Skip to content

“We Three Fossils”: In Praise of Noel Streatfeild

2011 January 27

My father took me to secondhand bookshops throughout my childhood. They were mostly the same few haunts, growing increasingly familiar over the years, although as time dragged on, we would have to cross locations off our list as they closed. For him, these were business trips: an academic must have his books, and there was always some rare tome calling him to the chase. For me, they were about tracking down Noel Streatfeild books: I was in the constant state of having read all the ones I had.

Photo: A battered copy of the Penguin Classics edition of Ballet Shoes held up by Hodge's hands; purple themed cover art showing a blonde girl putting on pink ballet shoes. Photo by Hodge.

This old thing?

She has a dizzying list of titles to her name, of which I managed to snatch only a portion: most people have heard of Ballet Shoes, and, for many, it was a defining childhood book. It’s a critics’ and writers’ pet: (Dame) Jacqueline Wilson cites it as her “all-time favourite children’s book”, and the BBC has twice adapted it for television. Lots of people also know about the other ‘Shoes’ books: Dancing Shoes, White Boots, Tennis Shoes, Ballet Shoes for Anna and the Carnegie award-winning The Circus Is Coming, but maybe less are familiar with The Children of Primrose Lane, Party Shoes, the Gemma books, or Caldicott Place. Certainly, her considerable output of books for adults has largely gone unnoticed (one of which formed the basis for Ballet Shoes itself) and I myself have only read one: Saplings, an experimental novel that explores contemporary thought about child psychology in the aftermath of war. Somewhat disturbingly, it is still written from Streatfeild’s distinctive ‘child’s-eye-view’, from which vantage point it addresses issues as varied as depression, alcoholism, sex, bed-wetting, bereavement and female self-esteem (not all at once, of course).

The Three Fossil sisters make a vow in Ruth Gervis's black and white line-illustration showing three young girls in 1950s-style dresses and aprons raising their arms to join hands at the same point in the air

We Three Fossils... The Fossil Vow, illustrated by Streatfeild's sister, Ruth Gervis

It has been often commented that Streatfeild’s gift is her ability to establish a rapport with her reader: she never talks down to children, and deals with difficult topics in the same way she describes everyday occurrences. Her commitment to realism in writing extends to her habit of painstakingly explaining what all the characters are thinking at all times. Thus, in Dancing Shoes, the just-orphaned Rachel is considered unloving and aggressive because she took her mother’s death with equanimity: we the readers, on the other hand, are kept aware of Rachel’s trials – how she scowls to keep from crying and wants to avoid any questions that might set her off. The child-reader is nevertheless forced to see the situation from at least two perspectives simultaneously, a common approach to Literature since Samuel Richardson, but amazingly innovative in writing for children. The result is a style that demands a responsibility from its readers as well as understanding: it accepts that life is often unfair, but invites children to consider how best to respond.

Streatfeild was famously the ‘unattractive’ middle girl in a clergyman’s family of three daughters. After the ‘beautiful child’ tradition of nineteenth-century children’s literature (best represented by Frances Hodgson Burnett and Lewis Carroll), her novels frequently focus on the rebellious, the stubborn and the plain, than which no better example exists than the ‘black-doggish’ Jane Winter in The Painted Garden, which meta-fictionally reworks Hodgson Burnett’s most famous novel on a film set in Hollywood. In the absence of naive beauty and idyllic country settings, her characters must make their way on merit, and, not only plain, they are often money-minded to a startling degree: “The law lets me work; I don’t need a licence, and I can do what I like with my own money,” asserts Pauline, in Ballet Shoes, at fourteen (and she gets her way).

Dr Jakes and Dr Smith, drawn for the original printing of Ballet shoes by Ruth Gervis. Black and white line-illustration showing two older women standing together, one in a shirt, tie, spectacles and cardigan with a long skirt, scraped-back hair, and flat shoes, the other more motherly-looking in a more feminine blouse and low-heeled shoes, with wavier hair.

Dr Jakes and Dr Smith, by Ruth Gervis.

The central conceit of this novel – the absence of Great Uncle Matthew (“Gum”), who adopts the three ‘Fossils’ and then dashes off to “some strange islands” – means that the book features an essentially all-female cast. Aside from the Fossils themselves – Pauline, Petrova and Posy – the house in Cromwell Road also contains Sylvia, the children’s guardian (“Garnie”); Nana, a no-nonsense disciplinarian; Theo Dane, a dancing teacher at the Children’s Academy of Dancing and Stage Training, and Dr Smith and Dr Jakes, doctors of Maths and English respectively. These last two later move on to “a charming flat in Bloomsbury” and although aged seven I never thought to ask why two female doctors should have to live together, now I wonder if Streatfeild has not rather audaciously put a lesbian couple in a 1930s kids’ book (there are some rumours about the nature of the friendships she shared with women herself, and she has been claimed variously for a lesbian and an asexual). Certainly the illustration of the Doctors by Ruth Gervis suggests she saw it that way, even if Streatfeild may not have done: they are depicted in a stereotypical style that has barely changed since the novel was written in 1936.

The only man in sight, apart from the absent Gum, is Mr Simpson, a border who teaches Petrova all about cars and then must go back to his ‘rubber trees’ in Kuala Lumpur. And while Pauline and Posy have looks and interests to endear them to the most pink and fluffy reader going, Petrova remains as stubbornly boyish as that perennially scruffy heroine of female fiction, Little Women‘s Jo: when the dancing school plan is first mentioned, Nana hopes it will “turn her more like a little lady” – Petrova “never plays with dolls, and takes no more interest in her clothes than a scarecrow”.

Alas for Nana, Petrova ends up spending auditions “flying an imaginary airplane on a new route to China”, and by the end of the book, is a determined aviator: “Amy Mollison and Jean Batten will be [in the history books], but not as important at you”, promises Pauline, imagining the distinctly un-fluffy story such books will tell: ‘[She] found routes by which goods could be carried at greater speed and less cost, and so she revolutionized trade.” Hardly the dreams of a ‘beautiful child’.

For Petrova, as for so many of Streatfeild’s children not given to performing art (and there are a surprising number, despite her reputation), the most important lesson of stage school is self-sufficiency, a goal underlined across all the books by the fact that the overwhelming majority of child-characters have no parents to speak of, or are lumbered with a domineering guardian to struggle against (notably in Ballet Shoes For Anna and White Boots). With their realist emphasis, and the lessons that ‘even’ little girls can get on in a world assailed by stupidity, war, and even natural disasters, I can think of no better author to recommend to absolutely everyone you know.

4 Responses leave one →
  1. Miranda permalink*
    January 27, 2011

    You know, ironically, I avoided Ballet Shoes for months as a kid, even when teachers pushed it at me, because the cover was so girly I wasn’t sure it was for me. Then I finally read it and loved it. I like that it appeals to so-called “girly girls” and Petrova-types both. I’m a mix of both (as many people are) and I’m glad eight-year-old me let myself be persuaded.

    • Hodge permalink
      January 27, 2011

      Yeah, it’s quite annoying what publishers have done to her: the puffin classics one I had (above) isn’t too bad but I only found out quite a long time after I first read it that it has different illustrations from the original edition.

      The pink treatment is a real shame actually as most of the books feature at least one character who thinks stage school is stupid and would be a really good figure to identify with if you’re a ‘plain’ child surrounded by…less plain, girly children. It’s also just really at odds with the actual content – so many of the books are full of parents dying, war, not being able to afford new clothes, etc. yet they’re being marketed as sort of Angelina Ballerina style books for middle class kids whose parents drive them to ballet on a saturday morning! I know they’re called ‘Ballet Shoes’ and ‘Dancing Shoes’ and so on, but isn’t the whole point of shoes that they don’t always fit?

      Incidentally, some time after I’d collected most of what I was going to collect, Jane Nissen Books did a whole bunch of them with sort of graphic covers (http://amzn.to/fgA5Ch). And this one at least isn’t pink, and features the original illustrations: http://amzn.to/dPbZMc

      • Miranda permalink*
        January 27, 2011

        I remember coming across another Streatfeild paperback at school – White Boots, I think – that was packaged as sort of late 80s/early 90s teen chicklit. So little-me actually got a third into the book before I began to realise that it was set a bit earlier in time than 1990. Which was weird.

        Some cover art examples:

        White Boots goes glam
        A much older Puffin edition
        Slightly Marian Keyes-font-tastic

        I don’t exactly dislike any of them, but it’s an interesting issue, how books are packaged and repackaged! The whole Jane Austen chick-lit covers reprint thing, and Wuthering Heights reprinted as “Bella and Edward’s favourite book!”… there’s probably a whole other blogpost in there somewhere…

        • Hodge permalink
          January 27, 2011

          Yeah. That second White Boots one is, I think, based on the original illustrations (certainly the ones in my copy, anyway). I wish I knew more about the illustration history, actually. But yeah, I’m just gonna come out with it: that first one is horrible.

          Never quite know what to think about the Jane Austen chick lit thing: I have a visceral sort of UGH reaction, but then I tell myself not to be such a horrible snob – anything that gets people reading classics is surely a good thing? But then, don’t they really want something very different?

          It’s a little bit like when you look at how some arthouse films are packaged as sort of soft porn (http://amzn.to/gBWdVU) – you can’t help but think that the person who buys it knowing all about it is going to be put off by the packaging, and the person who buys it thinking it’s soft porn is going to be very disappointed. But then, by that point, you’ve already got their money, and I guess the soft-porn market is bigger than the arthouse market…. I think it’s the same sort of lack of faith in people’s judgement to package White Boots as chick-lit: there’s plenty of actual chick-lit out there, and the fact that they’ve been reissuing Streatfeild does seem to suggest there’s a market for her too.

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS