[ 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)]

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.