[ SECRET POST #4023 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

(Not OP, haven't read it.)

And what's your take on characterisation?

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I agree with this - that's how I saw it too.

[tabaqui]

Yup. Jo liked Dan for his rough and tumble ways and how he lived so many 'adventures' (things she still wished she had done/could do), but it wasn't like Nat was put out into the streets or disavowed. He was as loved as any of the other boys, and Dan was basically told he wasn't good enough for love, so....

[(Anonymous)]

It isn't that Dan's bad habits aren't depicted as bad, but they're depicted as being more excusable than Nat's bad habits and I mean... come on. He had far more serious issues as a boy - lying, stealing, drinking, gambling, for starters. He physically attacked one of Jo's stepsons and encouraged the other kids to beat on each other for fun. It's great that he reforms over time, but how is all of THAT better than being easily led? And how is it Nat's fault that he's not "spirited"?