farmgirlshelley wrote:

WildCityWoman wrote:Well, these people have a lot to share with her - for what they lack in reading/writing, they have things about nature to teach her.

Now, I'm glad she's asked the old man for her 'piece of earth'.

I hope there's going to be no trouble about her having that 'secret garden'.

I don't think he understood that she wanted to work there.

It's such a delightful story.

I actually read this for the first time as an adult, so I read it with great excitement, and I was always worried about what would happen if someone should discover just where her piece of earth was.....
I could hardly put this book down and I still read it once a year.

Not sure exactly who said this, but I recently read advice on reading a good book . . .

Read it 3 times . . . once when you're young, once when you're middle-aged and once when you're old.

I think this book is one that would apply to that advice.

I said it, and that is very good advice. Luckily I read so many books every year that when I do go back and read it I often forget parts here and there so it is fun to read all over again.

With regard to Mary's use of Yorkshire Dialect:

My mother and father in law were old Lancashire people - born in 1906. The use of dialect is dying out now but they both used it when speaking to each other - but knew how to speak correctly in 'company'.

I was very touched when my father-in-law sat on my bed when I was in hospital after giving birth to my first child. For the first time, he spoke to me in Lancashire dialect - Th'art a gradely lass - is what he said. I knew then that he felt some affection for me. My mother-in-law said that thunder and lightening was very 'fleisom'(sic). It means scarey. And that word is used by Emily Bronte to describe Heathcliffe, early on in Wuthering Heights. I was so delighted when I discovered this.

I am enjoying the story very much. I haven't ever read Secret Garden before although I have seen it on film.

I might as well confess, that when I was reading these chapters and Mary's developing affection for Dickon, I worried that it might become a little cloyingly sentimental and maudling, it just managed to stay this side of OK for me. I rather liked Mary when she was a little 'Madam' and I don't want her to become too sweet (to be wholesome). Can't put the book down.

Penelope wrote:. . . when I was reading these chapters and Mary's developing affection for Dickon, I worried that it might become a little cloyingly sentimental and maudling, it just managed to stay this side of OK for me.

Under the British class system, would a romantic relationship have been possible?

Under the British class system, would a romantic relationship have been possible?

It's always been possible Tom, Although frowned upon. Unless you were actually royalty when marriage to a commoner was unacceptable.

Take 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' for example. Since we are on the subject of gardeners.

I was sent this link to read. It demonstrates very clearly how the class system operated and sometimes marred peoples lives.

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/feature ... erpt200902

But I get the impression that Mary's family were merely wealthy, not aristocrats. So a Liason with someone like Dickon would have been possible, if very unlikely.

Penelope wrote:I was sent this link to read. It demonstrates very clearly how the class system operated and sometimes marred peoples lives.

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/feature ... erpt200902

"Tony was immediately besotted with his son, so much so that two months after David's birth he did not want to leave him and fly with his wife for their planned three-week winter holiday in Antigua. But as Margaret, who had been brought up largely by nannies and governesses, pointed out, provided little David got his bottle every four hours, he would not mind whether it was his mother or the new, very experienced nanny, Verona Sumner, who gave it to him. (Unlike the Queen, Margaret did not feed her children herself.) Sumner, an excellent nanny, was another who disliked Tony, mainly because he wanted too much to do with "her" baby."


No wonder Margaret turned out bad.

Tom, why do you think she turned out bad?

I don't think it is for us to judge.

Here's a funny, courtesy of my son:-

Don't criticise a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes,
that way, you will be a mile away before he reacts, and you will have his shoes.

Penelope wrote:Tom, why do you think she turned out bad?

I don't think it is for us to judge.

Here's a funny, courtesy of my son:-

Don't criticise a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes,
that way, you will be a mile away before he reacts, and you will have his shoes.

Penelope, my understanding is that Margaret led a life of sensual indulgence and suffered the consequences in the destruction of her health. Am I wrong about this? I do not read about the misdeeds of British royality, but it seems to be a major industry in the UK. Anyway, what do people have children for if they don't want them around?

I'm going to take your son's advice and stay away from royalty and its American equivalents.

Tom

I don't know about our Royal Family either Tom. I don't read the gossip columns.

I know that Prince Charles seems a nice enough person, but we can't really know.

Someone on this forum has a wonderful tag which says:-

Great Minds discuss ideas, Average Minds discuss situations and Small minds discuss people.

I don't know whose tag it is now, because I can't find it again, but it struck me as very apt.

It was I who posted that link......I'm sorry, it was crass of me to have done so.

Penelope wrote:It was I who posted that link......I'm sorry, it was crass of me to have done so.

Now let's don't judge ourselves harshly

You are never crass. Post all the links you want!

Tom

P.S. Isn't now Chat Time?