macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Oct 10, 2007 18:09:34 GMT -5
The whole Nannie thing has always been weird and bugged me, too, especially since I am not a big Nannie fan anyway. I do like her better in the LS books and have just decided not to put too much thought into her in the BSC books. ;D Is this the book where Nannie comes to take care of Emily or doesn't that happen until later? No, I'm pretty sure she came in this book. Nannie was never a favorite of mine either.
|
|
|
Post by sotypical42483 on Oct 11, 2007 11:10:29 GMT -5
I don't really find it odd that the BSC were there for Emily's arrival. I mean in real life, yes that would be strange, but in BSC land, the BSC were practically the only guests at Sharon and Richard's wedding, they are guests on each others family vacations - they kinda seem to automatically be invited everywhere.
I think it's entirely plausible Nannie wasn't retired when Kristy etc were little. I don't think Nannie is very old, I would say early 60s at the most.
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Oct 11, 2007 15:38:37 GMT -5
^ Agree about Nannie and the BSC. Still think that Nannie could have helped a little more or at least been mentioned more since they are supposedly so "close" in later books. But she could have just not been mentioned because there wasn't enough room. As for the BSC being there with Emily, I think that was more for Kristy's benifit. If my kid was being so good about getting a new brother or sister, (I would be worried about the reaction despite how everyone except me seems to think that most kids would be happy. I know I wouldn't be ;D) I would want to do what I could to keep them that way, to preserve the harmony and prevent future tantrums. Letting them feel involved in some way - even if it is by throwing a party for their own friends - would be okay with me.
|
|
blossom114
Sitting For The Papadakis's
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by blossom114 on Oct 11, 2007 16:59:02 GMT -5
I dont think nannie comes in thsi book, only because i just raed it, and they dont get emily michelle until like ...the last chapter or something. not sure when she appears though
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Oct 11, 2007 19:03:58 GMT -5
True. I guess I'm just thinking too deeply about it all ;D
I guess that's how I feel about it too. Before Nannie moved in with the family, she really just seemed like a "special occasions" grandmother.
Also, I find it strange that in BSC-land, extended relatives move in with families to take care of kids, but don't seem to just babysit on the odd occasion - all Stoneybrook families rely on the BSC for that!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Oct 11, 2007 19:16:31 GMT -5
^ ;D Maybe the extended relatives just happen to not be available when they turn to the BSC. Like when Aunt Bud broke her leg or whatever she broke in Ghost Cat. I assume the Perkins, Newtons and main clients don't have extended family in the area but I might be wrong. I guess we wouldn't know.
|
|
|
Post by sotypical42483 on Oct 11, 2007 22:14:14 GMT -5
I don't know why they'd expect Nannie to be around when the Thomas kids were little. I mean if she had a job and stuff, how could she be? She'd be just as busy as Elizabeth. Besides which, it's the PARENTS job to make sure their children are taken care of, not the grandparents! I don't resent nannie at all for not being around then.
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Oct 11, 2007 23:42:04 GMT -5
^ I don't really resent her for that and agree it is the parent's responsibility. Hate the current trend of parents dumping kids on their own parents.... I just thought it was weird that she wasn't mentioned more but I guess not considering how much - or I should say how little ;D - the other BSC grandparents are mentioned.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Oct 12, 2007 0:59:17 GMT -5
I don't know why they'd expect Nannie to be around when the Thomas kids were little. I mean if she had a job and stuff, how could she be? She'd be just as busy as Elizabeth. Besides which, it's the PARENTS job to make sure their children are taken care of, not the grandparents! Yeah, but then she was practically raising Emily Michelle, when the Brewers could easily have afforded daycare even just a day or two a week to give Nannie a break. And when Karen and Andrew came to live at the "big house" every other month, Nannie then had two other kids to take care of. I think it's a lot to expect of a grandparent. You mean instead of putting them in daycare? Or parents who simply hand their children over to their own parents to raise because they can't take care of them? Personally I wouldn't leave my kids with their grandparents if I worked full time, mainly because I think it's a huge responsibility and I'd feel guilty about doing it. Especially at two yrs old - when they're older and more self-sufficient, it's different, because the grandparent doesn't have to do more than supervise. But full time during the toddler years just isn't something I'd be comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Oct 12, 2007 9:17:17 GMT -5
^ Agree that Watson and Elizabeth should have been Emily's main caregivers and raising her instead of Nannie. It bothered me that Nannie seemed more like the parent. What I was talking about leaving the kids was the mothers/parents who "want" their kids but then have them and leave them permenantly having very little or no role in their lives and their grandparents totally raise them as "parents". I had many friends with that situation and it causes a lot of confusion, problems, etc. As for extended family instead of daycare, I actually prefer extended family as babysitters (with some kind of compensation, of course) but understand that every situation is different. It all depends on the family, the grandparent's age/health/etc. I'm not big on the whole idea of daycare. I'm not going to go into my views on childrearing on here, though. ;D In fact, I'm going to stop thinking so deeply about Emily's adoption and upbringing and just accept it as a good thing because it gave her a better life and gave me another cute character to read about. ;D I think I like Emily better with every book as I focus on the adorable toddler things she does instead of on every fault and her strange upbringing, which obviously isn't her fault.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Oct 12, 2007 17:59:35 GMT -5
I think it was also the lack of financial necessity that bothered me. Elizabeth didn't need to work full time, why couldn't she go part time just to give her mother a break every now and then? We were repeatedly reminded that Nannie wasn't just some old grandmother knitting in a rocking chair, she had her own social life and activities, so I think she'd have felt tied down by full-time care of a toddler. I guess I'm just looking at it from my own grandparent's (and parents) perspective ... I couldn't imagine any of them being so selfless. Not that it's a bad thing, of course.
Yep, I agree as well. I just think such an arrangement places a lot of responsibility on the grandparents and I wonder if it would end up creating tension between the parents/grandparents over time.
|
|
|
Post by sotypical42483 on Oct 12, 2007 21:25:00 GMT -5
I guess the reason I have never thought it was so awful of Elizabeth/Watson is because my mom watches my sisters baby 4 days a week and has since she was only a few months old (she's 18 mos now). She loves doing it. Of course she has her own life, but she enjoys having the baby with her. Granted it isn't exactly full-time, but it is close - 4 full days a week. So maybe nannie really does enjoy it. Plus she's living there for free, maybe this is how she pays rent
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Oct 12, 2007 22:02:14 GMT -5
^ yeah, you've got a point. I guess I've just been influenced by my own mother's rants about how "it's not a grandmother's job to look after their grandchildren, they've already had their turn raising children" blah blah blah... I guess it didn't occur to me that Nannie actually wanted to help out
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Oct 12, 2007 23:28:35 GMT -5
I guess the reason I have never thought it was so awful of Elizabeth/Watson is because my mom watches my sisters baby 4 days a week and has since she was only a few months old (she's 18 mos now). She loves doing it. Of course she has her own life, but she enjoys having the baby with her. Granted it isn't exactly full-time, but it is close - 4 full days a week. So maybe nannie really does enjoy it. Plus she's living there for free, maybe this is how she pays rent I agree about not minding Nannie watching Emily during the day. What bothers me is Emily seems more "connected" to Nannie than to her own parents, which I guess is to be expected since Nannie spends the most time with her. I think that happens a lot even with baby-sitters. Again, though, every situation is different. I think my biggest problem with the Emily/Nannie thing is that somehow I relate it to my personal situation with my grandma, who definitely favors my cousins (and used to baby-sit them a lot but never would make time for me as a kid). My personal issues coming out, I think. ;D
|
|
fluffy
New To Stoneybrook
Posts: 180
|
Post by fluffy on Oct 13, 2007 7:14:23 GMT -5
Watson and Kristy's mom both took took their careers seriously, so IMO there isn't a reason why Elizabeth in particular should have taken time off her job... It does seem that she and Watson interact more with Karen, David Michael et al than they do with Emily, although come to think of it, we see less of Elizabeth or Watson than we do of the other BSC parents. It was stressed a lot how 'energetic' Nannie was and leaving your kids with close relatives is probably a notch above leaving them with a live-in housekeeper.
|
|