Does TARS have a future in the 21st century

In view of the changes that have happened in the 80 years since the first stories appeared will they have any meaning to future generations?

We now have instant entertainment, instant news, coming to us on our Blackberries and Ipods and at home, My grandchildren over Christmas received the Nintendo Wii and now can physically participate in all kinds of sports (no sailing yet) and games without leaving the living room.

One can be sure of never being lost like Titty and Roger if you have a GPS, John would have known exactly Goblins position on the North Sea.

In future years the electronic toys and gadgets will be more and more sophisticated.

Will the Society be able to adapt to these things. or should it be a historical society giving its members a taste of things long past.

I think that the main competition is from more recent books, not from electronic toys.  Children who go in for the latter will be unlikely to go in for books anyway, so they are 'lost to literature'.  When AR wrote his books there were much fewer books available for children, but what there were have become 'classics'.  Think of Beatrix Potter, R.L. Stevenson, W.E. Johns and many more.  It will depend very much on what children are exposed to by their parents.  I have two grandsons, brothers.  The elder, at  11 y.o., is keen on football and electronic toys, while the younger (4) devours books, albeit ones which are read to him.  Both are exposed to books, but the older has chosen a more active or faster-paced recreation.  So it is also in the personalities of the children of they take to the stories or not.  The demographic may also change in favour of older readers.  I didn't discover the books until I was 40, and yet they appealed to me.  They may become the sort of thing which one has to be 'old enough' to appreciate.  As the stories are essentially of outdoor pursuits, the climate may have some influence.  I think that TARS will change, but slowly and subtley, in ways which may surprise us.

David.

Previously Robin Marshall wrote:

In view of the changes that have happened in the 80 years since the first stories appeared will they have any meaning to future generations?

We now have instant entertainment, instant news, coming to us on our Blackberries and Ipods and at home, My grandchildren over Christmas received the Nintendo Wii and now can physically participate in all kinds of sports (no sailing yet) and games without leaving the living room.

One can be sure of never being lost like Titty and Roger if you have a GPS, John would have known exactly Goblins position on the North Sea.

In future years the electronic toys and gadgets will be more and more sophisticated.

Will the Society be able to adapt to these things. or should it be a historical society giving its members a taste of things long past.

 

Will the Society be able to adapt to these things. or should it be a historical society giving its members a taste of things long past.

First, many thanks, Robin, for taking up the challenge to start some new and highly relevant debates. Can I make it clear that I am replying as an ‘ordinary’ TARS member, not as TARS Company Secretary, although inevitably I am using knowledge gained in course of my job – you cannot “un-know” things!

Will the Society be able to adapt to these things? Well I would say – in theory, yes, why not? and it is going to have to, anyway. Robin is absolutely right about the explosion in instant communication, both between individuals and in the various media. For a start, there’s eBooks – the scope of the works available in eBook form is expanding exponentially. Sooner or later, the question will arise as to whether AR’s books should be licensed for this sort of electronic publication. That of course is a matter for the Ransome Literary Estate, but any development in this area will have a knock-on effect. Should the TARS publications be available electronically, or even online? Many would say that ‘Signals’, and most certainly ‘Outlaw’ (new generation!) should be available online now (subject to Ransome copyright restrictions). Some go further – between these four walls I can tell you that last year a suggestion was made, at senior level, that TARS should have a presence on Facebook. No enthusiasm whatever was expressed for this, but that is what most young people use. Before long, the younger generations may have moved on to an even newer form of communication, and TARS may find itself in the awkward position of being ‘two generations’ behind, and virtually ‘invisible’ to young people.

I can’t stress enough that if members feel strongly that TARS should be wising up to modern methods of communication they must take the matter in their own hands, by expressing their concerns volubly to the TARS managers (via the Regional or Overseas Reps) and, even more important, volunteering for either their Regional or the National Committees. There is no other way round this. If you sit there saying ‘Why doesn’t TARS do this?’ or ‘Why doesn’t TARS do that?’ then believe me, nothing will happen and TARS will drift on through the 21st century using 20th century practices. It’s up to the members! It’s your call!

Thanks Peter

I hope others will subscribe.

I am not sure about Facebook, there has to be a constant stream of events to keep the group in the forefront of the news page. Otherwise it just fades away and one has to search for it.

Nancy Blackett Trust does have a group and they seem to come up fairly often, the other thing is I think some parents worry about security, and some adults too I know several that avoid joining.

I do however think we need to keep on top of trends in the electronic media.

You're making me feel as old as I am, Peter!  I have had several family members as well as friends nominate me as a 'Friend' on Facebook, and I have resisited it.  For me, an Old Dogmudgeon of the first order, this is 'a bridge too far'.  I am quite happy to step aside for a younger, more geeky person who is more familiar with these things, to take over my Australian co-ordination, and to take us into the 21st Century,  if that is what the membership wants.  Fortunately, under the TARS and AusTARS rules I will have to step down after 6 years, which is only a year or two away.  I think that the advice of members who understand this technology and it ramifications (which concern me no end) will be essential to those who have to make the various decsions.

David.

Previously Peter Hyland wrote:

Will the Society be able to adapt to these things. or should it be a historical society giving its members a taste of things long past.

 

First, many thanks, Robin, for taking up the challenge to start some new and highly relevant debates. Can I make it clear that I am replying as an ‘ordinary’ TARS member, not as TARS Company Secretary, although inevitably I am using knowledge gained in course of my job – you cannot “un-know” things!

 

Will the Society be able to adapt to these things? Well I would say – in theory, yes, why not? and it is going to have to, anyway. Robin is absolutely right about the explosion in instant communication, both between individuals and in the various media. For a start, there’s eBooks – the scope of the works available in eBook form is expanding exponentially. Sooner or later, the question will arise as to whether AR’s books should be licensed for this sort of electronic publication. That of course is a matter for the Ransome Literary Estate, but any development in this area will have a knock-on effect. Should the TARS publications be available electronically, or even online? Many would say that ‘Signals’, and most certainly ‘Outlaw’ (new generation!) should be available online now (subject to Ransome copyright restrictions). Some go further – between these four walls I can tell you that last year a suggestion was made, at senior level, that TARS should have a presence on Facebook. No enthusiasm whatever was expressed for this, but that is what most young people use. Before long, the younger generations may have moved on to an even newer form of communication, and TARS may find itself in the awkward position of being ‘two generations’ behind, and virtually ‘invisible’ to young people.

 

I can’t stress enough that if members feel strongly that TARS should be wising up to modern methods of communication they must take the matter in their own hands, by expressing their concerns volubly to the TARS managers (via the Regional or Overseas Reps) and, even more important, volunteering for either their Regional or the National Committees. There is no other way round this. If you sit there saying ‘Why doesn’t TARS do this?’ or ‘Why doesn’t TARS do that?’ then believe me, nothing will happen and TARS will drift on through the 21st century using 20th century practices. It’s up to the members! It’s your call!

 

 

Changing tack slightly, I came across this article in the Guardian recently. The last answer mentions S&A and I think gives a fairly "conventional" view of AR's long term popularity (which ultimately dictates TARS's long term potential).

The second answer is also interesting in respect to the comment about instructions given to modern authors. I'm not sure what AR would have made of that!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/16/childrens-books-doctor-julia-eccleshare

I take it you're referring to;

>You may find yourself cringeing at their racist or sexist attitudes, and understand why
>publishers feel it is no longer acceptable to promote them.

Unfortunately people of Julia's opinion seem to have lost sight of the fact that for many years we've had a working society with values and attitudes as portrayed in AR's novels. Whereas it's all very well to promote a 'new age' and to 'rubbish' our history and national heritage, IMHO we now have a completely broken society that's falling apart at the seams.

I can't help thinking that if people were presented with the choice between a little more of AR and returning to a society with a future, or, more of the same and complete anarchy within 20 years - we might see a little less of this rubbish in the press!

Yes, that's what I meant in respect to "conventional" view.

My second comment was really about her second answer: authors are strongly warned away from showing children in potentially "risky" situations... In other words, "real" stories ­reflect the very proscribed and watched state into which we have ­corralled children.

Presumably if AR had faced such attitudes from his publishers he would never have got SA published at all. He may have got away with Roger no longer being the youngest in the family, but as for running up a field or anything else...

I don't know whether the point Julia claims about children's book editors is accurate or, if it is, whether it is a UK phenomenon. If anyone has experience of this part of the publishing industry it would be interesting to hear their thoughts.

I'm glad to say that our Australian cousins seem to have a more robust attitude to childrens' and young adult literature. I recently came across the "Tomorrow" series by the Australian author John Marsden, which deals with a group of teenagers caught up in a real war. At a superficial level these books are action adventures. But their real focus and interest lies in character and character development : these teenage characters have to cope with the moral and ethical consequences of some very real "risky situations".

Apparently the Tomorrow books are hugely popular in Australia and I believe the Swedish government once paid to distribute copies free to all the teenagers in Sweden, believing that they were the books most likely to encourage young Swedes to take up reading. So it seems that John Marsden's publishers and the Swedish government take the view that teenagers can and should have fiction that tackles difficult, challenging and often "unpleasant" issues. It does make me wonder what happens if our society is taking the view that young people need to be sheltered from such things?

Perhaps this is one area where societies like TARS should have a future, by offering a counter voice to currently prevailing attitudes?

Previously Gareth Bult wrote:

I take it you're referring to;

>You may find yourself cringeing at their racist or sexist attitudes, and understand why
>publishers feel it is no longer acceptable to promote them.

Unfortunately people of Julia's opinion seem to have lost sight of the fact that for many years we've had a working society with values and attitudes as portrayed in AR's novels. Whereas it's all very well to promote a 'new age' and to 'rubbish' our history and national heritage, IMHO we now have a completely broken society that's falling apart at the seams.

I can't help thinking that if people were presented with the choice between a little more of AR and returning to a society with a future, or, more of the same and complete anarchy within 20 years - we might see a little less of this rubbish in the press!

Yes, Geraint, John Marsden is very widely read among young Aussies.  I think that his direct approach stems from a local tendency to avoid dressing issues up, but to face them and deal with them.  We have very few euphemisms for what might be considered 'vulgar four-lettered words'.  This in turn may stem from living in a land where it is not too difficult to end up dead from hostile (ie, poisonous) insects, reptiles, plants and fish, or even the land itself.

David.

Previously Geraint Lewis wrote:

Yes, that's what I meant in respect to "conventional" view.

My second comment was really about her second answer: authors are strongly warned away from showing children in potentially "risky" situations... In other words, "real" stories ­reflect the very proscribed and watched state into which we have ­corralled children.

Presumably if AR had faced such attitudes from his publishers he would never have got SA published at all. He may have got away with Roger no longer being the youngest in the family, but as for running up a field or anything else...

I don't know whether the point Julia claims about children's book editors is accurate or, if it is, whether it is a UK phenomenon. If anyone has experience of this part of the publishing industry it would be interesting to hear their thoughts.

I'm glad to say that our Australian cousins seem to have a more robust attitude to childrens' and young adult literature. I recently came across the "Tomorrow" series by the Australian author John Marsden, which deals with a group of teenagers caught up in a real war. At a superficial level these books are action adventures. But their real focus and interest lies in character and character development : these teenage characters have to cope with the moral and ethical consequences of some very real "risky situations".

Apparently the Tomorrow books are hugely popular in Australia and I believe the Swedish government once paid to distribute copies free to all the teenagers in Sweden, believing that they were the books most likely to encourage young Swedes to take up reading. So it seems that John Marsden's publishers and the Swedish government take the view that teenagers can and should have fiction that tackles difficult, challenging and often "unpleasant" issues. It does make me wonder what happens if our society is taking the view that young people need to be sheltered from such things?

Perhaps this is one area where societies like TARS should have a future, by offering a counter voice to currently prevailing attitudes?

Previously Gareth Bult wrote:

I take it you're referring to;

>You may find yourself cringeing at their racist or sexist attitudes, and understand why
>publishers feel it is no longer acceptable to promote them.

Unfortunately people of Julia's opinion seem to have lost sight of the fact that for many years we've had a working society with values and attitudes as portrayed in AR's novels. Whereas it's all very well to promote a 'new age' and to 'rubbish' our history and national heritage, IMHO we now have a completely broken society that's falling apart at the seams.

I can't help thinking that if people were presented with the choice between a little more of AR and returning to a society with a future, or, more of the same and complete anarchy within 20 years - we might see a little less of this rubbish in the press!

 

Many thanks, David. That does seem to suggest a different cultural attitude affecting what is considered appropriate for children and young people to read.

As an aside, I don't recall seeing any vulgar four-letter words in the John Marsden books I've seen. But he is certainly direct in confronting issues and it makes sense if this stems from a different appreciation of "reality" in respect to risk in day-to-day life.

Previously David Bamford wrote:

Yes, Geraint, John Marsden is very widely read among young Aussies.  I think that his direct approach stems from a local tendency to avoid dressing issues up, but to face them and deal with them.  We have very few euphemisms for what might be considered 'vulgar four-lettered words'.  This in turn may stem from living in a land where it is not too difficult to end up dead from hostile (ie, poisonous) insects, reptiles, plants and fish, or even the land itself.

David.

Oh no, I didn't mean that Marsden used that sort of language in his books.  I don't think that he would get published if he did.  However, I do see these words in the serious broadsheet newspaper ( similar to The Guardian) which I read, usually quoting someone of limited vocabulary.  In that case the offensive word is there in full, instead of a series of asterisks which leave the reader to speculate on the original.  This, however is a newspaper which does not appeal to younger readers, if any newspaper ever does.

David.

Previously Geraint Lewis wrote:

Many thanks, David. That does seem to suggest a different cultural attitude affecting what is considered appropriate for children and young people to read.

As an aside, I don't recall seeing any vulgar four-letter words in the John Marsden books I've seen. But he is certainly direct in confronting issues and it makes sense if this stems from a different appreciation of "reality" in respect to risk in day-to-day life.

 

Previously David Bamford wrote:

Yes, Geraint, John Marsden is very widely read among young Aussies.  I think that his direct approach stems from a local tendency to avoid dressing issues up, but to face them and deal with them.  We have very few euphemisms for what might be considered 'vulgar four-lettered words'.  This in turn may stem from living in a land where it is not too difficult to end up dead from hostile (ie, poisonous) insects, reptiles, plants and fish, or even the land itself.

David.

 

Thanks, David. I'd thought that was probably the case, but felt I'd better clarify, lest  other people assume Marsden did use such language liberally. 

I was thinking about this after replying to your previous comment and it struck me that Marsden used quite a neat trick in respect to characters swearing. What he did was  make it clear that one of them never swore (or if she does, only very mildly under great provocation). This  neatly establishes in the readers' minds that the other characters do swear at "normal" levels (whatever people assume these to be) without his having to litter their dialogue with examples.

I suppose AR employed other techniques. Nancy, for instance, creates her own words and phrases that inoffensively replace those a real pirate would use. Other characters have equally restrained favourites - Susan's "Botheration!" springs to mind.

Unless I've forgotten something, I think the most extreme word used came from Captain Flint in Missee Lee, where he tapped "d***" in morse code to Nancy and Peggy, then replaced it with "botheration".  

Previously David Bamford wrote:

Oh no, I didn't mean that Marsden used that sort of language in his books.  I don't think that he would get published if he did.  However, I do see these words in the serious broadsheet newspaper ( similar to The Guardian) which I read, usually quoting someone of limited vocabulary.  In that case the offensive word is there in full, instead of a series of asterisks which leave the reader to speculate on the original.  This, however is a newspaper which does not appeal to younger readers, if any newspaper ever does.

David.