I'm not offended, Ann. It's not my writing or my lifestyle you've been arguing against. I'm simply defending my very favourite books from your views, which, yes, in my opinion, are wrong.
It's not because I think you aren't entitled to an opinion, or anything. I have friends, too, who've told me they didn't like the books after giving them a chance (the first one, at least - which is my favourite), and that's fair enough.
What bothers me is, like Wendy just pointed out, your flawed views of Anne's world.
She
wasn't mute. She wasn't bored at home like a stabled horse. She was a busy mother to her children, wife to Gilbert and, like Wendy said, a contributor to his work.
Why would you think she faded into the wallpaper? Because she was mentioned less as her children grew up and the focus of the books shifted on them? Like someone else said, that's the nature of family sagas. It's not because she
wasn't there, but because the story was not more about the children. I see Carol said this better than I could already.
Finally, why ever would you think Lois would fade into the background? You've contradicted yourself in the worst possible way. You presented us with three characters:
1) Laura Ingalls
2) Martha Kent
3) Anne of Green Gables
You said that Anne and Laura lived in similar societies but different social stratums, and while Anne was "mute" and "bored" Laura was active and fulfilled. Which tells me that you believe someone who lived in that sort of society had the potential to be happy in your opinion. Already I can say, yes, and Lois would be fulfilled and happy and never allow herself to become a stabled horse.
Then Martha Kent and her fulfilled, active life comes up as an example. In the context of Martha living in Smallville. So why in the world would you ever think that
Lois, feisty and passionate and proactive Lois, living in
Metropolis, would fade away into the wallpaper?
I'm just not following your reasoning because, as I've just pointed out, you throw out jumbled masses of anecdotes and examples, take what you want from them selectively and conveniently, and ignore the fact that you're contradicting yourself.
You point out that there are flaws in every society. Yes, there are. Does that mean that there aren't any happy people out there in the world? No. Ann, look around: if you think for one second that the world we live in is even close to "ideal", you're kidding yourself. I would say that to deny the flaws in our modern, developed Western world, would be true blindness.
And I also think that precisely because of the rules of that society, Montgomery ultimately failed to give Anne a good life,
Yeah... all societies have flaws... and there can be happy people in all of them. Anne
was happy. What you just said was "because of societal rules back then, no one could be happy no matter what." Which is ridiculous. Because Montgomery succeeded, and furthermore, I daresay that real women who lived back then sometimes found happiness too.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with your references to Rousseau. Yes, I've read a couple of excerpts from his works in history and philosophy classes I've taken. Yes, he was a chauvinist. What is your point? I just don't see how this ties into Montgomery's books.
