Of course, each to their own on how they watch, enjoy and appraise this programme.
But some of the comments on the details in both the books and now the serialisation have made me think that perhaps some may be missing the point and dismissing a fine and valuable piece of work by Jenny Worth and a very sensitively done piece of TV by writers, directors and actors, over some small details.
I say this after observing and being part of (by reading the manuscripts and making comments on them) the process that 3 friends went through to produce their books.
In one case, the work was a novel, in the second, a combination of biography of a sports star intermingled with an autobiography of the writer and thirdly, a book, coincidentally, about sport and society in East London and Metropolitan Essex between 1960 and 2000, this last one similar to Worth's books in that it included recollections as well as comments about social, economic and political change.
Knowing the work that all 3 writers went through to conceptualise, plan, write, edit, proof and publish their books, along with the whole process of selling the books and getting a deal with a publisher, I am not surprised in the slightest that in all of the books, there were some typing, grammatical and content mistakes, in all cases, to the horror of the writers, who couldn't believe that such errors were present after all the checking and cross checking of he material numerous times.
In the last of the books, a footballer was given the wrong first name and when I checked it with my friend, he was at a loss as to how this came about. But how would he have felt had someone out in reader world dismissed his book and all the work that went into it because it said that Bob Hazell and not Tony Hazell had played for the team in question in 1971?
Jennifer Worth wrote the books becasue no-one else had written about the real life experiences of midwiferey and especially at the time when she was doing it.
I don't think she intended the books to be academic mastepieces nor perfect in their descriptions and I don't for one minute think that she drifted into a state where she was writing more fiction than recollected fact.
That the midwives in last night's episodes should not have not have been talking in centimeters was a mistake, no doubt.
But I suggest rising out of the detail like that and look at what the books and the TV programmes are trying to achieve in terms of leaving a record of a way of life where the body of work is negligible.
After all, bearing in mind that work that has to go into books and TV programmes just to get them completed in order that we can all sit back and consume them is huge, I'd be asking the question on any observed mistakes, how important is this error in the big scheme of this piece of work?
We can't get a documentary film camera to go back in time to record the reality for us; we have to accept second best in that respect.
So spot the mistakes by all means, but why not, overall, bearing in mind the huge amount of work it takes, give all those producing this series and Jennifer Worth who was neither an academic and not even a writer before she picked up her pen, a break?
I honestly dont care about little oddities or mistakes, I really enjoyed the show . I am still gobsmacked that its the 50;s though as it looks and feels more like the 30's at times .I will freely admit that the baby could have been mixed race and a tad lighter , but peotic licence etc !!
While I thought last night's episode was the weakest of the three so far, it was still very enjoyable. The 'father's' acceptance of the mixed race child was very touching in my view and I presume that was a true story. Loving the Miranda/policeman story.
Back in the '70s I had a neighbour/friend who was in the same situation, with a mixed race baby. Unfortunately her husband wasn't as tolerant as the one in last night's show and couldn't forgive her. They stayed together but he moved out of their bedroom and, as far as I know, never returned. Strangely, he adored the child, who, the last time I was in touch, was a clever and pretty teenager.
I agree with the posters who've said it seems more like the '30s than the '50s. I was only a child but I don't recall things being that bad or families that huge, even in the poorer parts of North Kensington where my dad's family lived.
It was pretty obvious what the outcome of the" Baby" story would be, and the "Old Bloke" story, the baby was far to "Old" to be newborn, and far too "Black".
And would the old guy with "Nowt" really have left a will, very unlikely in the 50s.
this is the first time i was watched a bit of this program.. i only saw the last few minuets of it... the bit about about ROY HUDD AND HIS LEGS, and the black baby. after seeing such a black baby i knew right away it could not be an accurately account of events.. if they could not get an half cast baby...
this is the first time i was watched a bit of this program.. i only saw the last few minuets of it... the bit about about ROY HUDD AND HIS LEGS, and the black baby. after seeing such a black baby i knew right away it could not be an accurately account of events.. if they could not get an half cast baby...
But that's to do with casting, not Jennifer Worth's story.
this is the first time i was watched a bit of this program.. i only saw the last few minuets of it... the bit about about ROY HUDD AND HIS LEGS, and the black baby. after seeing such a black baby i knew right away it could not be an accurately account of events.. if they could not get an half cast baby...
What decade are you from? "Half cast"? (sic). The old racist term was "half caste". And is not acceptable any more.
'Half caste' was not necessarily used as a term of abuse however. It was the way of describing what we now refer to as 'mixed race'. That term, mixed race, may also be out of favour in the future. In fact, I don't find it particularly ideal now. During and after the war, many Polish men married British women and had children. Nobody refers or referred to their children as either half caste or mixed race, or indeed mixed anything.
Merely because something is done or said at the moment doesn't make it ideal. (Witness changing fashions in birthing methods: episiotomies de rigeur in the 80s but considered unnecessary and barbaric in many places now for one example).
Perhaps mixed heritage would be slightly better.
Anyway, loving this series and Jennifer Worth was a fine writer.
'Half caste' was not necessarily used as a term of abuse however. It was the way of describing what we now refer to as 'mixed race'. That term, mixed race, may also be out of favour in the future. In fact, I don't find it particularly ideal now. During and after the war, many Polish men married British women and had children. Nobody refers or referred to their children as either half caste or mixed race, or indeed mixed anything.
Anyway, loving this series and Jennifer Worth was a fine writer.
How strange. I had just added the part about 'mixed heritage' being a suggestion and you posted that. I didn't know that was the latest term, although I have heard it said, but even so, it's not really correct in many cases, where there are more than two strains.
I expect we are all mixed heritage one way or another.
What decade are you from? "Half cast"? (sic). The old racist term was "half caste". And is not acceptable any more.
The term may not be accetable now and I understand that ,But when it was used in days gone by it was not a racist term .I know I used the term as a child as a way of describing a child of mixed race and certainely was not meant as racist
Terms come and go , they are used as part of the language of the day and not always with bad intent ,
As an aside I often wonder who , on a bright summers days , decides that a term is no longer PC ?
The term may not be accetable now and I understand that ,But when it was used in days gone by it was not a racist term .I know I used the term as a child as a way of describing a child of mixed race and certainely was not meant as racist
Terms come and go , they are used as part of the language of the day and not always with bad intent ,
As an aside I often wonder who , on a bright summers days , decides that a term is no longer PC ?
It will be when it becomes a term of abuse.
With regards to my earlier post, 'dual heritage' is the term used in the health service now, I can't comment about anywhere else.
With regards to my earlier post, 'dual heritage' is the term used in the health service now, I can't comment about anywhere else.
I understand what you are saying , my point is it was not used as a term of abuse in the past ,\it was the language of the day
As for dual heritage , thats fine by me ! I just sometimes wonder who decides these things ! I was born in the 50's and we used terms that were simply words then and not abuse , I now sometimes have to phone my kids to know which words are considered ok for me me to use .I would never use a word as a form of abuse with intent , but I sometimes dont even know its considered it
I understand what you are saying , my point is it was not used as a term of abuse in the past ,\it was the language of the day
As for dual heritage , thats fine by me ! I just sometimes wonder who decides these things ! I was born in the 50's and we used terms that were simply words then and not abuse , I now sometimes have to phone my kids to know which words are considered ok for me me to use .I would never use a word as a form of abuse with intent , but I sometimes dont even know its considered it
My Grandmother (77) is really enjoying the show as she worked in the area in 1958-1960 as a District Nurse. She also said the streets and people/poverty portayed are very true to life and came as quite a shock to her when she arrived from Southend.
On a different note, I spent some time working in a neo-natal unit whilst training and we had mixed race twins, one was obviously duel heritage but the other was very dark. While they probably used a black baby in the show to make it obvious that the baby wasn't the husbands, I thought I'd point put that it does sometimes happen.
My Grandmother (77) is really enjoying the show as she worked in the area in 1958-1960 as a District Nurse. She also said the streets and people/poverty portayed are very true to life and came as quite a shock to her when she arrived from Southend.
On a different note, I spent some time working in a neo-natal unit whilst training and we had mixed race twins, one was obviously duel heritage but the other was very dark. While they probably used a black baby in the show to make it obvious that the baby wasn't the husbands, I thought I'd point put that it does sometimes happen.
I bet your Grandmother has some interesting stories of her own, the sort of thing I love hearing.
I was actually advised by uni to read this book in preparation for Midwifery interviews. I loved it and Miranda is so how I conjured Chummy in my mind, it's spooky.
The 'inconsistencies' don't bother me in the slightest - they are so minor and they don't detract at all from the story that is being told. CTM is excellent Sunday night viewing of the highest order - this week's had me in floods of tears (when 'Joe' was reported as dying shortly after the amputation) both watching it at the time and then again today watching it from the Sky planner. My teenage girls were equally as moved (and quite embarrassed to be so affected!).
Several people have commented on 'London' not being so poverty-ridden as depicted in CTM, but if memory serves me correctly a couple of posters (with family links to the Poplar area) have said that Poplar existed as a little 'micro-climate' within an already-improving London, so one cannot compare North London, Kensington, West London, or indeed any other area outside of the 5 or 6 mile square area of where CTM is set because it was simply not the same as the rest of London at that time - and you can see why, from the programme; a populace entrenched in their ways, their homes (however poor - Joe this week being an obvious example) and their traditiions. One can easily see how the small area of London depicted in CTM still existed while the rest of London changed around it - indeed, the inference was made this week that people still living in such poverty such as in CTM were the exception and not the rule by 1957. I'm sure that change happened quite quickly in areas 'left behind' such as Poplar after the couple of years at the end of the 50s - and to people like Joe it was a loss, not a gain.
But so what if somewhere along the line, either in the writing stage of the original books, or at the tv adaptation stage, certain 'liberties' were taken? My best friend is an author, both of fiction and non-fiction, and he is under no illusions about the pressure put on authors, by publishers, to make even 'first-person memoirs' just that little bit more salacious in the mistaken belief that the simple truth won't be exciting enough. So who's to say who may (or may not) have pressed for the 'embellishment' some of the minor details either at the time the books were published, or when CTM was commissioned - and it's certainly not a hanging offence to have centimetres over inches when measuring fundal height!
(Mind you, I'd be curious to find out when the cm measurement came in for pregnancy - do we know for absolutely certain it wasn't brought in by 1957, or is that just an 'it can't possibly be...' opinion on the part of some posters? I am genuinely curious - can anyone find out?)
ETA: Just as black parents with a bit of dual heritage can suddenly have a very white baby (or even, in the case of twins, one white and one black baby!) I'm sure that a white mother and a black father could have produced a very obviously black-skinned baby. Nature does have a quirky way of throwing you when you least expect it - does anyone who's read the books recall if she mentions the colour of the baby in them? For all we know, the baby was extremely dark in terms of skin tone - as the previous poster has said, it does happen. It's not necessarily a mistake or a flaw or an inconsistency with the programme - nor is it something to cause a knee-jerk "it lost all credibility for me when I saw the colour of the baby's skin" response! If it happens in real life (albeit rarely) then why not in this case?
it's certainly not a hanging offence to have centimetres over inches when measuring fundal height!
(Mind you, I'd be curious to find out when the cm measurement came in for pregnancy - do we know for absolutely certain it wasn't brought in by 1957, or is that just an 'it can't possibly be...' opinion on the part of some posters? I am genuinely curious - can anyone find out?)
ETA: Just as black parents with a bit of dual heritage can suddenly have a very white baby (or even, in the case of twins, one white and one black baby!) I'm sure that a white mother and a black father could have produced a very obviously black-skinned baby. Nature does have a quirky way of throwing you when you least expect it - does anyone who's read the books recall if she mentions the colour of the baby in them? For all we know, the baby was extremely dark in terms of skin tone - as the previous poster has said, it does happen. It's not necessarily a mistake or a flaw or an inconsistency with the programme - nor is it something to cause a knee-jerk "it lost all credibility for me when I saw the colour of the baby's skin" response! If it happens in real life (albeit rarely) then why not in this case?
I thought about both these things. I'm not sure when SI measurements came in to use but I do know they have been around since the early 1970s at least in a medical context. This scene was so pointed that it seems odd that it was a mistake, perhaps it was done to show that in the medical arena SI was coming in and to make the point that it was well before we might think.
I found an interesting article also about babies and the probability of certain colours. It said that whilst the majority of babies in this scenario would be in the middle somewhere, it was certainly possible for an almost 100% white/black baby to be born.
I thought about both these things. I'm not sure when SI measurements came in to use but I do know they have been around since the early 1970s at least in a medical context. This scene was so pointed that it seems odd that it was a mistake, perhaps it was done to show that in the medical arena SI was coming in and to make the point that it was well before we might think.
I found an interesting article also about babies and the probability of certain colours. It said that whilst the majority of babies in this scenario would be in the middle somewhere, it was certainly possible for an almost 100% white/black baby to be born.
Very interesting indeed! Like you, I am finding it hard to believe they wouldn't care about apparent 'mistakes' when they have tried so hard to get other things completely correct to the period. That's why I'm curious - after all it was an absolute 'gift' to the medical profession to find out that 'fundal height' in cms was roughly the same as 'weeks pregnant'. I'm sure once the link was made they didn't hang about using it, even if the rest of the metric system remained a mystery for the next couple of decades!
(Mind you, I'd be curious to find out when the cm measurement came in for pregnancy - do we know for absolutely certain it wasn't brought in by 1957, or is that just an 'it can't possibly be...' opinion on the part of some posters? I am genuinely curious - can anyone find out?)
Metric measurements started in the mid 1970's, just a few years after decimal currency which started in 1971.
Metric measurements started in the mid 1970's, just a few years after decimal currency which started in 1971.
No they didn't. Metric measurements had been in use for decades before decimalisation. People seem to think centimetres didn't exist before the 1970s. Not the case, just not in common usage but certainly used in scientific and medical fields.
I can't believe how pernickety some people are. In every drama there are small errors, but if you let that ruin the drama then you'll find very little to enjoy on tv.
Comments
But some of the comments on the details in both the books and now the serialisation have made me think that perhaps some may be missing the point and dismissing a fine and valuable piece of work by Jenny Worth and a very sensitively done piece of TV by writers, directors and actors, over some small details.
I say this after observing and being part of (by reading the manuscripts and making comments on them) the process that 3 friends went through to produce their books.
In one case, the work was a novel, in the second, a combination of biography of a sports star intermingled with an autobiography of the writer and thirdly, a book, coincidentally, about sport and society in East London and Metropolitan Essex between 1960 and 2000, this last one similar to Worth's books in that it included recollections as well as comments about social, economic and political change.
Knowing the work that all 3 writers went through to conceptualise, plan, write, edit, proof and publish their books, along with the whole process of selling the books and getting a deal with a publisher, I am not surprised in the slightest that in all of the books, there were some typing, grammatical and content mistakes, in all cases, to the horror of the writers, who couldn't believe that such errors were present after all the checking and cross checking of he material numerous times.
In the last of the books, a footballer was given the wrong first name and when I checked it with my friend, he was at a loss as to how this came about. But how would he have felt had someone out in reader world dismissed his book and all the work that went into it because it said that Bob Hazell and not Tony Hazell had played for the team in question in 1971?
Jennifer Worth wrote the books becasue no-one else had written about the real life experiences of midwiferey and especially at the time when she was doing it.
I don't think she intended the books to be academic mastepieces nor perfect in their descriptions and I don't for one minute think that she drifted into a state where she was writing more fiction than recollected fact.
That the midwives in last night's episodes should not have not have been talking in centimeters was a mistake, no doubt.
But I suggest rising out of the detail like that and look at what the books and the TV programmes are trying to achieve in terms of leaving a record of a way of life where the body of work is negligible.
After all, bearing in mind that work that has to go into books and TV programmes just to get them completed in order that we can all sit back and consume them is huge, I'd be asking the question on any observed mistakes, how important is this error in the big scheme of this piece of work?
We can't get a documentary film camera to go back in time to record the reality for us; we have to accept second best in that respect.
So spot the mistakes by all means, but why not, overall, bearing in mind the huge amount of work it takes, give all those producing this series and Jennifer Worth who was neither an academic and not even a writer before she picked up her pen, a break?
seriously? is it really that important. I am loving this series.
I agree with the posters who've said it seems more like the '30s than the '50s. I was only a child but I don't recall things being that bad or families that huge, even in the poorer parts of North Kensington where my dad's family lived.
this is the first time i was watched a bit of this program.. i only saw the last few minuets of it... the bit about about ROY HUDD AND HIS LEGS, and the black baby. after seeing such a black baby i knew right away it could not be an accurately account of events.. if they could not get an half cast baby...
But that's to do with casting, not Jennifer Worth's story.
What decade are you from? "Half cast"? (sic). The old racist term was "half caste". And is not acceptable any more.
Merely because something is done or said at the moment doesn't make it ideal. (Witness changing fashions in birthing methods: episiotomies de rigeur in the 80s but considered unnecessary and barbaric in many places now for one example).
Perhaps mixed heritage would be slightly better.
Anyway, loving this series and Jennifer Worth was a fine writer.
How strange. I had just added the part about 'mixed heritage' being a suggestion and you posted that. I didn't know that was the latest term, although I have heard it said, but even so, it's not really correct in many cases, where there are more than two strains.
I expect we are all mixed heritage one way or another.
The term may not be accetable now and I understand that ,But when it was used in days gone by it was not a racist term .I know I used the term as a child as a way of describing a child of mixed race and certainely was not meant as racist
Terms come and go , they are used as part of the language of the day and not always with bad intent ,
As an aside I often wonder who , on a bright summers days , decides that a term is no longer PC ?
It will be when it becomes a term of abuse.
With regards to my earlier post, 'dual heritage' is the term used in the health service now, I can't comment about anywhere else.
I understand what you are saying , my point is it was not used as a term of abuse in the past ,\it was the language of the day
As for dual heritage , thats fine by me ! I just sometimes wonder who decides these things ! I was born in the 50's and we used terms that were simply words then and not abuse , I now sometimes have to phone my kids to know which words are considered ok for me me to use .I would never use a word as a form of abuse with intent , but I sometimes dont even know its considered it
I know what you mean, I am the same.
On a different note, I spent some time working in a neo-natal unit whilst training and we had mixed race twins, one was obviously duel heritage but the other was very dark. While they probably used a black baby in the show to make it obvious that the baby wasn't the husbands, I thought I'd point put that it does sometimes happen.
I bet your Grandmother has some interesting stories of her own, the sort of thing I love hearing.
I was actually advised by uni to read this book in preparation for Midwifery interviews. I loved it and Miranda is so how I conjured Chummy in my mind, it's spooky.
Several people have commented on 'London' not being so poverty-ridden as depicted in CTM, but if memory serves me correctly a couple of posters (with family links to the Poplar area) have said that Poplar existed as a little 'micro-climate' within an already-improving London, so one cannot compare North London, Kensington, West London, or indeed any other area outside of the 5 or 6 mile square area of where CTM is set because it was simply not the same as the rest of London at that time - and you can see why, from the programme; a populace entrenched in their ways, their homes (however poor - Joe this week being an obvious example) and their traditiions. One can easily see how the small area of London depicted in CTM still existed while the rest of London changed around it - indeed, the inference was made this week that people still living in such poverty such as in CTM were the exception and not the rule by 1957. I'm sure that change happened quite quickly in areas 'left behind' such as Poplar after the couple of years at the end of the 50s - and to people like Joe it was a loss, not a gain.
But so what if somewhere along the line, either in the writing stage of the original books, or at the tv adaptation stage, certain 'liberties' were taken? My best friend is an author, both of fiction and non-fiction, and he is under no illusions about the pressure put on authors, by publishers, to make even 'first-person memoirs' just that little bit more salacious in the mistaken belief that the simple truth won't be exciting enough. So who's to say who may (or may not) have pressed for the 'embellishment' some of the minor details either at the time the books were published, or when CTM was commissioned - and it's certainly not a hanging offence to have centimetres over inches when measuring fundal height!
(Mind you, I'd be curious to find out when the cm measurement came in for pregnancy - do we know for absolutely certain it wasn't brought in by 1957, or is that just an 'it can't possibly be...' opinion on the part of some posters? I am genuinely curious - can anyone find out?)
ETA: Just as black parents with a bit of dual heritage can suddenly have a very white baby (or even, in the case of twins, one white and one black baby!) I'm sure that a white mother and a black father could have produced a very obviously black-skinned baby. Nature does have a quirky way of throwing you when you least expect it - does anyone who's read the books recall if she mentions the colour of the baby in them? For all we know, the baby was extremely dark in terms of skin tone - as the previous poster has said, it does happen. It's not necessarily a mistake or a flaw or an inconsistency with the programme - nor is it something to cause a knee-jerk "it lost all credibility for me when I saw the colour of the baby's skin" response! If it happens in real life (albeit rarely) then why not in this case?
I thought about both these things. I'm not sure when SI measurements came in to use but I do know they have been around since the early 1970s at least in a medical context. This scene was so pointed that it seems odd that it was a mistake, perhaps it was done to show that in the medical arena SI was coming in and to make the point that it was well before we might think.
I found an interesting article also about babies and the probability of certain colours. It said that whilst the majority of babies in this scenario would be in the middle somewhere, it was certainly possible for an almost 100% white/black baby to be born.
Very interesting indeed! Like you, I am finding it hard to believe they wouldn't care about apparent 'mistakes' when they have tried so hard to get other things completely correct to the period. That's why I'm curious - after all it was an absolute 'gift' to the medical profession to find out that 'fundal height' in cms was roughly the same as 'weeks pregnant'. I'm sure once the link was made they didn't hang about using it, even if the rest of the metric system remained a mystery for the next couple of decades!
Metric measurements started in the mid 1970's, just a few years after decimal currency which started in 1971.
No they didn't. Metric measurements had been in use for decades before decimalisation. People seem to think centimetres didn't exist before the 1970s. Not the case, just not in common usage but certainly used in scientific and medical fields.
I only recorded it because my OH wanted to see it, but after a couple of minutes, I was glued to the screen too.
Three weeks in, and the only "gripe" is a tiny one, and that is the overall "clean" look of the docks and workers.
Best news of all, is the shows renewal for another 8 episodes.
Well done beeb, and the only shame really is that the author never had a chance to see it on screen.......