fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4023 ]

[ SECRET POST #4023 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4023 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #576.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. https://i.imgur.com/MIWEE7c.png

I...I don't know if I've ever seen someone misunderstand a book this badly before

(Not OP, haven't read it.)

And what's your take on characterisation?

DA

I haven't read the book in a while but I definitely don't agree with the secret. Dan killed the man in self defense and his bad habits are depicted as bad. His entire character arc is about learning to control himself. Though it is true that Jo likes him better but that's because in general she prefers the spirited children (Nan for instance).

The biggest worry with Nat is that his gentle nature makes him easy easy to influence. He loses so much money because he doesn't know how to adapt to his situation and his new wealthy friends influence him into it. Also, it was Meg that was the biggest obstacle in his and Daisy's relationship. When Nat is honest about what happened and fixes things, Meg is quick to welcome him home.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 02:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

tabaqui - 2018-01-09 02:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 03:31 (UTC) - Expand

I don't know, it sounds pretty spot on to me. Alcott has a definite bias for stereotypically masculine boys - boys who like sports and athletic pursuits and who get into trouble. The character Dan is one of those types and it's clear how partial the author is to him despite some pretty unpleasant habits.

mte

Thanks for the rec, OP! I've been meaning to check out some Alcott. This one sounds like a fun place to start.

Why would you want to start here and not with her most iconic work?

I suspect you're just being contrary and aren't really interested, but on the off chance you're sincere, I recommend Eight Cousins instead. It's not her best known work, but it and the sequel Rose in Bloom are both good. There's still some moralizing, but it's kind of an interesting glimpse into the time period.

Rose in Bloom is my favorite of her books. I also recommend that series. Also Mac is the best love interest.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 02:38 (UTC) - Expand

I love Eight Cousins so much. It's such an oddly gentle, sunny book. Definitely a comfort read when I was younger. Still haven't managed to get through any of her iconic stuff yet.

Don't start with Jo's Boys. She was one of my favorite authors as a kid and I read most of her books several times. Jo's Boys was the only one I couldn't get through. Little Women or Eight Cousins/Rose in Bloom are the way to go.

Ahhhh ok. I don't remember the book that way at all. If I had a problem it would the opposite, that Dan was loved but not considered "worthy" of golden princess Beth, and never married and ended up dying saving others. While granted they wouldn't have made a good match, it always chafed me a bit that it felt like it was treated as if Dan had ruined his chances for happiness forever and his only option was just to bear that as best he could going forward.

Nat on the other hand WAS weak. He was too easily influenced by others to make bad choices, but he eventually learned his lesson and proved himself, and came home and married his beloved Daisy, a much happier ending than Dan got. Sooooo....I guess I'm not seeing how Dan was preferred.

Wasn't the age difference also a reason against the relationship? He was like 10 years older. And Dan's ending was portrayed as a happy one. He lived with his chosen family and died defending them. It's mentioned that he died with a smile on his face in the wilderness he loved. It's not the typical happy ending but it works for him.

10 years was not much in that time period. Although she was pretty young so that might have been part of it. But I always got the impression that it was more about the blood on his hands, and about his rugged rough ways not being a good match for her more refined sensitive personality. Which...point. I can't argue that part at all. But I just always felt like Dan's story was presented as .... penance, I suppose. And he died smiling because by giving his life for others he paid the debt for the life he'd taken. *shrug* That's just me though. I'm not saying my impression is correct - it's been years since I read the book.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 03:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 04:16 (UTC) - Expand

THIS! I was so mad that Dan was 'beneath' Beth and had to suffer his love for her in silence and was even basically told 'don't even'.

Yeah that's pretty much my reaction. I mean, yes, logically, sheltered gentle Beth with her delicate health was probably not a good match for wilderness-loving Dan. But....the whole subtext of him being "beneath" her always grated.

(no subject)

tabaqui - 2018-01-09 02:56 (UTC) - Expand

The difference I see is that Dan's worship and love of Bess is romanticized and treated as a noble, good thing even though there's a significant age difference, he's very much unsuited to being the partner of a gently-raised rich heiress* and it's entirely one-sided. This is in stark contrast with Nat's love of Daisy (which is mutual), which is treated like oooh, we're not sure he's worthy of her because he's... sensitive and easily influenced by others? The horror!

* By the moral standards of that time. There's a HUGE socio-economic gap that the characters never really address, and it's a bit weird when you see how much fuss they make over Daisy (who is not a rich heiress) marrying Nat.

I don't remember his sensitivity being an issue at all. I do remember his background being an issue with Meg, and his being too easily influenced being an issue with others in the family. Which.... I actually don't see the issue with? I mean, yes, Meg's prejudice against his background is a problem, but wanting Daisy to marry someone who is steady and can provide for the family and is not running a ton of debts? I don't see the issue with that, even in this day and age. I have a friend who ended up finally divorcing her husband after years of supporting him and his inability to hold down a steady job and lying and running up tons of debt behind her back. Granted, Nat's transgressions are minor in comparison, but I think the same principle is there, especially in an age where it was extremely difficult for women to go to work to support the family if their husband didn't.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 05:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 05:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 04:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 05:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 11:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 12:58 (UTC) - Expand

Replying to myself, but I'm just thinking a little more about this.

It's been several years since I read the books, so....I'm just going off what I remember at this point.

I don't agree that Dan's sins are treated less seriously than Nat's. I think, for Alcott, one of the primary virtues is self-governance, self-discipline. Strength of character I suppose. And Dan and Nat both fail at that, but from different angles. Dan through his uncontrolled temper and impetuousness and rebellion against rules and authority, and Nat through his inability to say no to his friends or to himself, to stand up for what is right, and through his tendency to cover his mistakes with lies (although that may have been more in Little Men than in Jo's Boys).

I do believe that Alcott gives Dan the greater fall, that of killing a man by not controlling his temper and his strength, and the greater punishment. But thinking about it more, I do think perhaps there is an author preference, expressed through Jo. I don't think, however, that it's due to Dan being considered more masculine than Nat. This is just my opinion, but I think that Alcott was drawn to the sort of life that Dan lived, wild, untamed, adventurous, not because she believed he was "more of a man" for it, but because it was a life she would have liked to have had for herself, and for whatever reasons, could not. So she gives Dan all his exciting adventures, but then in the end she also gives him the greatest downfall and punishment.

Just some more random thoughts that may or may not make sense.

I hate every single book from this series and everything about them.

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for their patience. This is the last Louisa May Alcott secret I made... at least for now. ;)

No, now you should read Eight Cousins & Rose In Bloom and give us your opinions on those books. I have been enjoying the Alcott secrets. They're a nice change of pace.

Re: OP

(Anonymous) - 2018-01-09 05:29 (UTC) - Expand

I've been enjoying them :)

All the Alcott books I have read have these problems. True classics should transcend the time they are written in, but Alcott's works are so far from that that it's laughable.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only