|
Post by greer on Aug 3, 2006 19:47:00 GMT -5
Sweet Valley had the same problem. Mr Wakefield was a high-powered lawyer (don't know if he was partner or not) and Mrs Wakefield was a successful interior designer, yet Jessica and Elizabeth were in constant awe of Lila Fowler's wealth. Lila Fowler was supposed to be super rich. They often mention that the Fowlers and the Patmans are two of the richest families in southern California, which I think is a bit extreme considering how rich people are there. There may not seem to us like there's a big difference between two wealthy people but there is to them. i think there's movie star money and then there's MONEY--people who are smart investors etc. whom you've never heard of but are billionaires.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Aug 3, 2006 20:55:49 GMT -5
Oh yeah, absolutely. But the Wakefields (and every family in the BSC aside from the Brewers) were never portrayed as even well-off. They were portrayed as average, middle-class while only the RICH rich Real! Live! Millionaires! (when, in this day and age, it's likely that the Wakefields and a number of the BSC families wouldn't have been far off millionaire-status) were thought of as anything above average.
Also ITA with lilafowler re the Patmans/Fowlers sending their kids to public school. I've known of some OMG!RICH! families and there is NO WAY their kids went to anything but private school.
|
|
ktag
Junior Sitter
Posts: 694
|
Post by ktag on Aug 3, 2006 21:17:29 GMT -5
In such an apparently wealthy town as Stoneybrook, they probably have pretty high standards about what RICH rich means. Since Watson has a pretty high powered job anyway, he's just adding more money to the inheritence he's sitting on. I just think they wanted to make the families look appealing with good jobs, but didn't want to turn people off by calling them rich (except one of them for the sake of contrast).
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Aug 3, 2006 21:27:28 GMT -5
^ But still, for such a PC series, shouldn't there have been some lower-class families ("but that doesn't matter to us!")
|
|
|
Post by greer on Aug 3, 2006 21:49:59 GMT -5
It's possible that the area was so wealthy that the schools were really good and there was no reason to send Lila to private school.
|
|
|
Post by fairy3lf2 on Aug 4, 2006 1:14:01 GMT -5
Didn't Sweet Valley have some low income families? The Martins were the most notable but they seemed to disappear after Tricia died. Wasn't Annie Whitman considered kind of "white trash"? Of course, there's Roger Barrett before he became a Patman. I can't remember if there were any others because I haven't read the books in awhile.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2006 2:19:12 GMT -5
^ Yeah, Sweet Valley did have it's token "trashy" families, but it certainly wasn't portrayed in a very PC way. The Martins - alcoholic father, drug-addicted slutty daughter. The Whitmans - Mrs Whitman had Annie at 16 and was involved with a sleazy boyfriend and Annie was also somewhat slutty. Roger Barrett didn't feature much before becoming a Patman.
In other words, if you're poor/low income, it's always a result of leading a trashy, shady lifestyle, not simply lacking the qualifications/training to obtain higher income employment. All the "nice" families with respectful, devoted parents were upper class. Oh, except for the SUPER rich, then they had the stereotypical cold, distant, workaholic parents.
|
|
lisa
New To Stoneybrook
Posts: 201
|
Post by lisa on Aug 4, 2006 4:20:07 GMT -5
It's possible that the area was so wealthy that the schools were really good and there was no reason to send Lila to private school. I think once they mentioned that Lila chose to go public over private, in the book where Todd goes to private school, for, like a week.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2006 5:06:07 GMT -5
^ Still, ordinarily the child would go to private school from day one, wouldn't know any different and wouldn't be given another option.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Aug 4, 2006 10:39:58 GMT -5
I don't think it's that cut and dry, just based on my experience with the extremely rich.
|
|
|
Post by sugarmonkey on Aug 4, 2006 13:29:56 GMT -5
Rich=good Poor=bad seems to be a running theme in a lot of children's books especially series books. If you look at Nancy Drew 99% of the time the villans are poor and the good/innocent are rich.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Aug 4, 2006 13:49:47 GMT -5
but then there's also the evil fat cats driving limos running over the poor little match girls who do everything for the poor family which never catches a break. it seems that rich/poor dichotomy seems to exist in children's literature with the scale favoring one or the other but it never evens it.
|
|
|
Post by supernatural babe on Aug 4, 2006 14:02:37 GMT -5
Another extreme case was when Claudia had to pay back her parent's half of a plane ticket. Now plane tickets are expensive. Maybe you had to sort of work it off. ie. Chores.
He's not a BSC member but doesn't it say that Alan Gray's dad runs a mailing service from his home. Isn't that being paid to stuff envelopes?
^^ Can't see earning that much money, but can be wrong.
Likewise, Cary- Isn't his dad a LOCKSMITH?- And yet they live in Kristy's neighbourhood.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Aug 4, 2006 14:21:29 GMT -5
The Retlins lived near Kristy, but their house seemed pretty small by Stoneybrook standards--only three bedrooms. Maybe their house was older and all these mansions were built up around it?
I always thought mail service meant he sold stuff from home or something.
|
|
|
Post by fairy3lf2 on Aug 4, 2006 18:21:29 GMT -5
Do childrens books usually have the rich people good? I always thought it was the other way around, with rich snobs. I think it's usually the middle class who are the most positive characters.
|
|