventurous) than Blackett - we know really very little about Mrs. Blackett, except that she climbed Kanchenjunga with Jim. Nancy and the GA are compared, in terms of how assertive they are and what strong personalities they have, but I think there are more influences than just the GA.

Yeah, I always kind of wondered about Roger and Dick as sort of two explorations of the same character - we get very little sense of Roger as any kind of scientist (other than his interest in engines), or as being particularly clever except in Missee Lee with the Latin.

Here from

ransomefans

I think there are two influences acting on Ransome here. One is his experiences during the Russian Revolution, his wife was Trotsky's secretary and may also have been a secret agent. The other is the immense loss of men in the Great War. Women had to go out to work because there were no men to marry them and provide an income and the women had to be taken on because there were no men to do all the jobs. Both will have accustomed him to the idea of strong, coping women.

I think you have a very good point in comparing the two Susans.

Yeah, I'm planning to get Ransome's autobiography out of the library very shortly, because I know very little about him and he sounds like an interesting man. In re: World War I, you know, that's certainly true, and both WWs saw huge influxes of women in to work (WWII especially, actually.) However, there was a backlash post-war where a lot of women hurried back to their usual roles (certainly there was after WWII, I don't know much about WWI but I would assume there was similar process) and were urged to keep out of jobs so that those men who came home healthy could find it easy to be employed. So if Ransome was capable of holding onto his memories of that period/think about it as a good thing rather than as a desperate measure, it's great but unusual, IMO.

urged to keep out of jobs so that those men who came home healthy could find it easy to be employed

Yes, but so many young men were dead or injured that there were more jobs, especially lower grades in offices, than men available to fill them.

And an after thought.

#1 Don't forget the Coots. Port and Starboard are another strong pair of females.

#2 Dates. Swallowdale has an internal date of 1931 (the note they leave in the cairn on the summit of the Kanchenjunga) and all the books fit in a four year period.

Swallowdale has an internal date of 1931 (the note they leave in the cairn on the summit of the Kanchenjunga) and all the books fit in a four year period.

True, but Swallows and Amazons also has an internal date of 1929 (the treaty signed when the Ss & As first meet on the island) - which makes absolutely no sense at all as all the evidence indicates the two books take place one year apart!

Agreed, the dates are puzzling. My excuse is I couldn't remember either exactly and Swallowdale was within reach, while Swallows and Amazons involved moving.

Confession: I haven't read either of the Coot books. I feel like I need S's and A's to get me into them!

I'm not sure what the significance of the dates is, though. CS Lewis was writing around the same time, after all.

CS Lewis was writing around the same time,

No he wasn't. Although they were of roughly similar ages Lewis and Tolkien were writing 20 years and another war later than Ransome.

In terms of the internal date of the books the earlier date is needed to keep the ages of the protagonists in the right range. I have always assumed that Bob Blackett died in the Great War and that only Nancy remembers her father.

Great post - I had also never thought about the gender ratio before, but it is an unusual one. Trying to think of other children's books from the same-ish period with a similar ratio of boys to girls, I can only come up with ones that are much more 'girly' books in their premise (i.e. set in girl's boarding schools or about ballet or ponies).

Comparing Ransome to Blyton (the inevitable comparison, though an unqual one - I have read and re-read the S&A books as an adult, but don't think I could bear picking up a Famous Five again!), she has some positive and well-rounded female characters, but even then they nearly always take a back seat when it comes to the adventuring. George may be a tomboy, but she still gets told what to do by Julian and Dick!

Very good points on Susan. One of the things that I love about the books - especially taken as a whole - is that everyone gets to be useful but in their own ways, using their different skills. There are no weak characters.

Yet another reason why all children should be made to read S&A at the first opportunity! :)

Trying to think of other children's books from the same-ish period with a similar ratio

I can't come up with children's books from *this* period with a similar ratio. It's really impressive.

Yes, I think a George and Nancy comparison would be quite interesting, but I'd have to re-read FF - anyway, I'd like to make a distinction between George, who's more or less a hollow tom-boy character, as predictable as any other of the characters who become "the girl," (Ditto with Anne, who has none of Susan's power.) and Nancy, who's really her own person and exerts as much influence over the group as John does, often more. George sort-of responds to sexism within the books, but Nancy and Peggy really do. There's a scene in Peter Duck where Peter Duck says something about a man and a couple of boys could take the Wild Cat anywhere, and Nancy, Peggy, and Titty are both like Hey!

I also think, but I can't quite remember, that there's a scene where Nancy is scornful of someone who thinks she's a boy - it might be in Great Northern - and that's quite an illuminating comparison to George, who wants people to think she's a boy. When people don't think Nancy's a girl (and by GN she must be sixteen at least, so...) Nancy recognises it as being an assumption about what girls and boys are interested in, whereas George is thrilled by it.

Yes, I'm definitely going to fill my shelves with them when I reproduce!

Absolute agreement! Though I think you could say more about Titty. To me she always seems to be somewhere in between Susan and nancy. She has Nancy's independence, and fierceness, but tempered by Susan's more maternal, nurturing aspect.

That is one thing that I've come to appreciate more and more about Ransome, though as i got older, that each girl had her own seperate personality, not just "the tomboy" and "the little mommy".

Yes, I hadn't really thought about Titty for various reasons, even though she's so charming - she's certainly a little more sensitive than either of them (witness the dowsing episode in PP) and she gets a really unique perspective and usefulness derived from that. (Again, like the dowsing!)

Absolutely, to your last point. A commenter above offered the comparison between Nancy and Susan, and George and Annie from the Famous Five books, who really fit the stereotypes you're pointing out (and yet George still takes orders from Julian and Dick, and Annie's work is never valued.)

Here via a long and convoluted LJ trail.

Thank you for posting this. Excellent and thoughtful.

*blinks*

This is an amazing post. (And some pretty darn good discussion in the comments, too.) I never consciously realized any of this before.

Now you mention it, I really can't think of any other children's story where female characters are treated as equals, or worthy of respect, the way they are in the Swallows & Amazons books. My reading growing up (I didn't encounter S&A till mid-teens) ran entirely to the distressingly common "girls are useless except when they pretend to be boys" spectrum.

I don't really have much to add to the discussion, yet, but I just thought I'd let you know that you've inspired me to do some serious rethinking of the assumptions I make about gender roles... many thanks to you for that!

(Here via

ransomefans, more or less...)

I discovered this post (and enjoyed your analysis) while searching for stuff about Arthur Ransome (being a life-long fan - I'm now 60 and still read all the books!) I then went over to Archive and read 'Dispatches'.

Firstly, congratulations on an entertaining variation on the speculation of how the characters mature and their experiences in WWII.

Secondly, congratulations for venturing in to matters of sexuality (some die-hard fans object to such speculation!)
Lastly, back in Autumn 2013 I wrote just for myself a tale of how some of the characters ended up after WWII.

In it I had John and Peggy engaged, Dick having worked at Bletchly Park in the war working on computers for Lyons and Nancy in a relationship (started during the war) with Daisy (one of the Eels in Secret Water.)
Why I came to the conclusion that this would happen I’m not really sure, they both just seemed to be of that nature and clearly hit it off when they first met.

As yet, it remains unpublished anywhere but I have been considering posting to one of the fan fiction sites.

Sorry - just realised I added this as a reply to the last comment, not as a new one!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Several Reasons Why I'll Give My Kids Arthur Ransome (part I)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Dispatches

Re: Dispatches