|
In recent reviews pertaining to L. M. Montgomery ff's, there has been a little discussion as to exactly how innocent the Blythe kids should be. Some people think that they may be portrayed as too innocent, where they aren't realistic enough. Others think that they seem too innocent to us because times were more innocent then, and our desensitized minds have a difficult time grasping that concept. What do you think?
Personally I don't think its the question of how innocent, but how they react to a breach of innocence. There's a different mentality of that time then to the modern era. One of two reactions are going to be common either they love breaking the rules and its in retaliation, or its going to be some feelings of ashamed and fear of being found out.
Could the Blythe boys still have wet dreams and fantasies like the modern version? Yes they did. The difference is how they react to them.
I ask these questions, so I feel I should give my opinion too. Here's my comment:
I mentioned in my latest review of "The Harbour Light" that I like that the kids seem so innocent because people once were. I stand by that claim. Modern media has in the past one hundred years, changed the way we look at EVERYTHING, and that had its own evolution. The Blythe kids weren't exposed to the mature topics and violence that we see every day on the television set, and it wasn't really considered proper to discuss the things that were more mature. In many ways, I miss those days of innocence and that is why I like that the Blythes are trus to the times. Rilla of Ingleside is very important because we see that veil of innocence being stripped away from Rilla with the first World War, which was for many people, a time of lost innocence.
Another thing is, that relatively uninnocent things were taking place but because L.M.M. was also born in "the age of innocence she would not have included them in her books. My impression of that time period for some reason, is that there was a lot of ugly things everywhere, rape and murder and neglect and racism and sexism ect. were prevelent but ignored or accepted because any minority had no rights and so could not speak out against these things. I guess that has nothing do do with the seeeeeeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxx aspect of it. About that, I don't really know except I read in a book one time that because there was no sex ed. in schools or anything obviously and parents did not discuss improper things like that with their children, upon marriage many victorian people waited for the stork and didn't exactly know how to do the dew. I guess eventually their animal instincts would kick in or whatever, it's just kind of funny.
I don't think that rape was ever accepted, it was just not talked about in the way we talk about it now. That's why duels often took place in the Old South, and so on. In my opinion, rape is alluded to in Rilla of Ingleside when Walter tells Rilla, "Rilla-my-Rilla, there were girls as sweet and pure as you in Belgium and Flanders. You–even you–know what their fate was..." It wasn't considered proper to say it out loud, especially in the company of ladies and children.
Racism was slowly being fought at that time. Domestic abuse is a little different. Wives were often considered as little more than property of their husbands. Their own property reverted to the husband upon marriage. I still think that it was looked down upon, but little could be done to stop it.
Because these things weren't always talked of in mixed company or around children, it is my belief that the young were better able to stay innocent longer.
Domestic abuse was considered a family problem. Outsiders really couldn't do anything but turn your head. Legally there was nothing you could do, and women couldn't divorce their husbands. If the husband did the divorcing you could be kicked out of society and left to care for yourself. During the Victorian era that meant pretty much two choices sweatshops or prostitution. All children would have to live with the abusive father.