Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Literary Sauna (or Tomes in Towels) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (391)	8/28/2001 9:49:09 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 466

Yes- I did both. And although they cut quite a bit, I thought it was very faithful. I think the story read is more horrible. But that's because there is more detail in it.

To: Rambi who wrote (391)	8/28/2001 9:51:56 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 466

It reminds me of that quote: Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." By: Blaise Pascal And for the husband, his conviction in medicine borders on the religious. She is getting worse, and yet he thinks his "treatment" is still working. The only explanation for such a denial of the evidence of the senses, is faith.

To: Rambi who wrote (391)	8/28/2001 5:32:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 466

I both read the story and listened to the play, and I was struck by the very different focuses the two had. In the play, the big focus was on the mother-child relationship. She was forever asking to hold her child, you hear the child crying in the background frequently, the nature of the room as nursery was very strongly presented, and her primary concern about her husband was his keeping her from her child, and only secondarily her keeping her from her work and writing. In the story, the child was almost totally absent, and the focus of her discontent was, I felt, almost exclusively on his limiting her right to be creative and express herself. While you're right that the women on this thread would mostly rebel against being treated as she was, from what I know of my social history it was representative of husband-wife relationships 100+ years ago, and even today there are, I think, a lot of marriages where that philosophy is alive and well. I see some in my practice even to the present day. So I think it works as a modern as well as historical story.