Well the room is at the back of the house and they put Lucy there. (Plus it probably suffered from being submerged for filming).

All kidding aside, I think the whole thing about the Scrubbs being vegetarians, teetotalers, and having few clothes on the beds, probably was just Lewis' way of saying the Scrubbs were Modernist/different (for those times Lewis was writing in of course).

All of that stuff in today's times might just come off as the Scrubbs trying to live a "green", healthy, and allergen-free life (which really isn't bad at all these days).

I was just wondering which of Eustace's parents may have been related to Lucy and Edmund's....but I'm probably overanalyzing. I guess I was wondering if maybe one of the Scrubb parents could have been a friend of Narnia and then fallen away....

Maybe Aunt Alberta was related to Professor Digory. I doubt she was ever a friend of Narnia though.

I always figured that Lewis just meant that the Scrubbs were different from the norm of that time. He also mentions before that Eustace didn't have a lot of friends and had....unusual interest for a child his age. It could be that Lewis offered an explanation for why Eustace was different from kids his age-because his parents were different from most families. I doubt that Lewis was making fun of them for anything.

Really? Why wouldn't Lewis be poking gentle-fun at things he deems wrong or doesn't think much of? It would've been in his nature to do so.

Lewis' description of the Scrubbs is different from the way most people were at the time, and that's what they were supposed to be: Different. They're still different in many ways from our modern society.

I have noticed something interesting, though. We know Lewis liked moderate drinking (the Inklings met at a pub, after all), and he liked to smoke. You'll notice that neither the Scrubbs or Nikabrik are smokers; the people we're not supposed to like.

Funny how at Lewis' time the Scrubbs were really different and the people we're not supposed to like then because they do what are considered "healthy" things now. Nowadays we see vegans and non-smokers as 'healthy living' persons and not necessarily strange, unless they do extreme things or are at the extreme end of a spectrum.

What sort of people would the Scrubbs be if say they updated VDT today for today's modern times....? Extreme tree-huggers or extreme not eating meat because they're for the prevention of cruelty to animals?

stateofgreen, That is an interesting look at it as well. What would they be like today. I do think that what Lewis was trying to say was that they were snobby and thought they were better than others because of their style of living.
So maybe today it wouldn't matter what their beliefs were as long as they thought they were better than everyone else because of that.

I think coracle summed it up very well. The Scrubbs were "progressives", rather than back-to-nature types, though somewhat into health-faddism- who loved everything 'modern' and would have mocked anything old-fashioned- the very things that Lewis loved. Lewis describes them, clearly mockingly, as "very up-to-date and advanced people".

Smoking- at that time, the perils of smoking were not so well-established as they are today; someone who didn't smoke would be regarded as an oddity. Teetotalism was also associated with progressive views, especially feminism- the Prohibition movement in the US in particular was strongly linked to the Suffragettes.

A lot of people felt that opposition to alcohol and tobacco was driven by kill-joys who simply objected to other people enjoying themselves.

'very litle furniture' probably referred to the Modernist trend, both Bauhaus- lots of chrome, plastic and glass- and Danish Modern, which had become popular, as opposed to good old solid furniture.

Later on Lewis refers to both Eustace's claim to feminism and pacifism, two things he also disliked very much.

Somewhat strangely, these dislikes - feminism, pacifism, modernism, health-faddism, Modernism in general- are strongly mirrored by one of C.S Lewis's contemporaries, who had otherwise very opposite views- George Orwell.

As for Eustace's family, I always assumed it was his father who was linked to the Pevensies, though whether through the mother or their father I have no idea.

Admittedly, this is based solely on the comment that, after Eustace's return 'everyone', presumably including his father, was impressed by the change, except his mother, who thought he had become 'tiresome and commonplace' and blamed it on 'those Pevensie children', which seems a less likely thing to say if they were her own family. I formed the vague impression of a slightly hen-pecked husband being pushed by his much more 'advanced' wife.

I think it was the mother that the Pevinsies were related to Eustace.

As for Eustace's family, I always assumed it was his father who was linked to the Pevensies, though whether through the mother or their father I have no idea.

Admittedly, this is based solely on the comment that, after Eustace's return 'everyone', presumably including his father, was impressed by the change, except his mother, who thought he had become 'tiresome and commonplace' and blamed it on 'those Pevensie children', which seems a less likely thing to say if they were her own family. I formed the vague impression of a slightly hen-pecked husband being pushed by his much more 'advanced' wife.

I could see that Mr. Scrubb is more likely to be related when you quote that part of the book. Really silly speculation, but that would have made Mrs. Pevensie his sister. I've read some fanfic where they've made Mr. Scrubb, Mrs. Pevensie's brother. It would even fit in with the movie, because Harold says completely nothing, practically 'faceless' behind that newspaper, and we only hear Alberta speak.