📚 'Rather Dated' April: Noel Streatfield’s ‘Saplings’ 📚

I thought at first that I’d already read this, then realised I was thinking of Parson's Nine, which in many ways is a version of this book, except set at the time of the Great War and much less bleak - although it certainly has its moments. It also features a comforting Nannie, one girl who goes through emotional agonies without telling anyone, and a close-knit family of children who we follow through several years. Streatfeild wrote that in 1932 and to me it feels almost like a shadow version, or a rehearsal, of Saplings, which she then makes even tougher and darker.

It also struck me how much so many elements of the storyline echo her children’s books, but flip them to show a harder, less varnished truth - there’s a 'nursery', a source of refuge and safety, in the person of Nannie, but the children are constantly shunted from place to place so most of them are separated from her, except Tuesday who, as highland says, intuits the tensions around her (and seems quite an unhappy child for a lot of the book). Kim is the double of show-offy Posy Fossil in Ballet Shoes, but he doesn’t really have a talent, just a genius for being annoying and hogging attention; you sense he'll coast through life on charm and good looks. And poor Laurel never has the happy ending she so desperately craves; she doesn’t find the one thing she's really good at, like acting or skating or whatever - instead she has to go through years at a school she hates, with nobody to confide in and nobody to see her as she really is - other than the very occasional visit from the sympathetic Ruth. I found myself hoping that Ruth will marry John and together they'll find a way to have Laurel come and live with them.

The other thing that really struck me was how much - despite Alex's laudable policy of being truthful with his children - most of the adults didn’t talk to them and didn’t tell them quite obvious pieces of information. The 'grown-ups' remained very remote in so many ways even though Tony and Laurel were moving into their teens; they were still treated as much younger children. So many of the misunderstandings in the book needn’t have arisen if the adults had just told the children a bit more….it was an interesting illustration of the times and how it was felt children should be treated.

There's so much to discuss about this book.

The way the family is portrayed at the start, playing on the beach, they seem almost perfect. Handsome father, glamorous mother, two girls, two boys .. and appearances are very important to Lena. I remember the children complaining about the expectation they'd be dressed up in co-ordinating blue outfits to look good at dinner in the hotel. Lena loves them in her way but also regards them as charming accessories; she loves to be admired.

Their father is interesting - he takes time and trouble to try to understand and guide the children. He's very earnest, and I think it's one of his sisters who comments later that perhaps it's not advisable to train children up like plants (or something similar), and they're certainly cast adrift once Alex is no longer around to keep the family stable.

NS is excellent at presenting the world from a child's point of view. Little Tuesday, right at the start, is the child who's most aware that something is amiss. Because the adults think she's too young to understand, they talk more freely around her, and she knows that they're afraid .. and because her nanny and governess are afraid, Tuesday is afraid too. We realise very early on that this seemingly idyllic world is under threat.

It's also very true that children can find it impossible to articulate their unhappiness even to kind adults who would do their best to help. Laurel and Tony in particular struggle with different problems after their father's death; it's quite heartbreaking.

I could go on (I wrote a review of Saplings for a local magazine so I had to study it closely) but I think that's plenty for now!

@ChessieFL that's really interesting about the names. I'd missed out on that detail.
And the sex .. yes, unusual to be so explicit in a book at the time. I did feel the author was fairly disapproving of Lena. To some extent I understand why; Lena is less aware of the need to shield the children than her American lover, who seems a decent guy. I worried for the children with the dreadful final husband though.

I really enjoyed this, although it is sad.

Random thoughts:

• I was intrigued by the children’s names, as they seem very unusual for the time the book is set. Interesting that the children did all have more standard names on their birth certificates chosen by their father, but then they agreed to use more interesting names chosen by their mother. I thought this highlighted the different approaches of the parents, but with Lena ultimately getting her way. I think we only found out Laurel’s real name (Ann) - don’t recall the others being mentioned.
• The references to sex are surprising in a book of this time - obviously not graphic but it’s clear that Lena prioritises sex over lots of other things, including her children sometimes. Refreshing to see a book showing a woman enjoying sex, but sad that she couldn’t put her children first a bit more often.
• I just felt so sorry for the children, being shunted around all these relatives that didn’t really want them. I’m not sure what sort of adults they would have grown into.

I read this quite recently after finding some of her books online. I was not a fan of the premise that English children suffered to an extent comparable to children on the continent. But the story itself was sad and convincing. The boy’s fears about his father were pretty devastating.

I’m dying to know what people thought, but I’m reluctant to be the first to jump in!