![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseSo, 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 12:17 pm (UTC)#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
Date: 2008-09-07 04:44 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 07:36 pm (UTC)I'm not sure what the significance of the dates is, though. CS Lewis was writing around the same time, after all.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 09:14 pm (UTC)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.