Wren
Meldielto
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 170
|
Post by Wren on Sept 13, 2004 17:43:15 GMT -5
Has anyone read this series? Anne of Green Gables was one of my favorite series growning up. In a way she reminds of Jo March in Little Women. They were both writers; they both had trouble with romance; and they were able to fulfill their dreams in the end. They did come from different backgrounds, though. Anne was an orphan while Jo had three sisters. btw I liked the Little Women books too.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elentari on Sept 14, 2004 9:51:04 GMT -5
I've never read the books, but I've seen the (fairly)new film (well, sort of film. It's 3videos long) adaptation of the books, though i saw it years ago now. Its a beautiful story! I suppose i should read the books to see how accurate the adaptation is. But I have so many books i have to read! I'll get round to reading it one day... The bit where she died her hair made me laugh. It's such a classic moment. Don't ask me why, it just is. | tari  P.S. I think I'm gonna re-watch it, cause I really can't remember much of what happens but i want to be able to! |
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 16, 2004 20:20:53 GMT -5
An excellent series of books indeed! My grandmother read these books to my mother, my mother read them to me, and I intend to read them to my girls and likewise encourage them to read them to their girls and on and on and on. These books I would highly recommend for any age. Perhaps young girls would get the most pleasure out of them, but I've never ceased loving them and I've read them over hundreds (though I don't mean that literally) of times. The Emily of New Moon books, the Pat of Silver Bush books, as well as the individual titles of The Blue Castle and A Tangled Web were also very good, and all by the same authoress, L.M. Montgomery. Here are some links on the writer that might be of interest: www.uxbridge.com/people/maud.htmlwww.gov.pe.ca/lmm/index.php3www.lmmontgomery.ca/lmmi/new.shtml |
|
Wren
Meldielto
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 170
|
Post by Wren on Sept 24, 2004 2:10:56 GMT -5
The movies were wonderful, but a little disappointing to someone who's read the books. There's just so much more! Definately read the books, Elentari. Nuramael, I only have one girl, and she's a little young for this series. She only has enough patience for about one sentence per page.  But they would definately be good stories to read to her in a few more years. |
|
|
|
Post by Istawen Aeros on Sept 24, 2004 19:38:41 GMT -5
*prepares to be flamed*
The Anne of Green Gables books were enjoyable, but certainly not good. Why? Anne treated Gilbert like dirt for how many years? And she got flirty with some other guy, and he still loved her and married her?
The only reason, that I recall, that she fell in love with him was because he got sick and almost died. Real life just doesn't work that way.
The best book was Rilla of Engleside. That was so sad, and so...human. I would give anything to read Walter's poem.
Emily of New Moon I thought was dreadful. She was so perfect, she could do anything. I don't know. She kind of reminded me of Elsie Dinsmore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 25, 2004 16:11:41 GMT -5
Imladris,
It depends on what you mean by 'treated like dirt.' She didn't treat him like dirt, not in the least, but she didn't want to marry him. And it was acknowledged that she was a very silly little girl. She didn't want to marry Gilbert because she had dreams of a very romantic man. When Gilbert was sick and dying she realized then that she loved him. Often enough one doesn't realize how precious and dear something or someone is to them until one is about to lose that something or someone. Real life does work that way. How many examples can be given of a girl loving a man more than anyone else in the world and just not realizing it because she had grown up with silly dreams?
And I hope you are prepared to defend your statement that Emily was perfect, because I disagree with you deeply. Of course she was good, and talented, too, but she couldn't write poetry worth a penny until she was lectured on it again, and again, and again. Of course she fits into the modern idea of a Mary-Sue: she was beautiful, she was good, and she was talented (though she had to develop those talents). But the modern idea of a Mary-Sue is the most absurd thing in the world, else I know a lot of them in real life, and each one is the sweetest in the world. I detest books where the heroines are ugly, stupid, and mean. I enjoy books that give people inspirational main characters who they can look up to and try to imitate. Well, foolishness and folly, Emily was nothing good and talented compared to the saints, and I adore their stories. Who wants to read books that make one angry because the main character is a stupid fool? And then who enjoys a book that has a good main character that they can learn from?
Faith, I don't meet many people who dislike Frodo because he was good-hearted, talented, Elf-friend, and so on and so forth. Whatever is wrong with a character who is good?
Truly, though, Istawen, I don't understand what your position on a good character is. You don't like Anne because she has a lot of faults, and you don't like Emily because you claim she doesn't have any.
Wren, I'm sure my mamma could sympathize. I believe I was about ten or eleven when she read the books aloud to me, and by then she had a really hard time of it because I didn't think she went fast enough! I'd steal them away and read them myself in my spare time.
The movies were very enjoyable, but I think they were only mildly disappointing, though I have to say I intensely disliked Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story. I think they were trying to throw a bit of Rilla of Ingleside in there, but it didn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Istawen Aeros on Sept 25, 2004 17:35:39 GMT -5
Ah, you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear.
What I didn't like about Anne of Green Gables is that she married Gilbert. She didn't treat him well, and he still loved her and hung on, and then she marries him. I am not disputing the fact that she suddenly realized she loved him, my bone is with the fact that she married him. From what I have observed, it isn't real -- ie, it wouldn't happen in the real world.
Actually, I find many similarities between Emma of New Moon and Anne. To me, they are both beautiful (sure not everyone thought Anne was beautiful but still) and they both had a few faults. But they aren't real to me.
You enjoy to read books where the person is above you. I enjoy books where the main characters are, above all else, human, where they make real life mistakes (yes, Anne and Emily had their mistakes but their mistakes are not real to me). I am unable to relate to Anne or Emily because they are above me. They are not real to me. In a word, they are not normal.
They both are extremely talented, extremely beautiful, extremely graceful, etc. Who is like that in real life? They are not normal. And isn't it better to relate and try to imitate a person who struggles with the daily faults and triumphs over them than try to imitate someone who is perfect expect for a few minor faults such as vanity?
I do not like heroines who are stupid or ugly. No...I take that back. It would be a breath of fresh air to have a heroine who was normal in looks and normal in intellect. I hate reading stories where the heroine is smart and dazzlingly clever because guess what? I'm not like that, my acquaitances aren't like that. How can I strive to be like them when I am stuck with my normal intellect? You can't change how smart you are, no matter how many books you read. You can be smarter than you can, but once you've reached your limit, that's it. What I'm saying is this: some were born to be geniuses, and some weren't. And I get tired of reading books where the heroines are, in a word, beautiful and geniuses. I can't relate to them. I can't try to be like them because I cannot change my looks and I cannot make myself into a clever person when God has not given me the gift of cleverness.
Another bone that I touched on was the fact of their personality. They have too few faults. I believe (and this is from memory so if I'm wrong please correct me) their primary is really Vanity. Everything "bad" that happens to them springs from their vanity. Anne wasn't so much vain in the latter books (the books that I really enjoy in the Anne series) but she still wasn't real to me. She was too perfect.
Finally, you are assuming that I don't like good characters -- this is not true. I like human characters. Human characters who fight with their faults, suffer consequences (often severe) because they give in to their faults, and I cheer when they conquer them. Those are the characters I love. Human characters. Not characters who are too perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 26, 2004 13:33:36 GMT -5
But then you are upset that Anne married the man she loved? I see that happen all the time in real life.
(off-topic: Ooops.... I just realized that in my previous email I referred to you once by the wrong name. Sincerest apologies!)
You know, I haven't met a girl that isn't beautiful. She may not be a Hollywood star, but all girls I have met are beautiful, unless they're covered with so much makeup that it's like they don't have faces anymore, or unless they scowl so much that they're look plain unpleasant.
In fact I know a girl who is extremely talented, extremely beautiful (she doesn't think so), extremely graceful, and so on and so forth. I cannot say there is nobody with those attributes in real life, for I do know someone.
I think the main thing here is that we have different tastes in characters. Also, it must be taken into account that some books aren't written to provide characters that real people can relate with and be just like. Some books are more to make a point on something. The characters have a specific fault that is focused on very much, and the other faults are rarely mentioned. The character suffers from that one fault, and the book teaches you about that one fault and it's dangers. And then in another book a different fault will be taught about. Jane Austen's books are also very much like this. The characters have one fault that is mainly focused on, and they suffer from that fault, and people learn about that fault. My mother and I were discussing Austen's books yesterday, and she spoke of how much it taught her when she was a young girl. She learned from the primary fault of Lizzy, or of Marianne, or another character, and she learned from the faults of the more minor characters, who were often silly, or inclined to gossip, or rude, etc.
Another thing to consider is that the Anne books aren't primarily older children's books. They're for little girls, and I don't think it's a good thing to give little girls 'heroes' that aren't very good people. They're little (naturally), and very prone to imitate their 'heroes,' and so you want their heroes to be very good people. When I was a little girl my mother read books to me that had very good and talented characters, such as the Anne books, or stories of the saints, or other such books, and so when I wanted to be 'just like her' I would be striving to be just like someone who was exceptionally good. Now that I'm older I read books where the characters aren't very good for the most part (and I think it's rotten, too, because I still feel like a little girl), but I still really appreciate what those good characters did for me when I was very young.
No, not necessarily. Without turning this into a debate about Christianity, I will bring up a point that involves it. Christians are supposed to imitate Jesus, Who was perfect. It's not a bad thing to imitate exceptionally good and talented people.
No, you don't have to be intelligent in the same fields as they are. I'd bet a lot that you're more talented at writing than Anne is (if you recall the story she wrote about Cordelia and Geraldine; leaves me rolling on the floor laughing every time). What they did was have their specific talents that God gave them, and work to improve themselves in those fields that they were talented in. Anybody can do the same. And even if a person is given a certain amount of intelligence, it doesn't mean that they can't expand their knowleadge and sharpen their wits.
I apologize if I made the impression that I was assuming that. I was merely confused at what your position on a good character is. Now that you have informed me of your tastes, you may rest assured that I understand them and do not think anything unkind or unfair of you. Let me close with a courtly bow.
*courtly bow*
|
|
|
|
Post by Istawen Aeros on Sept 26, 2004 18:27:29 GMT -5
No, I am not upset that Anne married the man she loved. I am merely saying that it was unlikely that Gilbert would wait that long for her. In other words, it was too fairytale-ish for me.
Heroes that are normal people aren't good? That's what I want. I want normal people as heroes. Not some girl who everybody thinks is pretty (I know Anne wasn't like that but more people than not thought she was beautiful), who is clever at everything nearly, and -- you get my drift. I don't want a bad person for a hero. Normal people. Not bad people. Normal people.
I never said that it was a bad thing to imitate good people. However, I also know that I cannot become like Christ because He was perfect and I am not. Thus, I cannot relate to Him. THAT IS NOT A BAD THING. I am only stating a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Istawen Aeros on Sept 26, 2004 19:22:23 GMT -5
Just a few more statements.
This is what you said about heroines"
This is what I said about heroines:
This is what you said:
Do you see what has happened? You twisted normal and human into mean stupid and ugly. This is what your kind of books do to you! It makes the unsightly ugly. It makes the normal bad and stupid. God created us normal! These books that you read has made our human nature, our normal nature into a thing of evil and wickedness. And you contradict youself. You say that all women are beautiful. How can you say that you despise books with ugly heroines when, according to you, ugly women do not exist?
I have a series of books that you would fall in love with. It is called the Elsie Dinsmore series. She is a little saint. She loves her father even though he hates her and treats with neglect and harsh words, a cross word never falls from her lips, and she is a devout Christian. In fact, she was so perfect I'm surprised that she needed Christ to get to heaven because her righteousness was as great Christ's.
If you want, I will sell them to you because to me she is nothing but a legalistic prude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 27, 2004 12:03:17 GMT -5
That is a weighty accusation, Istawen, a very weighty accusation, and not one that should be made lightly. You are accusing me of detesting most people I know because they are not saints, indeed, you are accusing me of detesting just about everyone in the world, and thinking myself very good indeed. It is not an accusation thrown at me often, in fact it has never been thrown at me before, and I must admit I am surprised that you have accused me of something so grievous as this.
No, I assure you, I have not twisted human into stupid, ugly, and mean. But you give me reason to believe that your idea of human is stupid, ugly, and mean. I do not say that you do, but I say that it is very easy to believe. You have told me that you think Anne and Emily are too perfect, and you have given me no evidence that they had no faults. I find many (but not too many) faults in them, yet you think they are perfect, so it inclines me to think that your idea of perfect is much different than mine. Anne and Emily are very human to me, but they are also good humans.
Again, you accuse me and books of something very unfair. You say I am a little idiot for loving books where the characters are good, and that the books are foolish because the characters are good. I suppose I am a fool for enjoying, say, the New Testament in the Bible because the main character is perfect.
No, they have not. I apologize for contradicting you so blatantly, but I see nothing else to do when, again, you misunderstand me and unfairly accuse me. These books have taught me that human nature is capable of good and beautiful things, whatever faults they may have. That the wickedest person in the world could be good if God helped them.
And, then, I think our ideas of 'perfect' are different. You think that Emily and Anne are perfect; I do not. I think they are good, but I do not think they are perfect. I find numerous faults within them, though none that would be a bad influence on a little girl. Perhaps you do not see faults in them that I see, or perhaps our ideas of what is a fault and what is not is very much different.
Within the same paragraph of accusations, you accuse me of yet another thing, and that is not knowing what I am talking about. That is exactly why I detest ugly heroines. You detest heroines that are absolutely perfect (and so do I, for, aside from Christ, there has been nobody who is absolutely perfect, without shoving a Catholic idea upon you) because you find no one who is perfect in real life, and I detest heroines who are ugly because I find no girl who is ugly in real life. I do not contradict myself.
This does not strike me as a helpful recommendation, but it strikes me as a pointed insult, and at this point I will withdraw from the debate, for it is fast turning into a quarrel. I have been accused of many different things, among them the accusation that I do not know what I am talking about when I in fact do, and furthermore I have been insulted in a manner that would cause anyone (save perhaps Elsie Dinsmore) offense. I withdraw with all apologies if I have offended you in any way, and I beg you to let the debate rest at that, for I have no wish to further take part in it, and it is clear that our ideas of what a fault is and what a perfect character is are entirely different, and opinions cannot be amply argued.
I thank you for all the good that has come out of the debate, and I apologize for all the bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Istawen Aeros on Sept 27, 2004 12:57:47 GMT -5
I know you have left but I want some questions answered. Alas, I cannot let this debate rest for you have put words into my mouth that I never typed.
As for accusing you, I said I wanted normal. You said ugly and stupid. What other conclusion was I to draw? Obviously I misunderstood you.
How so? All I have said I want normal human characters. Please quote me where I want stupid, mean, and ugly characters.
Quote me. Tell me where I said that you were an idiot and a fool. Also, we are talking about fiction. Not history. Therefore, your analogy is faulty and thus null and void. You are applying my arguments to real people in the real world. I am saying that I want my heroines in literature to be normal.
Actually, Protestants believe that too and I mentioned that in one of my previous posts.
|
|
Wren
Meldielto
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 170
|
Post by Wren on Sept 29, 2004 16:25:01 GMT -5
I have to agree with Nuramaiel in this debate. One thing I loved about this book, was Gilbert’s loyalty to Anne. They had a rather rough beginning. And went through even more rough times, but I love that their love won out in the end. I found it quite romantic. And as for books with characters with high moral standards and strict ideals, as a parent this is the sort of books I encourage my children to read. I try to steer them away from Judy Blume.  And as Nurumaiel these books were written for young people. There’s plenty of time when my kids are older and more mature for To Kill a Mockingbird and Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  I recently began reading The Cat of Bubastes to the kids, which is by G.A. Henty. His characters went through extremely hard times, but they kept to their values, and their character never waivered. My boys were engrossed with the story, though it was probably high school reading level. |
|
|
|
Post by Istawen Aeros on Sept 29, 2004 18:05:12 GMT -5
Just so that everybody can be clear and not think I'm this perv, I don't think book with good, moral characters are bad. People can be human and stick to their values too. I'm merely saying that Anne of Green Gables is like a modern fairy tale with no magic and that real life doesn't happen that way. Feel free to call me a cynic. |
|
|
|
Post by A Fiddler on Sept 29, 2004 18:57:46 GMT -5
I will not call you a cynic, Miss Istawen, though the wink at the end of the sentence seems to imply that you were't expecting be called one. ;D All the same, I will not. I think people define magic in different ways, just as some people define adventure in different ways. Some people think adventure can only be found in wild, daring happenings, and others think adventures can be found anywhere if they just look hard enough. Neither view is wrong, it's merely that one person is probably more adventurous than the other and so things that are exciting to a less adventurous person wouldn't be very exciting to that very adventurous person. Some people might be 'magicked' more easily, and others might not be. Maybe, Miss Istawen, you are more magical than we are so you have different ideas of magic. Of course, enjoyment of the 'magic' in the book, or the inability to see any magic, could be the cause of two people having different lives. I for one can boast of hearing many romantic, seemingly impossible tales like the tale of Anne and Gilbert (though roles were reversed in the first instance that comes to my head; the girl was faithful while the lad thought he loved another). Very well, I will admit that a good quarter or so of them were in songs, but I do know real life instances. Anne was a silly little fool, and nobody can deny it. Gilbert was a decent sort of chap to love her after her mooning about that Mr. Ray Gardener, and I guess it wasn't his fault that rumours were flying about concerning him and Christine Stuart. Love triumphant, eh? Mrs. Wren (saying so reminds me somewhat of the piece Philip's letter to his fiance dictated by Elnora, if you've ever read A Girl of the Limberlost, but I say it with all courtesy, I assure you), I highly recommend you to start discussions in this forum on both Uncle Tom's Cabin and on the books of G.A. Henty. I am fond of both. Perhaps other would be as well. Sincerely, ---A Fiddler |
|
