Peter's Room
jonquil recently wrote about Peter's Room, by Antonia Forest, which she'd just been reading, and how she disliked Forest's dismissal of both the Brontes' fantasy/role-playing and that kind of fantasy life in general.
And I agree; I don't think at all that the Brontes wasted their lives doing that stuff, and it obviously doesn't have anything to do with why they died young. And nor do I think there's anything wrong with it in general; it can be life-enhancing, exciting, produce great writing etc. Just like obsessive analysing of texts, which I'm sure Forest also thought a bit strange.
Yet at the same time I love Peter's Room, I think it's fascinating, and have done since I first read it a few years ago, so I wanted to try and write down why. I think Forest, as well as using the fantasy to suggest that there can be problems with it, more interestingly is using it to explore themes which run through all the books, such as courage, fear, friendship, betrayal, and to have her characters also explore them consciously and unconsciously. There was a brilliant discussion of Peter's Room and the Brontes in fiction generally on the Girlsown mailing list last year, which threw up lots of interesting ideas.
And I can certainly accept that for Patrick, Peter and Ginty, the fantasy role-playing they do in these particular circumstances is not in the end constructive for them. (The main effect on Lawrie appears to be her wanting only one helping of pudding at dinner.) One of the obvious themes of the book is the way Patrick uses the Gondal to explore his capacity for betrayal. Originally, I thought Patrick was able to do this because he was confident in his own courage and endurance. There's a moment when Ginty thinks he discounts courage (which she mistakes for fearlessness) because it comes easily to him. But on re-readings this seemed more problematic, especially when he comes so close to shooting himself. An aspect which came up in the GO discussion was the way he may be exploring his fear that he wouldn't do as well as 'the Anthony Merrick then', whether the Cavalier officer who was shot, or most of all the one who was tortured and then executed for the Faith, and I find this a persuasive reading. And since that willingness to be a martyr is so very important to his family and his sense of himself, it's an extremely frightening prospect that he might not measure up. But betrayal in his imagination is all about big issues like that, while he misses entirely that he has betrayed Nicola. Not that I think his falling for Ginty is betrayal, but that he ditches their friendship without, apparently, any compunction, expressed most vividly when he doesn't care that he nearly jumped on her at the hunt. Both Peter and Patrick also explore their capacity for cruelty. Patrick enjoys inventing the Regent's 'particular brand of nastiness'. Peter is physically cruel - he wants to torture Rupert; he does hurt Nicola in the kitchen.
In among this are things from Marlows and the Traitor being worked out, particularly for Peter. This (truly traumatic) experience barely gets discussed in most of the books, and of course they are not supposed to discuss it, the whole thing is a secret. At the beginning of Falconer's Lure the effects are mentioned, and Captain Marlow is characteristically dismissive of any damage his children might still be feeling, and thinks they should have got over it by now. Jon agrees; but of course what Jon knows is the 'official' story about being stuck on an island for a couple of days (I think); not e.g. that Foley was going to allow them to be killed, or that Peter shot one of the enemy (one of the few times when Peter and a gun isn't a disastrous combination).
The children seem to have taken this to the point that it rarely gets mentioned among themselves. So Nicola only discovers in PR that mentioning Foley to Peter is like ice cream to toothache. And Forest explicitly says that Peter has buried much of the episode so deep he can't recall it. Perhaps that explains how he can be so careless with guns in PR; I don't blame him for the scene at the end, but am shocked when earlier he jabs one of the pistols into Nicola's back to make her jump - surely one should never do that even if one thinks the gun is unloaded? The misjudgement of other people he displayed in Traitor is still very much at work in PR when he latches onto Malise based on one (admittedly exciting) fact, and assumes a whole, principled, courageous last stand character from it, and one who goes against his family. And then he's 'betrayed' by Malise when he finds out from Patrick what Malise was really like, paralleling the betrayal he still feels about Foley. I also wonder if, while on one level Peter's role play is all about wanting to be the highly competent individual who reacts well in stressful situations, and doesn't have any fears (I don't think it ever occurs to Peter that having the courage to say he's afraid of heights would be an act of bravery much more impressive than forcing himself to do Dead Man's Drop), on another he's experimenting with saying 'I don't want to be a naval Marlow'.
There are lots more aspects to the characterisation and plot and themes of the book, and it has wonderful descriptive and dramatic moments (Sprog's death and Nicola's reaction, the end of the hunt, the whole claustrophobic build-up in Peter's room) but I suppose what I find most impressive and fascinating is the way that Forest uses the Gondal story to provide very intense character analysis (for Ginty and Nicola too, perhaps Lawrie less so) while at the same time making it a fun read in itself, and a plausible story for them to invent, and clear that the characters themselves are mainly failing to get anything from the revelations that the reader sees.
And I agree; I don't think at all that the Brontes wasted their lives doing that stuff, and it obviously doesn't have anything to do with why they died young. And nor do I think there's anything wrong with it in general; it can be life-enhancing, exciting, produce great writing etc. Just like obsessive analysing of texts, which I'm sure Forest also thought a bit strange.
Yet at the same time I love Peter's Room, I think it's fascinating, and have done since I first read it a few years ago, so I wanted to try and write down why. I think Forest, as well as using the fantasy to suggest that there can be problems with it, more interestingly is using it to explore themes which run through all the books, such as courage, fear, friendship, betrayal, and to have her characters also explore them consciously and unconsciously. There was a brilliant discussion of Peter's Room and the Brontes in fiction generally on the Girlsown mailing list last year, which threw up lots of interesting ideas.
And I can certainly accept that for Patrick, Peter and Ginty, the fantasy role-playing they do in these particular circumstances is not in the end constructive for them. (The main effect on Lawrie appears to be her wanting only one helping of pudding at dinner.) One of the obvious themes of the book is the way Patrick uses the Gondal to explore his capacity for betrayal. Originally, I thought Patrick was able to do this because he was confident in his own courage and endurance. There's a moment when Ginty thinks he discounts courage (which she mistakes for fearlessness) because it comes easily to him. But on re-readings this seemed more problematic, especially when he comes so close to shooting himself. An aspect which came up in the GO discussion was the way he may be exploring his fear that he wouldn't do as well as 'the Anthony Merrick then', whether the Cavalier officer who was shot, or most of all the one who was tortured and then executed for the Faith, and I find this a persuasive reading. And since that willingness to be a martyr is so very important to his family and his sense of himself, it's an extremely frightening prospect that he might not measure up. But betrayal in his imagination is all about big issues like that, while he misses entirely that he has betrayed Nicola. Not that I think his falling for Ginty is betrayal, but that he ditches their friendship without, apparently, any compunction, expressed most vividly when he doesn't care that he nearly jumped on her at the hunt. Both Peter and Patrick also explore their capacity for cruelty. Patrick enjoys inventing the Regent's 'particular brand of nastiness'. Peter is physically cruel - he wants to torture Rupert; he does hurt Nicola in the kitchen.
In among this are things from Marlows and the Traitor being worked out, particularly for Peter. This (truly traumatic) experience barely gets discussed in most of the books, and of course they are not supposed to discuss it, the whole thing is a secret. At the beginning of Falconer's Lure the effects are mentioned, and Captain Marlow is characteristically dismissive of any damage his children might still be feeling, and thinks they should have got over it by now. Jon agrees; but of course what Jon knows is the 'official' story about being stuck on an island for a couple of days (I think); not e.g. that Foley was going to allow them to be killed, or that Peter shot one of the enemy (one of the few times when Peter and a gun isn't a disastrous combination).
The children seem to have taken this to the point that it rarely gets mentioned among themselves. So Nicola only discovers in PR that mentioning Foley to Peter is like ice cream to toothache. And Forest explicitly says that Peter has buried much of the episode so deep he can't recall it. Perhaps that explains how he can be so careless with guns in PR; I don't blame him for the scene at the end, but am shocked when earlier he jabs one of the pistols into Nicola's back to make her jump - surely one should never do that even if one thinks the gun is unloaded? The misjudgement of other people he displayed in Traitor is still very much at work in PR when he latches onto Malise based on one (admittedly exciting) fact, and assumes a whole, principled, courageous last stand character from it, and one who goes against his family. And then he's 'betrayed' by Malise when he finds out from Patrick what Malise was really like, paralleling the betrayal he still feels about Foley. I also wonder if, while on one level Peter's role play is all about wanting to be the highly competent individual who reacts well in stressful situations, and doesn't have any fears (I don't think it ever occurs to Peter that having the courage to say he's afraid of heights would be an act of bravery much more impressive than forcing himself to do Dead Man's Drop), on another he's experimenting with saying 'I don't want to be a naval Marlow'.
There are lots more aspects to the characterisation and plot and themes of the book, and it has wonderful descriptive and dramatic moments (Sprog's death and Nicola's reaction, the end of the hunt, the whole claustrophobic build-up in Peter's room) but I suppose what I find most impressive and fascinating is the way that Forest uses the Gondal story to provide very intense character analysis (for Ginty and Nicola too, perhaps Lawrie less so) while at the same time making it a fun read in itself, and a plausible story for them to invent, and clear that the characters themselves are mainly failing to get anything from the revelations that the reader sees.