[ SECRET POST #4622 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4622 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Clue (1998 video game)]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Back to the 90s/Alternative 2538]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Star Wars: Rebels]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Dream Daddy]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Little Women adaptation]


__________________________________________________



07.
[She-Ra and the Princesses of Power]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #662.
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

[tabaqui]

"But her life still revolves around being a mother/wife."
Which sounds pretty judgemental. Then you go on to negate or downplay everything the character did that was progressive for her time.

Is the book/the character perfect? No. But your initial comment was very judgemental and dismissive.

[(Anonymous)]

It isn't, though. You seem very determined to view it in a negative light. My point was the same as in the secret - that in the trailer, Jo vehemently argues that there's more to a woman's life than love and marriage, but - as great as I think that message is - it's ironic compared to what happens in the books. I'm pointing out the discrepancy, not making a judgment about being a wife and mother.


"Then you go on to negate or downplay everything the character did that was progressive for her time."

No, I don't believe I did that. I indicated that while "Little Men" had a disabled character, he was treated as an extremely minor character, as was the boy with a stutter. Despite the fact that neither of them were mentally disabled, the roles they were given in the book treated them as if they were. George was ridiculed and shamed for being overweight over the course of two books, and it was treated as a moral failing. You might not like it, but that was true.

Alcott was extremely progressive in many ways, for her time - she was right that corsets were unhealthy, that hard courses of studying weren't useful and could be damaging to one's health, that boys and girls can and should play and learn together, that love and being a good person is more important than being rich and famous. She had far greater compassion than many about the poor and the limited role for older, single women in society. She had lots of sensible ideas about the early education of children and how it should include being physically healthy, with lots of time for play and imagination. She was ahead of her time in terms of believing that the wealthy should be philanthropic and help those in need.

All those are good things. Merely pointing out that there are shortcomings doesn't mean I'm a "hater", which is how you're reacting. It's merely noting what you just said - that the book and character aren't perfect.

[tabaqui]

I believe you did, because that's certainly the tone of your comment to me. 'Well, but, she still had a husband and kids!'

Yes - because publishers of the time wanted books/characters with marriages and romances and more 'traditional' stories. Like I said, she wrote to make money, so couldn't exactly run up a flag and thumb her nose at everything if she wanted to be successful.

I am tired of seeing this argument every time older works and/or authors are brought up. It seems like no matter the steps made to be progressive or non-traditional, there's always this argument about 'well, but, not *really*'.... It's extremely frustrating to have the things that, in particular, women authors did that were pretty advanced for their time be dismissed because it doesn't measure up to some standard.

I've said my piece, now, several times over. Another anon up there agreed with me, so please go argue with them, I'm tired of it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're reading stuff that simply isn't there. Look back at all the negativity you claim to be seeing... where is it? Not in my comments. Saying her life revolved around being a mother and wife doesn't include any judgment, negative or positive. It's just a statement of fact. You're seeing it as an insult, but that's baggage you're bringing to the table.

I get that this is a sensitive subject for you, but I'm not sure I see the need for a fight here. Nobody's attacking or dismissing Alcott. Nobody's saying Jo was a failure. Acknowledging that older works can have both progressive and not-so-progressive parts is... just reality? It's frustrating, absolutely! But also true and perfectly reasonable? We don't expect a novel published in the late 1800s to be completely up to date, right? I certainly don't. I don't think anyone in this thread expects it, either. That doesn't invalidate your right to be upset when people acknowledge that reality, of course.


Honestly, there is no argument. Not with me, anyway. I just thought you'd be happier realizing that the fight that's exhausting you is completely unnecessary because nobody's saying the negative things you seem to think they're saying.