Quote:
Originally Posted by orlok
For what it's worth, I'm with you. I think it's being over analysed, and people are forgetting when it was written. Viewed through the lens of the 21st century, it's easy to say much of the attitudes and behaviours are unacceptable, but we should remember the context. And I agree with Issybird that much of it was written in jest, with a sense of humour foremost.
|
Whatever. I don't think
any of the elements to which I objected had jacks**t to do with the time period or modern views versus not. I read lots of content that offends the holy hell out of my feminist viewpoints--but somehow, I manage to enjoy those and even
love some of them, recognizing that at date X in time, women were chattel, or this or that.
Just as people of intelligence can read books that have slavery,
without burning them or pretending that it never existed, or worse, painting historical time periods as happy-happy-joy-joy worlds. (I'll leave that to "Historical Romances" which take extraordinary pains to be "historically accurate," other than pesky things like personal hygiene...)
Ask yourself one simple question--ignoring any/all behavior that can remotely possibly be categorized as "historic" or a "more of the day that's updated today," look at the behavior of TTM, and ask if you'd find it charming or funny or rollicking today.
So, Musketeer Paul, today, dates some married woman. He needs money, so he convinces her to steal her own jewelry, that her husband gave her, and give it to him. He takes it and pretty much then promptly dumps her, and parties with his buddies, yucking it up about how he conned her into doing so.
Yeah, right--that's
me, disliking that behavior for being
Politically Incorrect. That's what is being said? That this was perfectly acceptable behavior, then? And we're only offended
now?
Sorry--I don't see PC entering into this at all, and nor do I see any of that behavior as being honorable or noble or anything like that, pretty much at any time in history amongst remotely civilized people. Even if you take out all the sexual bits, or that Porthos was sleeping with a married woman, etc., he got her to steal, then dumped her, leaving her alone to face the music.
That's
honorable? THEN, or now?
Musketeer Art (Athos) loves a woman. He finds out that she didn't tell him everyhtng about her past--let's say, (as is Milady, mind you), she's been ACCUSED of a crime. In fact, some friend tells him she's a convict. He doesn't give her a chance to defend herself, or even say that she never WAS a convict--taht someone tarred her rep on the Net, and said she's a convict, and now she can't get rid of that false accusation. Art's pride is damaged, so rather than admit to his buddies or family that, gasp!, he married someone beneath him, he conspires to murder her--unsucessfully, which he learns later.
Yeah, right--
political correctness makes me think he's a dishonorable, selfish schmuck. 'Cuz, really, he's a rollicking, funny, lovable hero! Of COURSE he'd murder her! Who wouldn't? Damn that political correctness, yo! Yeah, man, of course, EVERYBODY behaved that way, "way back then."
I think that people had a preconceived notion, due to the movies, and that created a confirmation bias that the books were going to be WONDERFUL. I hope, truly, that's what I'm seeing here. After all, even the infamous "One for All and All for One" doesn't bloody exist, by any evidence of their behavior throughout. They can hardly be bothered to think about each other, nevermind go to extraordinary lengths to watch each other's backs, rush to the rescue, etc.
if that's worthless; if
that doesn't exist in the books...well.
Hitch