For some of the lifelong and
devoted readers of the twelve Arthur Ransome novels that make up the Swallows
and Amazons series, there has often been much speculation on what happens to
the major characters and the paths their lives take after we leave them in what
is considered to be their final appearance by all of them in the book Great
Northern?.
Though this last novel in the
series was written and published two years after the end of the Second World
War it is set, as are all the others, in the mid to late 1930s. This aspect of
Ransome’s work serves to highlight one of his skills as a writer, the real
world in respect of what is happening nationally and internationally, as
opposed to real life, only encroaches on the books, in terms of plot and
character, when it is essential and so consequently the threatened war as it
would have been in the novel’s timescale is not mentioned or even hinted at.
One of the things that makes Great Northern? different from the other
novels is the contrast it provides with the previous two books in the series We
Didn’t Mean To Go To Sea and Secret Water. From examination of some
aspects of this contrast we able to glean more detail on the development and
maturing of the main characters, and this can assist us with our speculation
about their respective futures.
With the immense amount of
knowledge that the Internet now makes available to us, such speculation about
the characters lives is now widespread - forums, blogs, fan fiction sites and
the publishing of analytical scholarly papers all offer their views on the
matter. For some Ransome devotees this activity has been going on prior to the
emergence of the Internet, for example in an issue of Mixed Moss (the
magazine of The Arthur Ransome Society) from 1994 there is an article
considering the relationship between John and Nancy and it how it may develop
beyond their lives as it is described in the books.
This process of hypothesizing
about fictional characters has been criticised by some literary critics, but is
robustly defended by Margaret and Michael Rustin in their study of children’s
fiction (Narratives of Love and Loss, 1987), they comment ‘…authors have
imagined situations and persons as if they were real.’ (p. 14, ibid,
authors’ emphasis.) Their conclusion for taking such an approach is ‘…that our
procedure is only an extension of ordinary readers’ response to works of
fiction.’ (p. 14, ibid.) and conclude ‘We may in fact know more and not less
about a fictional character than about most real people of our acquaintance.’
(p. 15, ibid.)
One of my main motivations for
considering this aspect of Ransome’s books has its origins in similar
speculation over such matters, this activity highlights another of his skills
as a writer whereby he created characters whose lives, in the way they are
described, give you cause to think about them in some depth after you have
finished reading the novels.
It is clear in the books that
amongst the main characters some particularly strong friendships emerge: John
and Nancy, Susan and Peggy, Titty and Dorothea being the most obvious. These
friendships are not of course limited to or at the exclusion of others, but
they are the main relationships that emerge, that is until the novels Secret
Water and Great Northern?. In the former we see Nancy, along with
the others, meeting and making a particular connection with Daisy of the Eels,
whilst in the latter the intensity and depth of the friendship between Titty
and Dick is revealed in the book’s closing pages. As Peter Hunt observes in his
discussion of the eleventh book in the series The Picts and the Martyrs
by the end of the book ‘…all the characters have grown up to the point at which
a deeper formulation of relationships would be inevitable.’ (p. 82, Approaching Arthur Ransome, 1992.)
Of those two books that were published before Great Northern?
one of them in its plot and the characters involved stands out from the others
in the series, We Didn’t Mean To Go To Sea only involves the Swallows
and, with the exception their mother and Bridget, nobody else from any of the
other books. The novel shows all the Swallows changing or maturing in their own
way. These changes in them all arise from them being placed, in a sense, in to
a ‘real’ dangerous scenario that has to be dealt with without the involvement
of any adults. The four children are forced to confront events and situations
where their decisions and reactions will have a serious effect on themselves
and their siblings, particularly for John and Susan. It is these aspects of the
book that makes it one of the most popular, and even the best, of the series
for many readers.
A lot of the speculation about
all the major child characters arises in Online ‘fan fiction’ sites and amongst
the plethora of Ransome based work posted there seems to be two particular
ideas that regularly occur, and those notions are all commented upon in other
Websites as well. The first of those that John and Nancy will eventually in
adulthood marry is the most prevalent. The second is that at least one of the
female characters will emerge to declare themselves in maturity as a lesbian,
and the most common suggestion for this notion is that it will be Nancy (there
is an irony here that in the 19th and 20th century this
name became a derogatory slang description of male homosexuals, though it has a
much more simple origin as an affectionate ‘shortening’ of the name Ann.)
Though Ransome allows his
characters to mature to a degree, given the relatively short timescale of the
series of novels, he is often accused, critically, of ignoring matters of the
sexuality of, or romance between, the older characters as they enter what we
would now refer to as their teenage years. In Ransome’s defence it has to be
said that he does not actually ignore these subjects, he was writing at a time
when to allow such matters to be included in books aimed at children would be
viewed suspiciously or even with total abhorrence. Of course, this does not
mean such behaviour did not exist between children of such ages as the older characters
who, by the end of the series, would have been fifteen or sixteen years old.
There has been in relatively
recent years much discussion amongst Ransome devotees and experts over the
status of Great Northern? in his canon. It is recognised and accepted by
all Ransome readers that Peter Duck and Missee Lee are
metafictions – stories ‘invented’ by the characters in the other books. This
activity is referred to directly in Swallowdale in the case of Peter
Duck, coming about when the Swallows and Amazons got together with Captain
Flint on a wherry on the Norfolk Broads in the previous winter (the origin of Missee
Lee is not revealed in any of the other books.) Some argue that Great
Northern? too is a metafiction, primarily as it relies heavily for its plot
on an idea, outlined in great detail, that was given to Ransome by his friend
Myles North (whom the novel is dedicated to), and that the timescale of the
book does not fit in with the usual pattern of the events taking place during
school holidays as in the other more straightforward novels of the series.
Despite these differences and the
possibility that Great Northern? is a metafiction, the parts of the book
that reveal and detail aspects of the main characters and their friendships
serves to highlight the development and maturing of all of them by Ransome in
contrast to the books that precede it. Significantly, even though the fragment
of another novel, which was edited for publication by his biographer Hugh
Brogan and entitled by him The Coots in the North, exists it does seem
as if Great Northern? was, albeit originally unintended, a farewell to
us readers by the Swallows, Amazons and Ds.
Ransome, of course, was in some
ways restricted in what he could write of the maturing of his characters by the
period in which he was writing. He was, as he made clear during his lifetime
both publicly and privately, not a children’s writer and that he did not write
for children and expounded on this in some depth in a letter to Helen Ferris in
March 1938 (p. 209, The Best of Childhood, 2004.) He was, of course,
well aware that his audience was children and the books would have been bought,
in the main, by parents and relations who in so doing would have expected them
to conform to the widely accepted moral and social standings of the day. If we
compare his novels to those for children by Malcolm Saville, in general terms,
the latter was able to allow his characters to develop in to older teenagers
and young adults as he continued writing volumes of the Lone Pine series
in to the 1970s. These years followed and continued a lengthy period in the UK
when there was a radical change in culture and society from that of the period
that Ransome was writing in.
In his defence, Ransome clearly does not ignore the maturing of
his characters in other less contentious matters, that of Roger being an
obvious one and also the change of Bridget from a baby in Swallows and
Amazons to being old enough to leave her mother and take part in Secret
Water, though not considered ready to be fully involved in the preceding
book We Didn't Mean To Go To Sea.
It has always been my contention,
as an adult reader of Ransome, that his books are a ‘snapshot’ of England, in
particular, at that time in which they were set. He wrote of what he saw around
him then intertwined aspects of his childhood, and how he would have liked his
childhood to have been. Subsequently the novels reflect middle class life as
observed by a member of that class, thus countering some who criticise him for
his books being so. He is also criticised for in a similar way having a
tendency to reinforce gender stereotypes, but again this is a reflection of the
time he lived and is far less guilty of this charge than other writers of the
period. In addition he is occasionally criticised for the language he uses,
some of which is now quite rightly perceived to be unacceptable for various
reasons. This argument is an important one, but needs to be considered at
another time, perhaps a discussion considering various aspects Ransome’s
language and literary style. Such comments relating to Ransome’s view of class
and gender often seem to stem from those who have actually not read the books
in any depth, and also rely on Ransome’s public image relating to the books
that in many ways he deliberately kept quite limited to ensure his privacy
during his lifetime.
There have also been attempts, though very obliquely, to question
Ransome’s motives in writing such books, with an underlying implication that
there is something ‘odd’ about a middle-aged man writing about children. But
this misinterpretation comes across in a rather heavy-handed way, much as in
the same way it has been attempted to portray him as a traitor while working in
Russia as a journalist during the revolution of the early twentieth century
(double agent he may have been but ‘traitor’ is still a very problematic
conclusion.) More relevant to this discussion here is that Roland Chambers in
his book on Ransome as a spy claims that Ransome was a '...ferocious opponent
of ... the modern obsession with ... sex...' (p. 335, The Last Englishman,
2010) though his source for this observation is not cited. Yet, in the same
book his description of Ransome's relationship with and subsequent marriage to
Evgenia is that it was 'passionate' (p. 8, ibid), though it is not entirely
clear in what sense Chambers uses the word.
One of Ransome’s earliest
successful published works (ignoring his ghost writing of books on sport,
physical education and nature) was about his time living in Bohemian London as
a young man in the nineteen-hundreds (Bohemia in London, 1907.) Through
this we know that he would have come in to contact with and been part of a
sub-culture which embraced the concept of ‘free love’ and where the expression
of sexuality was nothing to be secretive about, similarly the role of women,
the second wave of feminism, was for them to be the equal of men and live their
lives accordingly. It can be concluded that he may have incorporated as much as
possible of these matters as he could in his writing though not specifically
for, or aimed at, children. Of all his characters there is one that reflects
these matters more than for any of the others, and it is also the one that we
have no confirmed or reliable record of a real person that it can be concluded
that they are based upon, and that is Nancy.
Ransome's inspiration for nearly all of his major characters were
drawn from people he knew in his life, and the sources for most of these can be
worked out from his autobiography, there are discussions of the possibilities
in the official Hugh Brogan biography and from the various memoirs of those
that met him and knew him. Despite this, Taqui Altounyan made the point ‘It is
no more possible to sort out which of the characters were based on real people,
than it is to pin down the various places in the books to actual points on the
atlas.’ (‘Sevens – I think that is what this talk is about’ given to
South West Region of TARS in 1994.)
Many of those that have studied
the books in depth reach the conclusion that the characters Dick and Dorothea
are based upon aspects of Ransome himself rather than any individuals that he
knew, whereas the Swallows we know are all based upon the Altouyan children.
But Nancy and Peggy have no such obvious origins.
There have been some claimants over the years as to being the
inspiration for Nancy (and Peggy) by people, some seemingly based on the simple
facts that they were young teenage girls who could sail and wore red knitted
caps in the Lake District. Some in addition claim to have had some minimal
interaction with Ransome. But, as yet, no serious, verifiable contenders have
emerged. Like the lake and all the other geographical elements in the books set
in the Lakes, Nancy seems to be an amalgam of the characteristics of a number
of real women worked in to one person through Ransome’s imagination.
In terms of twentieth
century children’s fiction Nancy is one of the most interesting characters
created. For many such children’s ‘adventure’ books the tradition arose of any
‘strong’ female characters usually being presented with the characteristics of
what has become known as ‘tom-boys’. This is on the basis that to be capable,
decisive and a leader are male traits and so had to be represented as such even
though they are attributed to girls. The one thing that makes Nancy stand out in the books, and in some
ways apart from all the other girls, is that she is a very strong female
character. Such female characters in other works are often dismissed as mere
'tomboys' and are in stark contrast to how Ransome portrays Nancy including her
being physically strong. As Peter Hunt says of Nancy ‘…it is never suggested
that she is emulating boys per se…’ (p. 71, ibid, author’s
emphasis.) In more traditional
children's fiction it seems females, if domesticated and caring in the manner,
for example, of Susan, were and perhaps still are more acceptable to parents
and educators as they do not threaten the status quo as it is perceived to be
by the majority.
There are some obvious examples
in this style of writing whereby ‘strong’ girls are given a ‘male’ identity to
fit in with their abilities, such as George in Enid Blyton’s Famous Five
series and Peter in Malcolm Saville’s Lone Pine series. This aspect of
these two female characters is reinforced by both of them having names that are
‘shortened’ to a male form, from Georgina and Petronella respectively. Ransome
turns this convention around by giving his character Ruth a nickname of the
‘strong’ female name Nancy. So a traditional biblical derived name is replaced,
she is given a relatively modern name with no biblical connections much more
suited to her role in the novels.
Interestingly, two of the other main female characters, Titty and
Dorothea, also show strengths that are not often seen in children's literature
of the period whereas one female, Peggy, is almost stereotypical in her
behaviour - her fear of thunderstorms and speaking openly when it would be
better to stay silent being the main ones. Then with the character of Susan we
are given a female who excels at everything domestic, an ideal sought by many
men, even to the extent of her mother relying upon her in the care of her other
children.
Not only is Nancy physically and emotionally strong, she almost
dominates the plot of every book, even when she is quarantined in her sick bed
in Winter Holiday. She also plays a background part in the books she
does not directly appear, particularly in the Broads books when being referred
to by those that know her to those that don't!
Those that speculate on a female character from the books being a
lesbian in adult life use these aspects of how Nancy is portrayed to support
their view. The main suggestion we have of Nancy's possible sexuality actually
appears in the ninth of the twelve books, Secret Water, and it really is
no more than a veiled hint, you have to make a close reading of Nancy and her
behaviour in this and the other books with this reference in mind to begin to
get a sense of her in this matter. It also
has to be remembered that by the time of Secret Water Nancy would be
fourteen to fifteen years old, and thus she was fast approaching adulthood, if
not reached, especially in female biological terms.
Of course, the origin of the Amazon’s name has to give us cause
for consideration in this discussion, whereas the Swallows take their name from
the boat they are allowed to use in the first novel there is no equivalent
described in the books for Nancy and Peggy. Amazons - the female warriors from
Greek mythology who shunned men in their society and only had annual or
biannual sexual relations to continue the race, where male children were
slaughtered to achieve this end. Was this tribal name chosen for Nancy and
Peggy by Ransome deliberately, or did he just continue the connection with the
idea of using the name of the great South American river? Interestingly, Taqui
Altounyan mentions that in 1924 ‘We also had a native Armenian nurse called
Perouse, an Amazon of a woman.’ (ibid, emphasis mine.)
There is another important aspect to consider in this discussion;
the character of Nancy comes across to us in some passages of the books that
she is a feminist. Not that the term is ever used, but it is clear that Nancy
is just as capable as any of the males in whatever task is before them. Some
devoted readers of the books may dismiss this labelling because the notion of
'feminism' is often perceived to be a product of the nineteen-sixties. Yet it
has to be remembered that Mary Wollstonecraft published The Vindication of
the Rights of Women at the end of the eighteenth century (1792) and the
term 'feminism' is first recorded in print in the 1890s. It is in the more
modern view of feminism (that of the 1930s and 1940s and later) that Nancy
inhabits, rather than that of the 1960s or the view that Ransome probably
observed during his young days in London. Nancy was not a woman fighting for
the right to vote or to be able to play her part in the political life of the
nation, she already regarded herself as a captain and so in charge of others, she
wanted to show she was as capable as many men and more so than a great number!
All through the books she has encounters with adults whereby with her plain
speaking she either gets her way or puts them in their place, not letting them
think they can deal with her easily as she is 'just a girl' and is rightly
offended on the occasions when this happens.
It has to be acknowledged that some have observed Nancy sometimes
comes across in the books as almost being devoid of emotions or any deep
feelings. The major rebuttal to this idea is when she expresses her feelings
most poignantly in Swallowdale over her dealings with the GA in relation
to her mother, and her memories of what she has been told of her late father
when they are all at the summit of Kanchenjunga.
So how does all this peripheral information draw some of us to the
conclusion that when Nancy matures that she will be a lesbian?
To consider this argument and discuss it firstly there has to be
acceptance that human beings gender and sexuality are in the main genetically
part of us, and our upbringing and life experiences can both encourage or
suppress them. Many of those, for example, who have been incorrectly gender
assigned at birth or always ‘felt’ they were of the opposite gender (such as the
travel writer Jan Morris, once James Morris) knew from an early age (in Morris’
case when he was three years old) what they should be. Similarly in matters of
sexuality, many know before they are of a maturity to be sexually active where
their proclivities lay. At the time of writing (Autumn 2016) in the UK and the
USA there are moves to accommodate those with such doubts of their gender at a
much earlier age, this is a far more complex argument beyond the scope of this
discussion. My aim is to speculate on the possible sexuality of an older
teenager and not an attempt to make them something they are not, but to
consider what they may be within the confines of the information given to us in
the texts, and how it effects our interpretation of the novels.
As noted, an easy response to such a difference in a young woman
by some writers is to use the device, now something of a cliché, of a 'tomboy'.
In more recent times the same notion is often achieved by describing such a
character as a loner, an orphan, having divorced parents or some other
negatively perceived social stigma.
In The Arthur Ransome Society magazine Mixed Moss (issue
No.2 of Volume 3 1997) Sarah and Peter Hunt, acknowledged experts in the works
of Ransome, contributed an article ‘Arthur Ransome and the Question of Gender’
discussing how the roles of the male and female characters fit the traditional
stereotypes that usually occur in children's literature. Though they describe
the main characters all tending to follow expected stereotypes, they conclude
'... the one element of AR's success has been precisely that he balances the
genders, the two sides human nature so finely, and in a manner very advanced
for his time.' (p. 38.)
Obviously this is all circumstantial, yet is it not the sign of a
great writer that they can produce characters and plots that lead you to think
of them beyond the confines of the pages of the book? A voracious reader may
consume many novels, but how many works give them cause to think beyond their
pages? To want to re-read them is something of a triumph for an author (for me
those I do re-read are members of a select group given how many books I have
read in my lifetime.)
From my own interest it seems many readers have perceptions of
‘what happens outside the books and what happened next' for Ransome's
characters. Most common is that John and Roger will join the navy, next John
marrying Nancy seems to be regularly proposed as such outcomes are certainly
hinted obliquely at in the books. In an article in a another edition of Mixed
Moss (issue No. 1 of Volume 2 1994) Dave Sewart contributed a piece
entitled ‘Sex on the Quarter Deck’, this examines the relationship between John
and Nancy as the series of books progresses, and the possibility that they will
be together in adulthood - ‘Time and again we catch them looking at each other,
looking into the other’s thoughts…’ (p.35). Other speculations about the
characters abound on fan fiction Websites and Internet forums discussing the
works. It has to be said that Ransome is not alone in being so discussed but it
does seem he is one of only a few from that period of children's literature,
but this is more a reflection of both the quality of his writing and his
observations of children's lives. His equals, in the sense of identification
with by readers, in modern times seems to be the Harry Potter and Twilight
series of books.
When still alive Ransome was able to either indulge in, mislead or
ignore questions regarding his novels from his readers and others, now there
are none to speak for him, his literary executors quite rightly guard his works
in the matters of copyright infringement and misuse so leaving us readers to
speculate on other matters.
Nancy seems to provoke such speculation partly because of her lack
of a 'real' person to connect her with or identify her by. Her character beyond
what Ransome gives us is something of a blank canvas; it is significant that
the conclusion on the nature of her sexuality is a common one. Sewart concludes
his piece with the following thought ‘Did AR omit such relationships, or are
they so subtly entwined in the plot that we do not always spot them?’ (p. 37,
ibid) which to me sums up neatly the position we find ourselves in regarding
Nancy.
There is a feminist argument that this conclusion about her
sexuality has come about because many men, and some women, see a strong (in all
senses) woman as a threat, and by labelling her a lesbian diminishes her
strength, or justifies the perceived threat. In the novels Nancy shows little
interest in domestic matters, otherwise expected from all the females, she
'works' certainly but it is regarded as 'real' work (the equivalent of paid
labour), not housework (unpaid labour.) This is clearly seen in Pigeon Post
where physical labour is involved, Nancy does much of the mining and crushing
with the pestle and mortar while Susan cooks meals for them all and cares for
the younger ones, even though the two of them are of a similar age. Again, such
rejection of unpaid domestic labour by a woman often leads to such conclusions
and labelling. (A similar process is often, unfortunately, applied to men who
are interested in fashion or interior design.)
The crucial marker to help us speculate on the nature of Nancy's
sexuality from the books is her meeting with Daisy (of the Eels) in Secret
Water. In the book the Swallows meet Don of the Eels first, and then until
the arrival of the Amazons none of them have yet to meet Daisy (other than
Bridget) and they do so when 'rescuing' Bridget from her captors (the Eels.) It
is clear from the first exchange between Nancy and Daisy they recognise
something in each other, a shared characteristic. Though Ransome's writing
makes this clear he does not state at all what it is they recognise (there is a
scene where the two go off together), and it would seem probable he had no idea
himself, they were just like-minded, but as Sewart says ‘When two sixteen year
olds wish to be alone together we do not need a blow by blow account to tell us
that they are not playing games.’ (p. 37, ibid). In his longer
discussion of Secret Water Sewart states 'Nancy arrived and (inevitably)
discovered another purpose - plus Daisy, a kindred spirit the like of which
she had never had before.' (p. 36, ibid, emphasis mine.)
Recent research by geneticists has indicated that friendships,
though seemingly random, can be choices made on genetic similarities. In
analysis of people and their close friend's DNA it shows they tend to be as
closely related as if fourth cousins (Nicholas A. Christakis
and James H. Fowler,
Yale University, 2014.) So
such choices of friends and future partners seems to have an element of
recognition of the self in others.
Further on in Secret Water Nancy and Daisy have 'secret'
discussions (a further interpretation of the book's title), though we know this
meeting is with regard to planning the 'human sacrifice' celebration between
the Swallows, Amazons and Eels later in the plot, that it is made clear that
these two have such an immediate rapport is significant. When Ransome splits
the narrative in his books in this way, as he often does, we are usually given
alternate chapters to follow both sides, but of the talks between Nancy and
Daisy we are told nothing. But we are told ‘…’There was a lot to talk about.’
Both of them were smiling. It seemed to John almost as if they had been glad of
the delay.’ (p. 249, Secret Water, Puffin 1969.)
Prior to Nancy and Daisy going off without any of the others all
of them are invited to Daisy's parent's yacht for afternoon tea, Daisy prepares
them all for this, but this is clearly aimed at Nancy in particular. Nancy
understands immediately and surprises the others during the visit by her
behaviour in particular chatting to Daisy’s parents about gardening. (p. 235,
ibid.) The reason for this care during the visit is recounted in the book as so
that none of them should give any clue to Daisy’s parents of her 'other' self
(in the plot this is referred to her as being one of the Eels, but of course
can be interpreted to include other matters such as her sexuality.) That John
and Susan, and the others, go along with this deception is not in itself
surprising, but it seems Nancy understands immediately the importance of this
separation of life in to what is shown and what is not shown to parents and she
comments that Daisy even ‘looks’ different (p. 234, ibid.) This deception of
Daisy’s parents is not because what they do is in any way ‘wrong’ but it is
something they want to keep outside the parent's sphere of influence. It is
also behaviour they have no wish to share with them, but in return they are
happy to behave in a way that will please the adults (Don has previously talked
of doing the same with his own mother (p. 100, ibid)), though Ransome hints
during the episode with Daisy’s parents that they are not entirely convinced by
their daughter’s efforts!
Though writing in the late 1930s and in to the 1940s about the
1930s Ransome may not have directly dealt with the sexuality of his characters,
but he does not shy away from contentious issues. In Coot Club the
Hullabaloos are a social group that behaves in ways that many at the time, and
now, would find unacceptable. To contrast with this there is the behaviour of
some of the locals - George Owdon in Coot Club and The Big Six
being a petty criminal and a general nuisance to everyone, the fathers of the
Death and Glories, working class boat-builders, in The Big Six end up
fighting on the staithe! These are not descriptions of a perfect middle-class
world of perfect older children (the term teenager was not coined until the
1950s) as Ransome is often accused of doing (Chambers in his introduction
rather over emphasises the point and only manages to weaken his argument, (p.
5-6, ibid)) but it is a world where wrongs can be and are nearly always
righted.
The idea of a woman desiring her own sex is not new or unusual
even at the time Ransome was writing, those who do not approve cannot deny its
existence. In literature at the time Radclyffe Hall and Virginia Woolf were the
most well known examples, they too gave their characters masculine names;
Stephen and Orlando respectively (and of course some male writers ventured in
to such areas, D H Lawrence being one of the most obvious.)
In objective terms to speculate
on the possible adult lives of fictional children is in some ways an almost
pointless activity, and even in some senses dangerous, but the difference with
the characters created by Arthur Ransome is that we are given such an insight
in to their inner lives that such speculation is inevitable. Additionally, there
is so much we are not directly told about them but enough to encourage us to
find out more. From my first ever reading I can well remember that they all
felt ‘real’, these were children who, if my life was different in some way, I
could have met, got to know and so shared in their adventures. Yet for the
Swallows, Amazons, Ds and the others they were not just ‘adventures’, these
were just the things that happened in their lives. Yes, parents and school lurk
in the background almost as something that actually interferes, but as Nancy
memorably says to Dick and Dorothea on their first meeting in Winter Holiday
“…but what are you? In real life,
I mean.” (p. 39, Winter Holiday, Puffin, 1968.)
