Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
I agree with you that Anne wasn’t manipulative, she was just highly dramatic for the enjoyment of it and, very importantly, because it helped her cope with the stresses and abuses of her early childhood. Similarly, I don’t think M&M would have mistreated a boy (although I don’t think he would have been treated as a son of the household, either. That bed off the kitchen!). However, what I did pick up about Anne this time and which I found off-putting is that she was almost universally regarded as wonderful, Josie Pye and Mr. Phillips being the sole exceptions. That got tedious. It’s not realistic; certainly some of her posturings must have irritated some.
Here’s just a random quote, one of Anne’s fancies:
That’s the kind of comment that Bertie Wooster detested in Madelyn Bassett; Bertie was as thick as two planks yet even he had the penetration to detest that drivel. Was there no one who did an eyeroll when Anne came out with comments like that, as she frequently did? Who found her boring? I can’t imagine I would have liked her if I had been her contemporary. Not that I’d have disliked her, but she certainly wouldn’t have been a kindred spirit of mine.
|
I can see this point of view, and appreciate why many people would find her speeches it a complete turn off. They just struck me differently. I thought the flowery language from Anne was supposed to invoke poetry, which had a far greater role in people’s lives at that time. My father was from a generation later, but was still expected to memorize huge swaths of poetry in school.
But I’m sure people did roll their eyes; Marilla frequently told Anne to hold her tongue. Other passages report that village people talked about Anne and thought she was odd. I wouldn’t enjoy someone speaking that way today either. I skipped through some of those passages, seeing them as dated. But I could appreciate the point that they were meant to convey - that Anne loved flowers, and exploring, and was passionate about the natural world. That was something that would have made us kindred spirits.
It’s a children’s story. It’s an idealized portrait of girlhood and a charming portrayal of village life in simpler times. It won’t stand up if we ask it to be more realistic or more profound than that. It’s just not that kind of story.
And considering the strife in the world at that time, I don’t think LMM intended it to be profound. She says in her diaries that she found it difficult to concentrate on writing because of the pending wars. I think she was offering a spunky girl who overcame great odds, with doses of humour, in a setting of gentle human kindness. If I sound defensive, I don’t mean to be. That’s just my take on what LLM set out to write.