had the problem herself…Įnid Blyton, writing later on in the 20th century, made a point of asserting the moral superiority of the Famous Five over the lower classes. It’s hard not to be a prig ‘when you’re really trying to be good’, says Bobbie, and the narrator wryly comments that ‘ the Gentle reader may perhaps have suffered the same difficulty’ (p136) but methinks E.N. Phyllis is too little to do much other than tag along uncomplainingly. Bobbie is the moral pulse of the book, stoic and sensitive, and the first to find out the truth about their father. He and Dr Forrest have a heart-to-heart about how ‘girls are so much softer and weaker’ (p173) because Peter is The Man of the House in Father’s Absence. There is a triumphant reunion at the end when The Old Gentleman helps Father to clear his name and presumably they all live happily ever after. (p165) They put in this splendid effort, soldiering on as inspirational role models for the children of the British Empire, while Mother does her bit as a saintly stalwart who never gets peevish or angry and weeps only in private. They also avert a disaster by waking up a sleeping signalman but they do not sneak on him, reacting with over-the-top indignation when he offers them all he has to keep quiet about it. The children save a train from a derailment they rescue The Old Gentleman’s grandson Jim when he breaks his leg in the tunnel they organise a birthday celebration for the gruff and somewhat ungrateful ‘Perks’ they rescue a baby from a burning canal barge and – with schooldays knowledge of French superior to that of any of the workers at the railway station – they intervene to succour a Russian emigree. They get into a few scrapes, it is true, but they are kind and generous to the lower orders (except for poor Mrs Viney who is given short thrift when The Old Gentleman sends along two much superior domestics who dismiss her as an ‘old muddler’ (p182) and have her days unceremoniously cut back to two). (They are not so poor, however, that they have to do without a daily help, Mrs Viney, who presumably has the thankless task of running the household while Mother starts a career as a writer to support the family.)Ĭonsistent with the didactic children’s literature of this period, the children are impossibly ‘good’. Mother keeps this information from the children but tells them that they are ‘quite poor now’ and they go away to live in the countryside by a railway line. Those of us who know our Enid Blyton and Agatha Christie know the significance of such boots, and it was a dead giveaway that Father has been arrested and put in prison. The Railway Children features Roberta (Bobbie), Peter and Phyllis whose father mysteriously disappears after a late night visit from some visitors in boots. ( ABC Radio National Book Show) As I have yet to read The Children’s Book I offer this analysis of The Railway Children for those who have, and will refer to it later on myself. It deals with childhood and family secrets, against the backdrop of the Edwardian world with the First World War looming on the horizon’. The Children’s Book ‘is about a famous writer who is writing a private book for each of her children. Byatt’s The Children’s Book which was shortlisted for the Booker and is on the ANZ LitLovers schedule for May 2010. ![]() The reason I read it is because there is apparently some connection to A.S. No one at my school library had borrowed it in a very long time, and this is no surprise: why would Australian children of the 21st century want to read this quaint relic? What is surprising is the number of reviews on Good Reads which show that contemporary adults are uncritically reading it to their children and failing to notice that it is absurdly didactic, jingoistic, and sexist… ![]() The Railway Children, written by Edith Nesbit in 1906, is one of those classic children’s books remembered with nostalgia by adults – but it really doesn’t stand up to mature scrutiny.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |