Children of a different social class

Moose · Post by **Moose** » 11 Feb 2007, 20:18

Every now and then in Blyton's books there are children introduced who are obviously of a different social class than the 'norm' that she was writing about. Claudine, for instance, or the nouveau riche Jo Jones. Or Jo from Famous Five or Ern Goon or - well, lots of examples. I thought it would be interesting to look at some of these characters in more depth, including the way in which the other children relate to them..

Willow · Post by **Willow** » 13 Feb 2007, 08:04

One thing that bothered me as a child was the way that Ern Goon was treated (more or less) as a friend by Fatty & co - but when he stayed at Fatty's house, he had to not only sleep in the shed, but also take his meals, not in the dining room, but in the kitchen with the cook.

At the time, I was a working-class visitor to a couple of big houses, complete with staff. And I could recognise the social differences of my hosts, and knew some of the staff as my neighbours. But, as a guest, I certainly was not relegated to the kitchen to eat. I was shocked that Ern was. It seemed that the Trottevilles were determined to 'keep him in his place'.

'You may socialise with us, but here is the reminder that you are not one of us.'

Post by **Anita Bensoussane** » 13 Feb 2007, 09:01

Yes, Fatty is patronising to Ern throughout The Mystery of Banshee Towers. Last time I read it, I found myself cringing. That's one of the reasons I don't like that book as much as the others.

Anita

Moose · Post by **Moose** » 13 Feb 2007, 14:54

Yeah good point about him sleeping in the shed .. I bet that Pip wouldn't have been made to do that!

rogoz · Post by **rogoz** » 16 Feb 2007, 05:21

Certainly Blyton was very matter-of-fact in describing dirt-poor children who regularly pop up in the novels. There is also no fairy-tale ending for most of them - ' the poor are always with us ' seemed fine to Blyton [ or her era ] Some, like Jo, get a leg up the class ladder & go to school.

Structurally, the poor kids are used, like most other extra characters, to spice up the thin characterisation of the main players. In Famous Five, there is always a big fuss about how poor kids live / behave & contrasted with the well-off middle class. The contrast is kept up for most of the novel to add character interest.

This contrast trick doesn't work with rich or other middle-class extras, such as Sooty / Marybelle - usually Blyton has to feature some other peculiarity, such as obsession with cars [ Tinker ] or language [ Berta ]javascript:emoticon(':D')
Very Happy

Moonraker · Post by **Moonraker** » 16 Feb 2007, 13:03

rogoz wrote: Structurally, the poor kids are used, like most other extra characters, to spice up the thin characterisation of the main players. In Famous Five, there is always a big fuss about how poor kids live / behave & contrasted with the well-off middle class.

This contrast trick doesn't work with rich or other middle-class extras, such as Sooty / Marybelle - usually Blyton has to feature some other peculiarity, such as obsession with cars [ Tinker ]......

Although disagreeing with you as to thin characterisation of the main players, I think you have got a point with the lower class kids. They were usually dirty, had sticking-out teeth, sniffed, or some other derogatory trait. In my experience of the 50s, so called poorer kids were always well dressed and clean. Pride, after all, is not a class trait.

Of course, if you go back to Victorian times, it was much different.

Interestingly, we are not introduced to many middle classed extras. You have mentioned Pierre and Marybelle and Tinker (although he didn't seem that middle-class in behaviour/attitude). I can think of Richard Kent, possibly Martin, Henrietta....okay, there are quite a few!

It does seem that if you are white, middle class, British, have a strong determined jaw, good looking and good at sports, you will be a success. Heaven help you if you hate games, your teeth stick out, suffer with acne and you're a bit grubby!

I've often wondered where I would fit in.....hated games, big ears, not always spotlessly clean.........

[Off to the bathroom for a wash]

Moose · Post by **Moose** » 16 Feb 2007, 15:24

I wouldn't hvae said Tinker was middle class! Even the name seems to be taking a swipe at low social class

.

YEah I've noticed that the popular kids are almost ALWAYS really good at games. Claudine is an exception to this but there are not many.

Kitty · Post by **Kitty** » 16 Feb 2007, 15:32

Tangent, but I was always horrified by the way Sooty and his sister lived - their family life is one of the worst in Blyton, to my mind! The benign neglect of some of the less fortunate characters would be infinitely prefereable to me than the strange psychological abuses of Smugglers Top!

Moonraker · Post by **Moonraker** » 16 Feb 2007, 17:21

Moose wrote:I wouldn't hvae said Tinker was middle class! Even the name seems to be taking a swipe at low social class .

I think it was due to his father's appallingly bad memory that he was called Tinker - as he wanted to tinker about with cars. I put him as middle-class as his father was a scientist.

Believe me, in the 50s, to be really popular, you had to be good at games. If you couldn't kick a ball in the back of the net from 100yds, you were classed as a jerk. If you could play a Beethoven piano concerto and accompany the school on the piano at assembly, you were seen as a bit of a nerd.

Moonraker · Post by **Moonraker** » 16 Feb 2007, 17:34

Whilst on the subject of extras, one irritation to me was the introduction of idiot children. Yan - constantly following the Five about and Benny with his absurd pigling spring to mind. What purpose did they serve?

Ming · Post by **Ming** » 16 Feb 2007, 18:00

moonraker wrote:Whilst on the subject of extras, one irritation to me was the introduction of idiot children. Yan - constantly following the Five about and Benny with his absurd pigling spring to mind. What purpose did they serve?

Nothing. Just came and unlocled a door or found out screams and wails. *bored*

Moose · Post by **Moose** » 16 Feb 2007, 19:29

I don't remember Yan - that must be one I've not read. Strange, I thought I'd read all the FF.

Then there are the foreign children who occasionally spring up in the Adventure series .. Oola for instance

.

Comerscroft · Post by **Comerscroft** » 16 Feb 2007, 19:35

One could also think of the Taggerty children in 'Those Dreadful Children' who, although they appear to be middle-class (the father had been at school with the Carlton childrens father, they can afford help in the house), are 'wild', badly behaved', 'rough' 'ill-mannered' , and do not fit into the neighbourhood with their noisy games.

The first time the Taggertys come to tea, Margery (8) advises her brother to put away his new aeroplane, saying 'you never know what children like that (the Taggertys) might do'!! ---surely Enid's voice?

Mrs Carlton does not want her well-brought up children to mix with the Taggertys--after all, the Taggertys don't go to Sunday School, and even climb trees--but Mr Carlton insists, and the story is basically how the Taggerty children have to adapt so that they can be like the Carltons.

Patrick (10) learns, through his mother's accident, to be more helpful and kind, and to work hard at school. Maureen (8) becomes less rough and more mannerly. Biddy (6) becomes more pleasant, less demanding, and even wears a hair ribbon ('part of good manners' according to Mrs Carlton)

Interesting to note that while the Taggerty children call their mother 'Mummy', the Carlton children call their mother the more remote and formal 'Mother'---another subtle distinction between the two families. Even the names Carlton and Taggerty are a pointer to the differences.

Lenoir · Post by **Lenoir** » 16 Feb 2007, 19:52

Barney is an interesting case. In the first book Miss Pepper was a little concerned that he might lead them into "bad ways" as he was a "circus boy". But he successfully makes the transition and becomes greater than all of them.

Ming · Post by **Ming** » 16 Feb 2007, 19:56

I finished reading the Rubadub Mystery today, and I have to say I wondered why Miss Pepper didn't get Barney some decent clothing and things like that. If she is concerned so much, shouldn't she have done something like that! And when it is said Barney ate with the staff, I felt rather annoyed. If she were the one who managed to get Barney into the inn, she should have thought of his thoughts at being seperated from the people who invited him....if you know what I mean.