You are applying 21st century mores to an early 19th century situation, and you should not do that. At that time, the only options for the care of the mentally ill were home care and commitment to a sanitarium where those in charge would have treated her in a manner quite similar to Rochester's, except it would have been much more impersonal. Besides, this woman was not in touch with reality and had repeatedly proven to be a danger to both herself and those around her. Locking her in an attic was not an act of kindness, but Rochester had very few options.
I agree, Terry. Even today, mentally ill people can be very violent. I’ve been hit, kicked, spit on and have a permanent shoulder injury caused by one of these folks. I saw a good friend end up with a 12 inch gash in his leg from his tibia breaking through the skin (compound fracture). His life was changed forever and he has constant pain and walks with limp. This, too, was caused by a mentally ill individual. In the 19th century, there were no drugs to control these people, and while conditions were often deplorable, something had to be done to protect other people from them.
~~~~
When I first starting reading this thread, I knew there were stories where Clark was trapped in a marriage.
And there is a story out there somewhere where Clark was married to Mayson and felt trapped. Mayson released from the marriage.
~~~~
Now, an alternate (crazy?) thought… How about a crossover between LnC and Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” along these lines.
Sounds interesting, Bob. Write it.
~~~~
Ann, I understand your thoughts, but if someone was raised that a group marriage was the norm (as in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), they would not have any qualms about having a relationship with someone outside that marriage. Polygyny and polygamy have never been “the norm” in European culture (I include all countries colonized by Europeans as part of this culture - ie, the US, Canada, Australia, etc.) and, so, I agree that the family you speak of couldn’t possibly consider it “the norm”. But what of Eastern cultures that used to and still do practice polygyny. Those people (at least in the past) considered this perfectly normal. And, remember, that just because that man didn’t show obvious emotion, doesn’t mean he didn’t mourn his son. Everyone shows their emotions differently. After having worked as a psych nurse for years, I know that in spades.
My reason for bringing all this up is this: Can Clark really be a high-morals kind of person if he tries to bring Lois into a group marriage?
And if he was raised in that culture, then, yes, he can. And Lois wouldn’t enter that arrangement if she didn’t want to.
~~~~
I don’t find it terribly strange that Clark might marry someone before he met Lois. And, even though Lana was pushy in the series, she was still Clark's first love. At least that's that way I saw it. People marry their first love all the time. People marry for all sorts of other reasons and sometimes they “settle”. We all know people that have done that. Don’t deny it. What if Clark or an alt-Clark didn’t have parents that were so in love? He might have settled. Then, like so many people, he realizes after he is married that he married for all the wrong reasons. But I don’t think Clark would pursue Lois while he was married. But lots of people get divorced for every reason under the sun. Not all are “bad” people or amoral because they divorced. What if Lana, or Mayson, or Chloe Sullivan, for that matter, committed adultery? What if they abused his children? What if he just didn’t want to be married to them anymore because he realized he was in a “bad” marriage? Staying in a “bad” marriage is not healthy! So, ultimately, Clark might be doing the more noble thing - saving himself from despair and depression.
