15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Old but good, July 23, 2006
My copy of this book belonged first to my grandmother (born in 1888 I think), and then my mother and aunt. I loved it as a child (in the sixties), and love it still - although it has a VERY sad ending that still makes me cry.
Reading the extract from Chapters 1 and 2 will give you a good idea of the writing quality, so I'll say little of that.
As a child I though it was a child's book, but as an adult I've come to the conclusion that it was probably written as a book for "young ladies". My grandmother was in her late teens when she was given it, which backs up my theory.
What makes it stand out from children's books of the era is that the children really are just like ordinary kids, getting into all sorts of mischief, but no morals are drawn. At least not overtly, and those that CAN be drawn are more along the lines of "this is what can happen when you stifle your children's originality and natural exuberance" than the more usual "this is what happens to naughty children". Not that the parents are horrible, but the father is somewhat stern and withdrawn - typical of many fathers even nowadays. He features mostly as someone who gets angry at the children's mischief, or who has to be applied to for funds. The stepmother is just lovely, although you get the feeling that the father married her more because he needed someone to look after his kids and satisfy his lusts (just because she's young and pretty, lusts are not mentioned in the book) than because they were in love. But then as far as I can see love didn't really come into marriage much in those days.
The What Katy Did books are the closest American comparison I can think of, but they are very goody-two-shoes-ish and moralistic compared with Seven Little Australians. This book is what made me realise, as a child, that children born "in the olden days" were just like we were.
In general, this is a jolly good book. Get it, you'll love it. (But make sure a hanky is at hand when you get close to the end).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Adorable, June 2, 2011
Set in Sydney, Australia in 1880's, seven children get into all sorts of mischief even though they are trying their best to behave. Ranging in ages from sixteen to one year, the Woolcot children are mostly left to their own devices. Their step-mother Esther, the birth mother of only the youngest, is just twenty and has no experience with children. Their father is a military man and expects his children to behave and only to show up when he expects them to.
I have been wanting to read this book for several years. I was able to download a copy to my Playbook and read most of this adorable story in one sitting. I really don't want to start telling you about the events that happen in the childrens' days, but I can assure you that they didn't set out to get into trouble, those things just seem to happen in this family. I suppose it might have been different had they had a nanny to see to their needs.
Author Ethel Turner wrote over 40 novels and has been the longest in print author in Australia. She also wrote further about the Woolcot children in: The Family at Misrule, Little Mother Meg, and Judy and Punch.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Vonn Trapps down under, June 13, 2011
An interestingly modern book, in that there are no `lessons' to be learnt, as in most children's books of the era. The narrative arc seems to stop short. The crisis has no resolution, we are left bereft.
There is a remarkable freedom to the children's lives. No parental involvement, much freedom of movement, very little formal education or religion.
The father is absent, neglectful, from a modern perspective abusive. He is absent even in the standards of the time - his children are unusual in that they eat separately to their parents. His `discipline' stems from anger, he leads the children to incriminate themselves then punishes them, he banishes his daughter from the family unit indefinitely.
The mother is another `child' only four years older than the eldest daughter, and inexperienced.
The children are drawn as true characters - neither good, nor bad, but trying to do their best, making mistakes, sometimes putting their own needs ahead of their `duties', but caring and loving of each other.
The children have no adult to help guide them, so they are thrown upon each other.
Meg is an empty vessel, and looks to the dubious role models of friends. Her `mistakes' are corrected through well meant advice from others who have no role in her upbringing.
Pip is the only one to attend a day school. He is not punished for his part in incidents where his sister is fully held to account.
Judy is the best drawn character, she has a distinct voice, has motivation for her actions. She is the one who is not obedient and passive, but takes control of the situations she finds herself in.
Nell is beautiful and of no other interest
Bunty is dirty, fat and lazy, totally self centred, a liar and `weak' He is the least appealing of the children. His appearance and morality are interchangeable
Baby is `cute'
The youngest child, 'The General' is their responsibility - they are his carers, and this inappropriate burden for children has the greatest repercussions for Judy - who is banished for neglecting his care, and loses all in protecting him.
Remarkably, the story still resonates after 100 years. This is the Australian version of the Vonn Trapps, without a Maria to save them.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No