Ethel Turner, Little Mother Meg, 1902
Nov. 27th, 2018 07:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emma_in_dreamEthel Turner, Little Mother Meg, 1902
Technically, a 20th century novel, I have nonetheless sneaked this into my nineteenth-century reads, as it is the sequel to the 1894 classic *Seven Little Australians*.
Ethel Turner had never set out to be a children’s author and she struggled with her editors about being forced into that box. Although she needed cash and had to write about the Woolcotts again, she was always pushing the boundaries and trying to sneak in a bit of writing for older audiences. The focus of *Little Mother Meg* is, as the title says, squarely on growing up.
Meg is married to boring Alan and living in a cottage and taking care of ‘Little King Baby’ which is, frankly, a bit naff. Nell was reformed in the previous book, so she now has a mild, mild flirtation and then accepts the courting of a character even more boring than Alan. I literally can’t remember his name. And the flirtation is so mild that he almost kisses her cheek but is then revealed to be a cad who flirts with other girls. Pip is studying to be a lawyer and has zero adventures of any sort. Bunty and Poppet get the most interesting sequence, as they buy two bicycles together.
So, not a lot of plot in this one. Except that Turner has to fix Meg’s finances which she does by writing a gothic interlude where Nell rescue a small child from a fire and then Alan nurses the kid back to health and is showered with cheques.
However, what Turner is good at is characterisation. There’s a chapter where they are discussing whether to have a dance party and how to pay for it – and the characterisation of all of them is so good. Nell, eager to entertain. Pip, guilty that he didn’t share his money with Bunty and Poppet when they bought their bikes. Esther, disorganised but kind hearted. Bunty, torn between generously offering up his pocket money and worrying that there won’t be enough food.
Turner’s strong point is always characterisation, and it shows through even in this book that she did not particularly want to write, in this genre she did not particularly want to write.
Technically, a 20th century novel, I have nonetheless sneaked this into my nineteenth-century reads, as it is the sequel to the 1894 classic *Seven Little Australians*.
Ethel Turner had never set out to be a children’s author and she struggled with her editors about being forced into that box. Although she needed cash and had to write about the Woolcotts again, she was always pushing the boundaries and trying to sneak in a bit of writing for older audiences. The focus of *Little Mother Meg* is, as the title says, squarely on growing up.
Meg is married to boring Alan and living in a cottage and taking care of ‘Little King Baby’ which is, frankly, a bit naff. Nell was reformed in the previous book, so she now has a mild, mild flirtation and then accepts the courting of a character even more boring than Alan. I literally can’t remember his name. And the flirtation is so mild that he almost kisses her cheek but is then revealed to be a cad who flirts with other girls. Pip is studying to be a lawyer and has zero adventures of any sort. Bunty and Poppet get the most interesting sequence, as they buy two bicycles together.
So, not a lot of plot in this one. Except that Turner has to fix Meg’s finances which she does by writing a gothic interlude where Nell rescue a small child from a fire and then Alan nurses the kid back to health and is showered with cheques.
However, what Turner is good at is characterisation. There’s a chapter where they are discussing whether to have a dance party and how to pay for it – and the characterisation of all of them is so good. Nell, eager to entertain. Pip, guilty that he didn’t share his money with Bunty and Poppet when they bought their bikes. Esther, disorganised but kind hearted. Bunty, torn between generously offering up his pocket money and worrying that there won’t be enough food.
Turner’s strong point is always characterisation, and it shows through even in this book that she did not particularly want to write, in this genre she did not particularly want to write.
