fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2707 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2707 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 066 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 (also a repeat x 3) - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Mrs Sucksby is definitely a good character. I completely agree that she's ultimately a lot more likable than Gentleman. Which is strange, in a way - for one thing, she is essentially as bad as Gentleman. And it's weird that we even expect her to be more likable - she's a thief who's only really out to make money all the way from the start of the story, after all, it's not like she's ever presented as some paragon of morality. But we do like her, and she is more likable than Gentleman, probably because she doesn't seem to take so much pleasure in it.

Re: f/f couples - obviously it was frowned upon but I think having the financial wherewithal to live independently would probably be the most significant thing. I mean, as long as they're able to keep their estate, who's really going to be able to say anything? And IIRC there are examples of women who lived together in what were probably lesbian relationships although it wasn't common. So it's rare but not impossible I guess.

I think both of your comments are spot on. Mrs. Sucksby just kind of went about her life doing her business - dirty business, but she didn't relish it. And yeah, the financial situation for Maud and Sue will be a huge boon. Frankly, in as isolated a place as Briar, nobody's even going to think about it. Maud's 18, she's the lady of the house* and she has servants to look over her, so I'm pretty sure nobody would be like "lol u can't live alone" since I think that wasn't unheard of even in that time - if a woman was nobly born or otherwise well-off, she could live alone. Oh, and she's also technically a widow (though is she? I'm not sure what the laws were, but her "marriage" to Gentleman was never consummated, so would it have been legal?) - that helps too. She can call Sue her "companion" and they can live off her fortune.

I have to think, though, that Sue would probably get bored. Hopefully she'd find something to do with herself that's fulfilling and productive.

*well, technically Sue is the lady of the house, but people will perceive it as being Maud

Edited 2014-06-01 21:20 (UTC)

Really? I found Mrs Sucksby worse even than Gentleman. She's planned Sue's downfall from day one. By the end, I did not like her at all.

She's definitely not a good person, but she's more likable than either of the other people who play similar roles in the story, IE Gentleman and Christopher Lilly. Because you get the sense that she is, at least to some degree, doing what she has to do to survive, and she's capable of some kind of real affection, and she's not wantonly cruel like Gentleman and Lilly are. Maybe it's just process of elimination.

Christopher Lilly I came to hate as much as the asylum nurses.

I thought his part in the story was a really interesting commentary on erotic fiction. A common thing that's said about written porn is that it doesn't hurt anyone because it's all fiction. I thought this was a clever way of discussing this, because Maud is terribly hurt by her exposure to it, although mostly through how it's done and not by the material itself.

What disturbed me, was how much I really wanted to like Maud Lilly's uncle purely because of his interest in Victorian erotica. It's an interest which I share and which gets short shrift from the general population.

His cruelty was unveiled so slowly and so shockingly that by the end of it, I did want Maud to kill him.

I couldn't decide if the writer had meant her uncle's obsession with written porn to be a symptom of his extreme cruelty or not. Added to that, if his cruelty to her was meant to be a commentary to the treatment of all women generally in erotic stories. Or was the subject of his obsession irrelevant?

I have confused thoughts about it, even though I know I definitely hate him.

That's an interesting point.

I don't think the story can possibly be a critique of erotica as such, given the ending, and given that the book is not lacking in erotic moments for itself. At the same time, its portrayal of Lilly and his friends is definitely not positive - none of the men associated with erotica in the book come off well at all. IE, that specific kind of erotica, and the obsessive cataloging interest in erotica, in a society that gives so little agency to women, is harmful. It reduces women to objects, entrenches them in their accustomed roles, etc. So it's bad as part of a larger social context but not intrinsically. Just a thought tho.

God, though. Lilly. Such a hateable character. Just gave me the creeps constantly when I was reading stuff to do with him.

I didn't miss the irony of the terrible effects of the men's obsession with erotica being in a book which in itself is quite erotic. I liked the layering of that, but it bent my brains a little.

Standing back, it's clear that Maud is damaged by the social context of the erotica and how it is forced upon her rather than the erotica itself, but in the middle of the story, the two did start to feel interwoven.

That's a good point. She's not sadistic and she does whatever she can to minimize suffering. What she did is absolutely horrifying, but to me the big thing was: she found some redemption. She gave up her life to achieve that redemption. It doesn't undo her past action, BUT it's also more than I can say for either Gentleman or C. Lilly, the former of whom died a coward and the latter of whom wasted away in bitterness.

I concur. The role she played, the fact that all the horrible events were set in motion by her, mean that from a purely factual POV she was the worst of the characers. BUT the redemption=death thing, the fact that at some points she showed genuine emotion, Remorse, of a sort, and the capability of actually caring for someone. I couldn't hate her as much as I hated Gentleman.

It seems I'm in the minority. By the end, when it was clear Mrs Sucksby had manipulated everyone - Sue, Mr Ibbs, Gentleman, and through him Maud as well, I lost all sympathy.

Mrs Sucksby only started to show remorse when she was found out.

Add to that, the countless children Mrs Sucksby killed during her baby farming. She's literally a mass murderer.

Yeah, but the gentlaman showed no remorse. ever.
I dunno. I agree that logically Mrs Sucksby is far worse, Gentleman just provokes a more visceral gut hatered in me

[ SECRET POST #2707 ]

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion

Re: Fingersmith Discussion