[ 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)]

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.