[ 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)]

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.