worryingly jolly batman (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
labellementeuse) wrote2008-09-07 07:38 pm
labellementeuse) wrote2008-09-07 07:38 pm
Entry tags:
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.
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.
no subject
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
#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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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! :)
(no subject)
no subject
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".
(no subject)
no subject
Thank you for posting this. Excellent and thoughtful.
no subject
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
Dispatches
Re: Dispatches