Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gnatsaredancing t1_jdz7ros wrote

Your description sounds like the problem lies more with you than the story really. You can't apply today's standards to a century old story. All it does is demonstrate your inability to grasp context and learn how views change over time.

You talk about Eric as he's got a skeezy Tinder profile when really Eric's circumstance and family history cause him to be very pragmatic in the selection of a wife.

A character from this time period speaking about innocence and childlikeness has nothing to do with the sexual deviancy you seem to read into it. That's all you, not the story, character or time period. These qualities were admired, not lusted after. Parents still admire those qualities today and it's mostly cultural paranoia that has changed people's view on this kind of phrasing.

Along the same lines, age gapped relationships have been very common throughout history because they brought the most benefit to both parties. And most of the time, marriage was very much an arrangement of convenience or necessity. Couples needed each other and only the desperate would settle for a partner that brought them little advantage.

Which is exactly why Kilmeny doesn't want to marry him without her voice. She feels the inconvenience of her muteness outweighs her usefulness as a spouse and as such doesn't want him to marry her. There's a lot of romance plots where one partner either feels like they're not good enough or vice versa attempts to hide their deficiencies (poverty, debt, criminal history etc.) until the marriage is settled.

If you insist on ignoring context and meaning because you're too busy applying your standards on characters that don't live in your world, you're not going to get much out of your reading.

67

bellefleurdelacour98 t1_je0rhbo wrote

> Your description sounds like the problem lies more with you than the story really

Welp nope, the story sounds every bit as creepy as it is. I don't give books passing marks or cut them slack just because they're old. It's very important to address books by today's standards and criticize them. Expecting today's people to react favorably to very problematic plot points (we literally have a pedophile here in the story) is absurd. Critiquing a book by today's standard is the healthiest thing to do, not shutting up people and telling them it's ThEiR pRoBlEm lmao

−7

gnatsaredancing t1_je0zj9a wrote

>I don't give books passing marks or cut them slack just because they're old

Weird but okay.

>It's very important to address books by today's standards and criticize them.

So you can feel smug by doing something silly and irrelevant?

>Expecting today's people to react favorably to very problematic plot points

That's not at all the expectation. But it's good to cultivate reading comprehension by means of judging stories in a context where they make sense. You might as well stop reading if your intent is to intentionally fail to understand books so you can misrepresent the stories.

>(we literally have a pedophile here in the story) is absurd

Because that helps prevent ridiculous statements like this one that do nothing but demonstrate your failure to understand the definition of the word and the context of the book causing you to misapply the word.

>Critiquing a book by today's standard is the healthiest thing to do,

Considering how many problems with that way of thinking you managed to demonstrate in a single paragraph, I'd say that's a laughable statement at best.

You're basically advocating intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting stories for no clear gain.

7

Bookanista OP t1_jdzaa0q wrote

The problem isn’t the “age gap.” Their age gap is only 6 years or so. What I think is creepy is how the main character explicitly refers to Kilmeny as a child repeatedly, doesn’t want her to learn/experience the world before they marry, loves her total lack of knowledge etc. His kiss is what makes her a woman and so forth. It is true that “childlike wonderment” was prized in women but that doesn’t make it less of a creepy story to me.

−8

gnatsaredancing t1_jdzdqqd wrote

I get that but you think of it in in modern terms. A perv who wants children.

Life was hard throughout most of history. When so many people suffer, innocence is a wonderful quality. An innocent is unaware of the suffering. An innocent doesn't suffer. Even just seeing an innocent can soften the harshness of the world for a short while as you see life through their eyes.

To be able to keep someone childlike and innocent was a great gift and achievement. It essentially means you were able to spare them the suffering of the world. And not at all in some creepy pop culture lolita adult acting like a child way.

Sexuality is one of the gateways to losing innocence because while sex and intimacy and love can be wonderful, it's also the gateway to heartbreak. To learning the ways of sexual manipulation. Of romantic betrayal and so on. The turning from boy or girl to man or woman. A loss of illusion and protected innocence and a gaining of greater understanding of the world.

A young woman could be seen as innocent and childlike while at the same time being competent and lustful (but inexperienced). It has nothing to do with modern views on such phrases.

Eric kissing Kilmeny isn't a sleazy abuse. It's just a turning point from one phase of life to another. You're just hung up on how we see those words instead of what they actually mean in the context of the story.

Frankly, even today we can easily write about a 60 year old with a childlike sense of innocence as they take joy in imagining shapes in the clouds. The meaning of the words hasn't changed that much except for people who are dead set on interpreting them one way only without a care for context.

41

vivahermione t1_je3i2kn wrote

>Sexuality is one of the gateways to losing innocence because while sex and intimacy and love can be wonderful, it's also the gateway to heartbreak. To learning the ways of sexual manipulation. Of romantic betrayal and so on. The turning from boy or girl to man or woman. A loss of illusion and protected innocence and a gaining of greater understanding of the world.

That's interesting. I always assumed sex for young women was taboo back then due to the risk of pregnancy out of wedlock, and not necessarily from any concern for the woman's emotional state. But I like your reasoning better.

Death of a loved one was also a gateway to losing innocence. This shows up in Montgomery's novel The Golden Road. When Beverley's cousin passes away, the rest of the cousins >!start thinking about their adult futures and go their separate ways.!<

2

gnatsaredancing t1_je3xzis wrote

>That's interesting. I always assumed sex for young women was taboo back then due to the risk of pregnancy out of wedlock, and not necessarily from any concern for the woman's emotional state. But I like your reasoning better.

That was also part of it. Unsurprisingly the whole thing is rather multifaceted.

Your Montgomery example is a good example if what I meant. Innocence is easily lost and often under painful circumstances. Which is also why it's valued and people desire to protect it.

3

Bookanista OP t1_je0w6px wrote

I didn’t say he was a “sleazy abuser,” though. I said the story as a whole was “borderline yikes.”

And the reasons Kilmeny was kept sheltered/innocent are disturbing and not at all admirable. The major family theory for her inability to speak and be in the world is >!that she had to suffer for the sin of her mother being stubborn and refusing to forgive someone!<

0

gnatsaredancing t1_je0ypjd wrote

>I didn’t say he was a “sleazy abuser,” though. I said the story as a whole was “borderline yikes.”

The only reason you seem to be doing that is that you have zero sense of context though.

4

Figerally t1_jdzcfsl wrote

If you substitute childlike for innocence does that make it better? That was also a sought after trait of that time.

9

HeroIsAGirlsName t1_je0a403 wrote

I thought your post was funny OP and I'm not sure why everyone is getting so upset when you are just sharing your observations about the book without trying to cancel or boycott it in any way. It was clearly written in a lighthearted tone and I'm sorry people are missing that. There's a review site called SmartBitchesTrashyBooks, which your style reminds me of. I think you might enjoy it and honestly I would read longer book reviews from you, if that was something you were interested in producing.

While it's unreasonable to expect books from previous time periods to conform to modern social norms, it's as unreasonable IMO to shame modern readers who decide that the book is outdated and even perhaps write a lighthearted post making fun of it.

7

Bookanista OP t1_je22ldz wrote

I love that review site! ❤️ And yes, this was meant as a lightheaded poke at one of my childhood favorites. 😁

2

bellefleurdelacour98 t1_je0rnka wrote

> livello 3HeroIsAGirlsName · 2 h faI thought your post was funny OP and I'm not sure why everyone is getting so upset

Because god forbid women call out the sexism and creepyness in books eye roll standard reddit behaviour

1

HeroIsAGirlsName t1_je0t5gm wrote

It's funny how when people talk about women's issues suddenly everyone starts to nitpick over the most trivial shit imaginable to derail the discussion. Would people be this bothered about historical accuracy if the topic was more neutral?

And I would argue that it does matter in the modern day, especially for children's books, because people should be able to make an informed choice about whether or not they want to sit down with their kids and explain the context.

Edited for clarity.

1

spotted-cat t1_je20mey wrote

Uh, no, I’m a woman and my problem with this shit is, honestly, its a by-product of toxic purity culture and gender essentialism. Like if it a 22-year-old guy is dating a 18-year-old woman people act as if he’s a child molester even though:

  1. The woman in question is legally an adult and the relationship is consensual.

  2. Scientific studies have disproved the theory that the human brain reaches full maturity at the age of 25. New studies suggest that the brain NEVER reaches full maturity regardless of age which is why boomers are……BOOMERS! Google it.

  3. The main complaint about this type of relationship is that there is a power imbalance between the man and woman in question which implies that: Women between the ages of 18-25 are dumber than a sack of rocks, easily manipulated, and therefore have no autonomy because her actions are being subconciously controlled by the man, who must be inherently abusive. Cause all men are, right? No matter who he is — he could be fucking Clark Kent and people would tear him to pieces.

Fyi, the Italian thing is because the majority of Italian immigrants to the US were Sicilians and Sicily was the birthplace of the Italian mafia.

−4

Bookanista OP t1_je229cn wrote

I never said he was a “child molester,” either. I said I find it “squicky” how much he rhapsodizes about how ignorant, innocent, unspoiled, and childlike Kilmeny is. No one is advocating for rewriting this book so they are ages 46 and 45.

And even if they did this book would still have the major flaw that the main characters are both too perfect in every way, which is boring.

1

spotted-cat t1_je27h1f wrote

You ever watch The Big Bang Theory — its literally the same concept in a different context. And, believe me, you spend enough time with some guys like Sheldon Cooper and Howard Wolowitz you’ll appreciate naiveté, too. Or at least someone who isn’t a pretentious asshat. The dude in the book was a teacher — a professional know-it-all.

No offense intended to actual teachers.

0