[ 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)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

For a first relationship in the 1880s(?), 10 years was definitely less scandalous than it would be today, but still a larger than normal gap, particularly for a younger teenager in Bess's social class. 5 years would have been more typical.

Generally speaking, at that point in the US most marriages between people with 10+ years difference were either second marriages for one or more of the participants or shotgun weddings. Assuming, of course, that you weren't in an isolated area where potential partners were scarce.

[(Anonymous)]

Bess...right, sorry. I forgot that they called her Bess instead of Beth.

I just don't think the age gap had anything to do with Dan's "unsuitability" for Bess. Yeah, she was young in Jo's Boys (what was she? 16? I can't remember), but even if they'd been the same age, I don't think Dan would have been considered suitable for Bess, even without his prison record. To me, there's just this undercurrent that Bess is just too pure and, well, above him, for him to ever see as anything other than someone to worship from afar.

[tabaqui]

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'.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[tabaqui]

YES. I had the same reaction to Jo being told to put up her hair and 'be ladylike' - i was always made she never just ran away with Laurie to do adventures.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying Meg's objections to Nat are nonexistent or that it wasn't smart to treat them seriously. I'm merely pointing out that Dan's issues are significant, greater in number, and they're NOT treated seriously by the other characters. If Nat's problems are worthy of concern, then so are Dan's... arguably more so. Dan also has a questionable background, a lack of steady employment or goals (whereas at least Nat has his music as an end goal), and he has a number of other personality flaws in addition to that. But he's STILL treated as the "better" man than Nat, and frankly, I see no reason for that other than the author's weird bias.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree completely that Dan is treated as the better man, or that his issues are not treated seriously. But as you said below, we see things differently.

[(Anonymous)]

SA as above ^^

I guess to me, I don't see Dan's sins or faults being romanticized or forgiven over Nat's. Both had their issues to overcome, and both fell. To me, Dan ended up paying for his sins the rest of his life, while Nat overcame and was the victor. Dan is the caution story (not to the extent of Charlie in Rose in Bloom, but still), Nat is the success story.

But that's just how I see it. Mileage will vary, obviously. :)

[(Anonymous)]

/shrug We see things differently. With Nat, his and Daisy's mutual love is treated like a problem requiring a family conference. With Dan, his secret, one-sided worship of Bess is treated as an extremely romantic, albeit hopeless fancy. Dan is encouraged to think of Bess as some sort of guardian angel courtly love type inspirational figure. You can't get more more romanticized than that.

And I'm not discounting the fact that Nat "won" in the end. But if you read the book and pay close attention to how the author describes Dan vs. how she describes Nat, it's very, very clear that even though Dan died, she regards him as the better man for reasons that aren't entirely logical.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, to me this is like saying Alcott lets the boys like George or Ned or Jack 'win' because they have successful lives in comparison to Dan's. It's very clear who are the 'failures' in her eyes, and it does seem like all the boys were pretty much set from day one into what they'd be.

[(Anonymous)]

Dan’s “one-sided, secret worship” of Bess is treated as less of a problem than Nat’s two-sided, not-secret relationship with Daisy by the characters because Dan’s feelings are one-sided and he knows he’s not good enough for her. And the narrative supports that Dan wasn’t good enough for her, but he was trying to be.

[(Anonymous)]

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.