Read Ogre Enchanted

[conuly]

Ella Enchanted is one of my favorite books from when I was a kid, and I've always liked Fairest (set in the same universe) as well, which probably explains why I'm so disappointed by this one.

This book is set before Ella Enchanted (as a side-story, we get to see the sad tale of how Ella's mother was duped into marriage) with the same old villainously meddlesome fairy antagonist. Our main character's friend suddenly proposes to her, and when she said "God, no, we're only sixteen!" Lucinda gets pissy and turns her into an ogre until somebody proposes and she accepts.

And then she goes off and lives with ogres for a while, and when she's done with that she goes and heals people and fights their completely reasonable prejudice against her (ogres are strict carnivores and they enjoy the flesh of sapients) and in the end her friend proposes again and she accepts, with the condition of a reasonably long engagement. Which is exactly the solution he proposed at the beginning of the book. The plot wasn't that engaging, and all her personal growth revolved around realizing she loved him romantically too, which is just what that busybody Lucinda wanted in the first place. (Lucinda, of course, gets no growth in this book at all. That happens in Ella Enchanted, so for her to reform now would utterly confuse the timeline.)

On the one hand, the author is clear that Lucinda is thoroughly in the wrong and people have the right to refuse whatever proposals they want, for whatever reason they want - and "getting married at sixteen is stupid" is a perfectly reasonable sentiment... but that message is somewhat undermined when our protagonist spends half the book dithering that by running off, she's ruined her chance of breaking the curse and also maybe her friend doesn't love her anymore and this is a problem (and not just because of the curse).

Definitely did not live up to my anticipation.

Comments

[nodrog]

But…  Getting married at sixteen was perfectly normal for most of human history.  Is any reason given for it being “stupid” in that environment?

[conuly]

It actually wasn't! Most people throughout recorded history didn't marry until their 20s. Marrying at 16 was for the very wealthy, the very powerful, and the very pregnant. Even when people married young, they usually didn't consummate the marriage (again, unless already pregnant) until older.

This idea that our ancestors were just hopping up to the altar in their teens is a myth.

[nodrog]

Going back in time would definitely be a shock for many people today.

https://nodrog.dreamwidth.org/2540285.html

- In Romeo & Juliet, she was fourteen, he was perhaps sixteen.  Was that the problem?  Does anyone in the play see it as a problem?


[In ancient Rome, the ceremony by which boys became legally men and could marry happened at fourteen.  If you think they “waited” merely because you think they should, well, respectfully you must have a poor memory for being a teenager!]

[smokingboot]

Yes, in Romeo and Juliet, Juliet's father considers it problematic. No age is given for Prince Paris who wants to marry Juliet, but when he tells Capulet that 'younger than she are happy mothers made,' her father replies 'And too soon marr'd are those so early made.'

It isn't enough to keep Capulet from being persuaded eventually, but it does indicate that by the end of the 16th century some potential disadvantages of early wedlock were known and understood.

[nodrog]

Oh, certainly, and that's a good reply.  I could mention situations in Imperial China just as bad or worse, and women in Victorian England often faced similar problems.

But those problems did exist, and retroactively imposing modern mores and standards on past times is on a par with giving them 21st-century technology because it, too, surrounds the author and thus is obviously universal - right?

[conuly]

Except this book, again, is not set in the past. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but there are no ogres or magical fairies in the real world.

And whether or not people in our past typically got married at 16 or younger, or people in this book typically get married at 16 or younger (the text states that this is common in the kingdom of Kyrria, in fact, which is why she has come to the view that it's stupid), the protagonist of the book thinks that getting married at 16 is a stupid decision. This is a reasonable point of view. It doesn't matter how common that marriage age is or isn't, her view that it's a bad idea is perfectly reasonable.

[conuly]

- In Romeo & Juliet, she was fourteen, he was perhaps sixteen. Was that the problem? Does anyone in the play see it as a problem?

That's the joke! "Lol, those cray-cray Europeans, they'll do any wacky thing, including marry their kids off at 14!" And then Romeo and Juliet off themselves, which I think rather proves the protagonist's point - marriage is for adults, not children.

Any half-assed analysis of Romeo and Juliet will point out that 14 was not the typical marrying age in England or the rest of Europe at the time. (Yes, I just said that Shakespeare was poking fun of Italy for doing just this, but national stereotypes rarely conform to actual reality, do they?)

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/society/family/marriage.html

[In ancient Rome, the ceremony by which boys became legally men and could marry happened at fourteen. If you think they “waited” merely because you think they should, well, respectfully you must have a poor memory for being a teenager!]

1. Only with the permission of the paterfamilias. Not many people are that happy to allow their children to marry at fourteen.

2. In the US, in many states, children can marry at 12. It happens, too - but statistically, not very often.

[greghousesgf]

a lot of things were common in history but that doesn't make them OK, slavery, burning witches, thinking the earth was flat, etc.

[conuly]

Point: Hardly anybody in recorded history believed the world was flat. The world doesn't look flat, and it obviously casts a round shadow on the moon. The ancient Greeks had proven without a doubt that the earth is round and even came to a good estimate of its size.

[nodrog]

Um…  O dear.  Where would I start.

…Never mind.

[You'll not convince me that Akupāra doesn't exist!  As a good Hindu, I know that the world rests on the backs of four elephants, who in turn stand on the back of the World Turtle!]

[conuly]

Go find an actual source showing that most people at any point in recorded history believed the world was flat. I'll wait.

"Get back to me when -"

[nodrog]

"- you have the golden phoenix feather…"

Ah, those good old days of LJ-wank.  Obviously you remember them too!

“Like any consultant, I charge a fee for my time & services, including on-demand research projects.  Otherwise, my time must be spent elsewhere.  I'm sure you understand.

“Thank you for an interesting discussion.  Have a nice day!”

[From my archived LJ entries]

Re: "Get back to me when -"

[conuly]

I think you owe me one link, though. I posted a link supporting my assertion on marriage.

Re: "Get back to me when -"

[nodrog]

Okay:  Iron-clad proof!

http://i.imgur.com/dSAs5OZ.jpg


[When tempers start to visibly shorten as they were doing here, that’s a sign that perspective is being lost.  I don’t know what you would accept as proof of something that is no longer believed; I could mention the Five Mountains that the Chinese believed supported the heavens above an unmoving, flat Earth; I could mention Henry the Navigator and the Portuguese exploration vessels working their way down the African coastline and getting seriously nervous as the North Star approached the horizon, because they knew they were approaching the edge of the world, but all such anecdotes are just that, anecdotal.  “What the Greeks knew” was not known to all Greeks, and was lost to Christian Europe; I can’t believe I would have to educate you on what made Copernicus so (literally) revolutionary - the origin of the term, in fact.  Surely I don’t.]

Indeed I don’t, for your statement, “Hardly anyone in recorded history thought the world was flat,” goes far beyond Christian Europe!

So, thus, a simple link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


        While the heavens were variously described as being like an umbrella covering the Earth
        (the Kai Tian theory), or like a sphere surrounding it (the Hun Tian theory), or as
        being without substance while the heavenly bodies float freely (the Hsüan yeh theory),
        the Earth was at all times flat…


        Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with
        the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars embedded in it [emphasis added]


I knew about the Egyptian belief, but I didn’t know the Israelites believed the world was flat.  [On the other hand, they didn’t know much about the world; their Ark was a simple box because they didn’t know from ships, while the Sumerian original had rigging, sails and a pilot!]

The Vedic texts of India speak of the Earth as a disc - &c., &c.  In short, a LOT of people throughout recorded history thought the Earth was flat!


Recall that none of this was the original subject of this thread.  Observe as I do, that the emphasis quickly shifted to how undesirable was the custom you said didn’t happen at all - “waited to consummate”?  Srsly?? - and thus, I consider my point carried.

Wasn't this fun?

Re: "Get back to me when -"

[conuly]

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with
the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars embedded in it [emphasis added]

This does not contradict a round earth.

Further, I note that this article is not clear on the distinction between the planet earth and the concept of earth as opposed to ocean.


Recall that none of this was the original subject of this thread. Observe as I do, that the emphasis quickly shifted to how undesirable was the custom you said didn’t happen at all - “waited to consummate”? Srsly?? - and thus, I consider my point carried.

The original subject of the thread is that child marriage - by which most of us mean both a vow and consummation (without the consummation, the marriage can easily be annulled) - was not as widespread in the past as you assume.

Which is already completely unrelated to the post, which is about a single character who has an opinion on the subject. Her opinion has nothing to do with the frequency of child marriage in her world or ours.

Your point was both irrelevant and incorrect.

Re: Short tempers

[nodrog]

That her opinion was “perfectly reasonable” to you does not mean that it is reasonable to the society she lives in.  O tempora o mores!

Never mind.  You have a nice day.

Re: Short tempers

[conuly]

Irrelevant! I never said it had to be reasonable to her society. Her society isn't the one getting married!

[nodrog]

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

- L P Hartley, The Go-Between (1953)

[conuly]

Happily, this book isn't set in the past anyway, so all such silly arguments are moot.