Politically Correct

It's been a while since we've had one of those deep discussions related to the works of L.M. Montgomery, and one just sort of formed in my fevered mind today while I was sick (cough, cough) at home. This stems from a comment I'v seen several places regarding "Rilla of Ingleside."

In "Rilla of Ingleside," do you think that the community of Glen St. Mary's opinion and general treatment of Mr. Pryor (aka Whiskers-On-The-Moon) is justified, or do you think that it is a very politically incorrect and somewhat small-minded?
4 Responses
  1. DylanLeeLo Says:

    In hindsight, it really is horrible... Really from what we know now, Mr.Pryor was practically a hero and the most morally correct of the bunch for being a pacifist and opposing the war which had little reasoning behind it. And all them calling him an h word just because he wouldn't support England's imperialism. But I admit, while I am reading that book, because of the perspective from which it was written, I tend to loathe Whiskers-on-the-Moon too and I also forget really why the war started and what it was all about. I guess that proves that were I in the Glen at the time I wouldn't have known any better either obviously. From what they all were told, he was quite likely a german spy. And so, I can't really blame them for their ignorance or anything, or for their fear of being called pacifists and treated equally if they did not support the war effort. And that is my two cents on that.


  2. Anonymous Says:

    I guess in a way it's kind of along the lines of people calling Walter a coward for not wanting to go and kill someone or see the ugliness of war.


  3. I know that history is always written by the victorious, but from what I've read, England's imperialism didn't exactly cause their entrance into the war. Germany's did, and France's did to some extent. The two countries were both bitter from the results of the Franco-German war in the 1870's. France wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. Because of alliances, everyone else had to join in. England went to the war because Germany violated Belgium's neutrality. Also, it was very likley that Germany wouldn't have stopped until they had all of Europe, including the British Isles. They were sort of an eleventh hour part of it, and were very reluctant to do so.

    I can understand someone not supporting the reasons of a war, but no matter what, Mr. Pryor should have (IMHO) supported the boys at least. These were young men who grew up before him, and they were dying for something that they believed in. They believed that they were going to the trenches to protect their home, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect what you love most.

    Should they have treated Mr. Pryor badly, no. Just as Gilbert said when Norman Douglas got after him in church, it was wrong, but somehow satisfying seeing as though they were sending off these boys to war. They didn't need discouragment then.


  4. r6144 Says:

    I agree with you all. For the most part I think Mr. Pryor was treated rather unfairly, but then it was 90 years ago and in a war. Besides, even in modern days it is quite easy for a lot of people to get blindly patriotic, at least here in China. Adrienne, your comments remind me of something in ruby's Cecilia story, "But it's my duty to go. Not going is like saying I'm worth more than all the other men who were willing." and emotionally I do feel Mr. Pryor should not be so unfeeling when the boys were abroad and getting killed, but maybe if everyone followed the pro-war people it would easily get out of control.