I'm not saying he went over and above the mores of the times, rather that I think he agrees with those mores.
Yes I do have some issue with certain characters getting away with things and others not. If you're going to punish one, why not the other? He implies that some people are getting what they deserve, for example Bent, but others who do something rotten suffer no consequences, for example the first Charles Main. It just isn't fair and my favorite character in the book and all of lit in fact paid with his life for the things he did, while others who did similar things did not.
I've noted that it seems Jakes allows the Mains to get away with their actions which may be why it seems I'm changing the subject, but my bottom line with this topic has always been that I think Jakes agrees with the way things were in those times.
I'd probably better leave Ashton out of the discussion as I dislike her (except a little bit in Book III with Will) and don't want to be defending her in any way. If Billy thought she was cheating on him that would have been acceptable for dumping her, just as the movie portrayed it, I just think in the book he handled it in a very bad manner. I don't say he had to continue liking her, but he could have at least discussed it with her, and there should have been some discussion among the family about Billy going from one sister to the other. But Ashton is obviously a person who doesn't give a damn who she hurts, so like I said, I'm not going to defend her.
About Virgilia, I think she was correct to be very vocal. I think if we're to make change, we can't always be passive about it, because that doesn't work long term. Constance was helping people with the railroad but until laws were made to free the slaves, that was only going to go so far. If slavery hadn't been outlawed or laws made not returning escaped slaves, those escaped slaves were in danger. I think people have to challenge people's way of thinking and risk offending them in order to make change. I live in Baltimore where the Freddy Grey riots went on, and while we don't want people rioting, as some of the supporters of that have said, we did peaceful protests and nothing happened.
Slavery was a terrible evil and something had to be done to stop it, and it needed to be done quickly, not many years later while human beings lives were being ruined by people who just didn't see them as human beings. No, not every master was evil, but, what they were doing was. They were holding humans in bondage. Sure, they might not have been cruel to them as long as they were towing the line, but should they want to have freedom, that would change. Tillet character is a perfect example of this.
Speaking of Tillet, I forgot about the overseer but that proves my point that Jakes lets the Mains pretty much get away with whatever. I blame Tillet for Priam's death because it was the caterwauling or whatever it was called that he ordered and never felt any remorse for, that made Priam run away, and I forget the details but Priam ended up dead later on. But Tillet never suffered any consequences. Other abusive characters do.
About Joseph Hazard, I had no problem with him. If I remember correctly, the man he killed was abusing him. And wasn't it even an accident? Whether it was or not though, it's not at all the same thing as what Charles de Main did. Charles betrayed and hurt a person who loved him, a good person.
The Jeanne Main story is just proof to me that Jakes does have some misogyny in his own heart, because there was no point to even making a story like that except to abuse and degrade a female character.
Why did he need to make Jeanne be tortured in a prison for her religion, lose her mind to a point over it, and then not be able to have a baby so her husband turns against her and kicks her to the curb? And yes, she would have been kicked to the curb because there was no way she was going to fit into Charles's family with the Indian girl. He couldn't pass the children off to anyone as Jeanne's because they'd be obviously half-Indian. His plan was to tell outsiders it was his sister's child but how was that going to work? He would not have been content at stopping with one child if he wanted a lineage that bad because one child wouldn't guarantee that. So he was obviously going to continue his relationship with the Cherokee girl. I imagine he would have fallen in love with her seeing her have his children, and come to resent Jeanne more and more as a hindrance to his being able to be married to the Cherokee (it wouldn't have been illegal for him to marry a Cherokee, that happend quite often in those days).
So Jeanne was either dumped, or, and this is what I think happened, killed. Charles could have easily made it look like an accident or suicide given Jeanne's mental state. He had already given up his caring about God, or God's laws. All he cared about was his family with the Indian, so I can imagine that he would justify it to himself that Jeanne was better off dead and that killing her was needed to protect his family. I think Ashton and Tillet inherited their ruthlessness and disregard for hurting people from this man.
If Jakes wasn't trying to torture this female character, Jeanne, all he would have had to do was write that she had children and that's where the Mains came from. Or not include her at all, and just let Charles move to South Carolina and marry the Cherokee or someone else. There was no need for a sordid romance between Charles and the Cherokee while stabbing Jeanne in the back, and I got the impression Jakes wanted us to think Charles and Cherokee woman was cute, and that we were supposed to think of his wife as a burden or the "interloper".
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
About Virgilia, I think she was correct to be very vocal. I think if we're to make change, we can't always be passive about it, because that doesn't work long term. Constance was helping people with the railroad but until laws were made to free the slaves, that was only going to go so far. If slavery hadn't been outlawed or laws made not returning escaped slaves, those escaped slaves were in danger. I think people have to challenge people's way of thinking and risk offending them in order to make change. I live in Baltimore where the Freddy Grey riots went on, and while we don't want people rioting, as some of the supporters of that have said, we did peaceful protests and nothing happened.
Slavery was a terrible evil and something had to be done to stop it, and it needed to be done quickly, not many years later while human beings lives were being ruined by people who just didn't see them as human beings. No, not every master was evil, but, what they were doing was. They were holding humans in bondage. Sure, they might not have been cruel to them as long as they were towing the line, but should they want to have freedom, that would change. Tillet character is a perfect example of this.
The problem is that some times, things need to be taken slowly. As much as most of us hate slavery these days, so many people in the South back then thought that it was a natural thing. And you can't just change attitudes like that so quickly. So even though I admire Virgilia to a point, Constance probably did more good than her.
The Jeanne Main story is just proof to me that Jakes does have some misogyny in his own heart, because there was no point to even making a story like that except to abuse and degrade a female character.
Why did he need to make Jeanne be tortured in a prison for her religion, lose her mind to a point over it, and then not be able to have a baby so her husband turns against her and kicks her to the curb? And yes, she would have been kicked to the curb because there was no way she was going to fit into Charles's family with the Indian girl. He couldn't pass the children off to anyone as Jeanne's because they'd be obviously half-Indian. His plan was to tell outsiders it was his sister's child but how was that going to work? He would not have been content at stopping with one child if he wanted a lineage that bad because one child wouldn't guarantee that. So he was obviously going to continue his relationship with the Cherokee girl. I imagine he would have fallen in love with her seeing her have his children, and come to resent Jeanne more and more as a hindrance to his being able to be married to the Cherokee (it wouldn't have been illegal for him to marry a Cherokee, that happend quite often in those days).
So Jeanne was either dumped, or, and this is what I think happened, killed. Charles could have easily made it look like an accident or suicide given Jeanne's mental state. He had already given up his caring about God, or God's laws. All he cared about was his family with the Indian, so I can imagine that he would justify it to himself that Jeanne was better off dead and that killing her was needed to protect his family. I think Ashton and Tillet inherited their ruthlessness and disregard for hurting people from this man.
If Jakes wasn't trying to torture this female character, Jeanne, all he would have had to do was write that she had children and that's where the Mains came from. Or not include her at all, and just let Charles move to South Carolina and marry the Cherokee or someone else. There was no need for a sordid romance between Charles and the Cherokee while stabbing Jeanne in the back, and I got the impression Jakes wanted us to think Charles and Cherokee woman was cute, and that we were supposed to think of his wife as a burden or the "interloper".
True, Charles Main hardly comes across as a 100 % good man to modern eyes. But when you consider that he lived in the 17th century, and that he had been an aristocrat no less, I still have to cut him plenty of slack. Oh yes, I too feel sorry for poor Jeanne. But you have to remember that Charles never seems to have mistreated her physically. Yes yes, I know that he found another woman to have sex with and have a child with, but he only did that because his wife had become ill. And he still made sure that Jeanne was as comfortable as she could be in that condition, because he still cared about her. So I don't believe that Charles murdered his wife (we never got any evidence that he did anything that cruel), but I too rather think that he pretended that Jeanne was the mother of these children, that he got with the Cherokee woman. True, Jakes could have written the story differently. But I don't think that he meant us to like Charles for taking a mistress, or to think that his affair was "cute". That was never
my impression, at least. But he simply wrote about a harsh situation, that could have happened in real life back in the day...
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
What I think seems wrong is that Jakes made it look like, if you're an aboloitionist, you must be a nutcase. That if you don't just quietly accept slavery or hide your work behind closed doors, you're a lunatic, thus why I think it seems racist. Like, to stand up for black people means you're insane. And unfortunately there are those who still think blacks should be slaves, and painting a civil rights activist as a bad person doesn't help.
What makes Charles the worst is that unlike other villains in the story, he knows what he is doing is evil and he chooses to do it anyway. In a court of law that is what determines guilt. And he didn't just sex up the Indian for a child, he was lusting after her the minute he saw her. The baby was a convenient excuse for him to go for a new woman, I guess he decided he preferred dark haired women to blondes. I do believe he would have killed Jeanne,he obviously threw any morals he had to the wind, and once you cross that line it makes it easier to do it again. I don't know if it would have been that easy to divorce her to marry his true love, so I can imagine he told himself Jeanne would be better off dead so he killed her. In any case, it didn't end well for that woman.
And what pisses me off is that he totally got away with it and got everything out of life that he wanted, while other characters like Bent, the Lamottes, even James who wasn't really a bad person, and my personal favorite, Lamar, all had to pay with their lives and Jakes implies they deserved it. To me none of them was as bad as a man who betrayed the trust of a sweet woman who believed he loved her all so he could marry some slut he barely knew (and yes, I don't have a problem calling a woman a slut when that's what she is, even though I am a woman, lol.) I have zero compassion for Charles de Main, and I think he deserves a special place in Hell. He was the scummiest character in the books. I wish Jakes had never written him because it put a sour taste in my mouth for the rest of the books.
And there really was no purpose to that story other than to show a woman being abused and her abuser get away with it. Who cares why the Mains have dark hair and eyes, he could have just said someone in the family married an Indian, he didn't have to make a woman be cheated on and dumped or killed to make it happen. This is why I say Jakes was misogynistic to Jeanne.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
But you still seem to miss that we're talking about characters, who would have lived centuries ago if they had been real people. Yes, it was only too easy to be seen as a lunatic back in the 19th century if you spoke against slavery. That is why people had to work against it in secret. And even if you and I might feel a lot of sympathy for Virgilia, she would have been seen as crazy by her contemporaries. And if there is a special place in Hell for men from the 17th century, who cheated on their wives, Charles de Main will have a lot of company there. And I really don't see him as that bad, even though I agree with you that he hardly was some perfect angel. After all, he did make sure that his mentally ill wife had a comfortable life. And I doubt that Jeanne even understood that he had an affair.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
But don't you think Jakes wanted the reader to think Virgilia was crazy? I see Virgilia often classified as a villain along with Bent, which outside of her letting the patient die, which she felt bad for later, I don't see her as a villain at all.
I just feel like he used Virgilia to try to make it look like "see, not all Northerners are good", which of course they aren't, I just don't think it was appropriate to use a civil rights activist to get that point across. It just made me get the feeling Jakes thought of abolitionists who were vocal as crazy, and wanted his reader to see it that way too.
It doesn't matter the century, adultery is wrong, so no, God would not give Charles a pass based on the century. Adultery is condemned in the Bible, well before the 17th century. Charles was not a king, he was just a displaced duke from a country he wasn't even living in anymore. His arrogance and sense of entitlement is another thing I dislike about him, and my impression was that Charles wss sick of his wife, saw a pretty girl, and used the lineage thing to justify sleeping with her. He would have slept with her even if Jeanne had had a baby, he just wanted her for her looks.
Jeanne would have found out because he wouldn't have had affections with her anymore, he'd be away all the time....whether she figured it out or not, or she caught him or not, or he confessed, he was emotionally abusing her. Trust me, he'd have gotten rid of Jeanne because she wasn't fitting his plans, so I don't think he kept her comfortable. Jakes hinted at Charles/Cherokee being the couple to root for by having Joseph Hazard see them together, not him and Jeanne together.
Jeanne was a character who had no reason to appear in the story other than for Jakes to give her a miserable existance, and I see that as misogyny, hatred of a female and blaming her for the lack of children and implying it's okay for her to be cheated on because she "failed" her husband. Now granted he treated James in a similar manner, allowing Ashton to abuse him verbally and emotionally, but at least James served a purpose in the story, Jeanne serves none.
I haven't read Jakes' other works but I have seen others point out misogyny in them. And I saw someone say there was homophobia in one of his books, which didn't surprise me because I noted homophobia with Bent. He is bisexual and we're supposed to see that as part of his negativity.
Jakes is a good writer, I'm just warning people that there are some instances of outdated views that he inserts in his writing.
Btw, are you on the Reign board here, or the SOC soap board? Your username is familiar.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
Well, you seem to know this story better than I do. But I think I still have to disagree with you. After all, it seems like the real heros of the story (Orry, Brett, Madeline, George, Constance) are all portrayed as being fairly liberal-minded for the time period. Virgilia was portrayed as a bit crazy, yes, because she was supposed to be a "fanatic". But from a modern point of view, I don't think that we're supposed to dislike her all the time. It was really brave of her to have a black husband, for example, even if some people think that she only married him to make a point.
Charles de Main was simply a typical French aristocrat of the 17th century. So even though he lost his position and had to relocate to America because of religous prosecution, he would of course have seen himself as entitled to take a mistress, especially after his wife became mentally ill and couldn't give him either pleasure or children. Yes, he would have known that God didn't approve of adultery. But just like so many aristocratic men back then, Charles didn't care about that. I still don't see though that his affair was portrayed as a positive thing.
Jeanne's place in the story might be a bit of historical correctness. Maybe there is a real story about a poor lady, who became ill after the religious prosecutions in 17th century France? Not that I know that it's the case, but it would not surprise me if that was the truth. But neverthless, she and Charles and the Cherokee girl only exist in the prologue, some 200 years before the real story begins. Their story never made it into the TV series, and you can skip that without missing anything, if you hate it that much.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
Well I do give Jakes props for allowing Virgilia to get redemption in the 3rd book. I just see a lot of fans describe Virgilia as a villain, and I don't see her that way. She was one of the few gray characters in the story, where she can't be clearly defined as a hero or villain like most of his characters in this series. I felt like she did love Grady, although some of the marriage was for making a statement. I think in the books she kind of loved the senator too, but couldn't be with him because he was married. I don't think she killed him like in the movie.
Charles had given up his caring about what God thought because his life wasn't going how he wanted, and he claimed because of what happened to Jeanne, though what he did to her was worse imo than what the religious leaders in France did, because he was a loved one who betrayed her.
Charles was the kind of person who knew right from wrong, but when he wanted to do wrong to get what he wanted, he would find ways to justify it. Jakes even says as much when he's describing his attitudes about slavery (he knows it's wrong but convinces himself maybe they are going to a nice home).
Why I feel Jakes approved of the affair is that it seems Charles was rewarded for it; he seems to have gotten exactly what he wanted. Whereas other characters with schemes/bad behavior, usually die and/or their schemes blow up in their face.
And to me what made Charles worse than, say, Bent, is he hurt a person who loved him. Bent never had a sweet, beautiful woman who loved him, as you may recall, in the books Bent is unattractive and unpopular.
(And btw, Jeanne was still able to give Charles sex, in fact Jakes makes a point of saying her mental ilness hadn't depleted her sex drive...)
The only other characters who betrayed people who were good to them would be Justin being cruel to Madeline, who could have liked him, and Ashton being cruel to James, who loved her. Ashton never really pays to the degree of other characters, but obviously Justin pays for being an abusive spouse, and I wish Charles had too.
I'm glad the first movie never did the prologue, and I hope the remake doesn't. It would take more screentime than it's worth, and much of it is thought, not dialogue, so getting the feelings across would be difficult. Besides, there could be other people who would be bothered by the idea of the hero family being sired in adultery (not to mention the thing of a Main and Hazard randomly bumping into each other 200 years before their families meet and become involved, is cheesy/hokey to me).
Maybe Jeanne was hown to illustrate the cruelties inflicted on innocent people, but I just got the impression Jakes saw her as a nuisance to his hero and heroine, which just makes no sense to me.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
Well, I guess that we simply have to disagree on this. Sure, you can say that Charles got what he wanted once he had arrived to America. Then again, he had lost everything he had in France because of the religious prosecutions, which also had made his wife mentally ill. So it's not like he never went through any hardships. And alas, you can see bad people (who are much worse than Charles, who I can still only see as an average man for his era) prosper for years in real life. I agree with you that the first Main and the first Hazard bumping into each other was hokey. And I really doubt that the re-make will include the prologue either, because like you said, it will not be worth it.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
I know that in real life, bad people prosper, I think what bothered me about the Charles character prospering through bad actions, is that other characters in the story who committed "evil" deeds, mostly didn't get what they wanted. The entire Lamotte family dies, and I didn't even think Forbes was that bad, Bent, my favorite character Lamar, Vesey (the guy who tortured Billy in prison, George in the movie), and some others that I can't think of right now, they all died and didn't get the success they wanted. So I guess it seems unfair, if Jakes is going to punish some for their wrong doings, why did he let this dude get away with it, lol.
I hope you're right, I think that would be a huge mistake. It will distract from the story and it would be expensive to produce, and I think a lot of viewers who didn't read the books will be like, "What is this 1600's stuff? I thought this was a Civil War story!", and even those who did read the book, I doubt are very interested in seeing it filmed, although I did see a reviewer on here who wondered why they didn't film it....I hope the remake producers aren't listening to people like her.....
If they wanted to film it, I would recommend making it after, and calling it something like North and South: Beginnings or something. They would have to finish it too to make it worth watching, the way Jakes ends it in the book wasn't thorough enough and leaves a lot of questions.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
I know that in real life, bad people prosper, I think what bothered me about the Charles character prospering through bad actions, is that other characters in the story who committed "evil" deeds, mostly didn't get what they wanted. The entire Lamotte family dies, and I didn't even think Forbes was that bad, Bent, my favorite character Lamar, Vesey (the guy who tortured Billy in prison, George in the movie), and some others that I can't think of right now, they all died and didn't get the success they wanted. So I guess it seems unfair, if Jakes is going to punish some for their wrong doings, why did he let this dude get away with it, lol.
I see what you mean. But to be fair, we never got to know what the rest of Charles's life turned out to be like. Sure, he founded a new plantation and a new dynasty. But still, he might have had hardships to cope with as well. We simply don't know.
I hope you're right, I think that would be a huge mistake. It will distract from the story and it would be expensive to produce, and I think a lot of viewers who didn't read the books will be like, "What is this 1600's stuff? I thought this was a Civil War story!", and even those who did read the book, I doubt are very interested in seeing it filmed, although I did see a reviewer on here who wondered why they didn't film it....I hope the remake producers aren't listening to people like her.....
Yeah, I don't see how it could work. It works in a book, but a movie (or a TV series) is a different medium. I can see how some people would like to see it filmed, but I hardly think it can be done.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
True. I can fantasize that he did get some comeuppance for hurting an innocent woman. :D
I agree.
Thanks for participating in my thread, it's been good discussing it with you. :)
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
As we had this discussion, I had to browse through the first book (if spending a whopping seven hours reading through the book is "browsing"), so I have to come with some further comments.
Virgilia was much, much worse than what I imagined. It is one thing to fight against slavery and for racial equality. But as George and Constance showed us, you can be an abolitionist without wanting all your opponents to die in a bloody revolution. Kudos to Virgilia for not caring if she broke all the conventions of the time, and for being brave enough to have a black lover. But it seems like she had to calm down a couple of notches. And I also have a hard time seeing Forbes as "not so bad". Sure, compared to his evil uncle Justin, he was only a confused young man. But he was also very close to murdering Billy, because Brett had chosen him instead and Ashton had manipulated him to seek revenge. So I guess that his punishment was deserved.
And if John Jakes really bad been such a misogynist and racist, why did he make such a person one of the worst villains in the series? I'm talking of course about the creepy Justin LaMotte... He was truely as abusive husband, who believed that his wife shouldn't have any opinion of her own, and he also raped her, starved her and had her drugged against her will. His treatment of his slaves was also one of the big reasons why Madeline stayed with him for so long: she had to do what she could to help them, because he was that cruel to them. Jakes also made all of the heros in the story more or less liberal-minded, at least for the time period in question. And there is never any doubt either who the reader is supposed to root for and not.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
Sorry I made you read the whole thing again (well unless you enjoyed doing it, lol. I could never read it again, too long for me).
I think Virgilia is the most complex female in this book. Of course she was wrong to want bloody revolution, but I do think part of it is because she cared so much about black people and the sufferings they had went through and were going through, that she wanted revenge for the way they were treated. I also think she felt she had to be aggressive to get any real progress done. The underground railroad was a good thing, but until laws were made and blacks really freed, it wasn't going to be enough. Not everyone would be able to run away, and they might be forced to go back.
Some of the people in those days just did not see black people as people, or as important as white people, and unfortunately there are still people today who feel that way, and so imo Jakes painting the person who put her all into their causes as being "over the top" is not a great message, especially in this day and age where we're having all this trouble such as the Freddie Grey story (I live in Baltimore where it happened) and the South Carolina church murders. People who hate blacks and causes to help them are going to have a field day with the Virgilia character which I think is a bad thing. Her cause is just, maybe she didn't go about it the perfect way, but is there a perfect way? She wanted action then and there, not wait until black lives are lost are destroyed just so she didn't offend anyone.
Jakes could have had her be aggressive but not make her want violence. So to me it appeared to be racism, as if to say white people who care about African-American rights are just radicals and insane (which many people today think, still.).
It would be like if someone painted a Nazi hunter as over the top and crazy, I'd feel like they were anti-Semitic.
Just the way it came across to me, I don't know. At least Virgilia, unlike some of the characters, admits her mistakes and turns herself around. She suffers loss, too, i.e. Grady.
Yes, Justin was an abusive husband like the first Charles, it's just that he actually pays for it. Justin doesn't get to ride off into the sunset with wife no. 2 after abusing and dumping or killing wife no. 1, and get to sire a clan that is supposed to be the heroes and heroines of the story.
Jakes had something against all the LaMottes, which is why he never let any of them have happiness. I have to wonder too, if they knew right from wrong, because I didn't get the impression they did. They could have been born sociopaths, or it was how they were raised. Jakes didn't give me enough history on them for me to understand their motives, which is disappointing. I also think it's pretty silly to make every member of a family be the "bad guy", just because they challenge or are rivals to your preferred family. Every family has their rotten apples and their good ones, so all the Lamottes being bad is pretty ridiculous to me.
I felt like Forbes was just a jilted kid, so I wasn't upset with him for the attempt on Billy. Wasn't it kind of typical in those days to have duels and over women? I didn't feel like he deserved to die.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
Sorry I made you read the whole thing again (well unless you enjoyed doing it, lol. I could never read it again, too long for me).
Now I started watching the TV series again, after so many years since I last watched it. So it seems like I'm going through a N&S binge at the moment. I would skip plenty of chapters though, which were all about West Point, the war in Mexico or Elkanah Bent. I also never got time to read through the ending properly. So that speeded up things somewhat, even though I still spent all night with that book.
I think Virgilia is the most complex female in this book. Of course she was wrong to want bloody revolution, but I do think part of it is because she cared so much about black people and the sufferings they had went through and were going through, that she wanted revenge for the way they were treated. I also think she felt she had to be aggressive to get any real progress done. The underground railroad was a good thing, but until laws were made and blacks really freed, it wasn't going to be enough. Not everyone would be able to run away, and they might be forced to go back. Some of the people in those days just did not see black people as people, or as important as white people, and unfortunately there are still people today who feel that way, and so imo Jakes painting the person who put her all into their causes as being "over the top" is not a great message, especially in this day and age where we're having all this trouble such as the Freddie Grey story (I live in Baltimore where it happened) and the South Carolina church murders. People who hate blacks and causes to help them are going to have a field day with the Virgilia character which I think is a bad thing. Her cause is just, maybe she didn't go about it the perfect way, but is there a perfect way? She wanted action then and there, not wait until black lives are lost are destroyed just so she didn't offend anyone. Jakes could have had her be aggressive but not make her want violence. So to me it appeared to be racism, as if to say white people who care about African-American rights are just radicals and insane (which many people today think, still.)
But just like I said earlier in this thread, slavery hardly was a thing, that could be abolished that easily. And no matter how evil it might seem to us today, it was the normal way of life for thousands of people, and it can take plenty of generations to change an attitude like that. The South had to be invaded by the North before there was any progress, and they still kept segregation going for a hundred more years. There was no way that you could force people to change their minds, and a revolution would only have hurt innocent people. So I have to still think that George and Constance took a more sensible approach. Maybe they could only save the lucky few runaways, who made it as far as to Pennsylvania. But they did at least not scare people away from a noble cause, and I'm also sure that they helped more people than what Virgilia did. So I have to say that John Jakes wanted to show us the truth, that the slavery issue was never that easy to solve.
Yes, Justin was an abusive husband like the first Charles, it's just that he actually pays for it. Justin doesn't get to ride off into the sunset with wife no. 2 after abusing and dumping or killing wife no. 1, and get to sire a clan that is supposed to be the heroes and heroines of the story.
Ah, but I don't think that the comparison is really fair. Charles de Main might have been an adulterer, but I don't think that he abused his wife (he was clearly prepared to just use his Cherokee mistress though and take her baby from her). And even if we know that he sired a clan, we know very little about him except for that. He might have become a better man at the end of his life, or he might have had to go through hardships. We simply don't know, but I don't think that he got a "riding into the sunset" ending.
Jakes had something against all the LaMottes, which is why he never let any of them have happiness. I have to wonder too, if they knew right from wrong, because I didn't get the impression they did. They could have been born sociopaths, or it was how they were raised. Jakes didn't give me enough history on them for me to understand their motives, which is disappointing. I also think it's pretty silly to make every member of a family be the "bad guy", just because they challenge or are rivals to your preferred family. Every family has their rotten apples and their good ones, so all the Lamottes being bad is pretty ridiculous to me.
Yeah, it would have been nice to see one good person in the LaMotte family. Both the Mains and the Hazards are more complex than that, with both the good and the bad.
I felt like Forbes was just a jilted kid, so I wasn't upset with him for the attempt on Billy. Wasn't it kind of typical in those days to have duels and over women? I didn't feel like he deserved to die.
The problem is that as far as I could tell, Forbes had never challenged Billy to a duel (which would at least have been honorable), but Ashton planned for him to ambush Billy and murder him. And if you agree to do such a thing, you are no longer just a "jilted kid".
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
Well if you enjoyed reading the book and watching the movie again, I'm glad I inspired you to do it. 😀
I guess I'm worried about the Virgilia thing because I see so much racism and hate for African Americans in my daily life and on social media, and with the remake coming, I'm worried more racism is going to come about from it. Racists will latch on to characters like Ashton, young girls will admire her because she's glamorous and has fun, and they might emulate her racist feelings, while racists will also hold up a character like Virgilia and say "see, abolitionists and people who fight for black rights are evil and crazy!"
I just don't think it was wise of Jakes to make a character who had such a noble cause, be considered a radical, because trust me, you can be for black rights in a peaceful way and still be called a "radical". (Same with animal rights, and in this day and age of all this hate between political parties, going to extremes in movies is not going to help)
Well I consider adultery a form of spousal abuse. Often the person committing adultery becomes abusive and resentful of the spouse. I think this is what happened to Jeanne. Charles would have fallen for that Indian, if he hadn't even from the start, and saw her giving him a child which Jeanne couldn't do and would feel endeared to that girl, and see Jeanne as an obstacle. I predict he abandoned any plan to take the baby as he fell for her, and I could see him thinking Jeanne was going to be a problem for his child, and so he murdered her, making it look like suicide or an accident which he knew he could pull off with Jeanne's illness. Then he justified it to himself that Jeanne was going to be a hindrance to his child's well being, and that Jeanne would be better off dead. I can absolutely see him doing this given the way his mind worked.
That scheme was pretty stupid and complicated anyway. He's going to tell Jeanne he adopted it and tell everyone else it was his sister's, he was worried it wouldn't be accepted if hwas seen with the mother because they'd know it was half Cherokee, um, won't they know that just by looking at it? Not to mention, aren't you worried more that people will look down on you because you obviously are cheating on your wife? It will be accepted being obviously half Indian if it's your sister's, but not your's? You think the girl will just hand it over to you? Also I know he wouldn't have just stopped at one, because if he was that determined to have heirs, one is not enough of a safeguard for that, further proof to me he got rid of Jeanne and married the Cherokee.
I just wish Jakes hadn't written it that way because the scheme seems too complicated and contrived for any intelligent man to think he can pull off, and it was just unnecessary sleaze.
I forgot the details about Forbes. I still think an early death was over the top, especially since Ashton pretty much got away with it. Oh sure, she has to leave town, but she had a pretty good time in Richmond, and even though that blows up later on, she still gets off pretty easy next to other characters. Her biggest problem at the end of the story is she's gaining a little weight because she's 40 and she's worried men won't like her as much when she ages. Well considering a lot of the characters in the book never lived to old age to worry about losing their looks (something every person, good or bad, will go through if they are lucky enough to live long), I'd say that's not too bad.😜
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
Well if you enjoyed reading the book and watching the movie again, I'm glad I inspired you to do it.
I guess I'm worried about the Virgilia thing because I see so much racism and hate for African Americans in my daily life and on social media, and with the remake coming, I'm worried more racism is going to come about from it. Racists will latch on to characters like Ashton, young girls will admire her because she's glamorous and has fun, and they might emulate her racist feelings, while racists will also hold up a character like Virgilia and say "see, abolitionists and people who fight for black rights are evil and crazy!"
I just don't think it was wise of Jakes to make a character who had such a noble cause, be considered a radical, because trust me, you can be for black rights in a peaceful way and still be called a "radical". (Same with animal rights, and in this day and age of all this hate between political parties, going to extremes in movies is not going to help)
I see... But I don't think that you have to worry too much about it. Virgilia might be portrayed as a crazy fanatic. But I still think that most people today will realize that she's also right plenty of times, and they will perhaps even feel a little sympathy for her. And we also have other characters like George and Constance, who become a more moderate kind of abolitionists. And even Orry, who actually was a slave owner, eventually started to question the institution of slavery. And as for Ashton, I don't see how anyone can miss that she's supposed to be a villain. So I don't see how too many people would admire her...
Well I consider adultery a form of spousal abuse. Often the person committing adultery becomes abusive and resentful of the spouse. I think this is what happened to Jeanne. Charles would have fallen for that Indian, if he hadn't even from the start, and saw her giving him a child which Jeanne couldn't do and would feel endeared to that girl, and see Jeanne as an obstacle. I predict he abandoned any plan to take the baby as he fell for her, and I could see him thinking Jeanne was going to be a problem for his child, and so he murdered her, making it look like suicide or an accident which he knew he could pull off with Jeanne's illness. Then he justified it to himself that Jeanne was going to be a hindrance to his child's well being, and that Jeanne would be better off dead. I can absolutely see him doing this given the way his mind worked.
That scheme was pretty stupid and complicated anyway. He's going to tell Jeanne he adopted it and tell everyone else it was his sister's, he was worried it wouldn't be accepted if hwas seen with the mother because they'd know it was half Cherokee, um, won't they know that just by looking at it? Not to mention, aren't you worried more that people will look down on you because you obviously are cheating on your wife? It will be accepted being obviously half Indian if it's your sister's, but not your's? You think the girl will just hand it over to you? Also I know he wouldn't have just stopped at one, because if he was that determined to have heirs, one is not enough of a safeguard for that, further proof to me he got rid of Jeanne and married the Cherokee.
I just wish Jakes hadn't written it that way because the scheme seems too complicated and contrived for any intelligent man to think he can pull off, and it was just unnecessary sleaze.
To be fair though, we never got to know what Charles did or didn't do after the prologue ended. But I doubt that he went so far that he killed his wife, as it seemed like he did care about her (except for when it came to fidelity). And as for the adultery, as I explained earlier, I don't see how anyone would have looked down on Charles for that. Men in the 17th century, especially if they were rich and powerful, were cut a big piece of slack when they had sleezy affairs. I agree with you though that pulling a half-Cherokee baby off as his child, or even his sister's child, would have been problematic. But he would also chock people too much if he actually married the Cherokee girl, and yet again, I don't see him as a murderer. So I guess that he still went through with taking those babies from their mother and trying to pull them off as white.
I forgot the details about Forbes. I still think an early death was over the top, especially since Ashton pretty much got away with it. Oh sure, she has to leave town, but she had a pretty good time in Richmond, and even though that blows up later on, she still gets off pretty easy next to other characters. Her biggest problem at the end of the story is she's gaining a little weight because she's 40 and she's worried men won't like her as much when she ages. Well considering a lot of the characters in the book never lived to old age to worry about losing their looks (something every person, good or bad, will go through if they are lucky enough to live long), I'd say that's not too bad.
But didn't you say in a different thread that Ashton partly redeemed herself by the end? And even if she had a good life most of the time, she had to go through bad things too, like a butchered abortion and being thrown out of her childhood home by her own brother (she deserved that of course after ploting to murder her brother-in-law, but she would still have seen it as a set-back). I guess that there also is a difference that Forbes was going to murder Billy, while Ashton never intended to actually do the deed, which maybe would make her crime a lesser one.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
I think girls will want to be like Ashton because she has a pretty fun looking life. She's attractive, she gets to have sex with a bunch of guys, a handsome man is her lover for 4 years, and she never really has to work a real job to get her money like women have to do today. There are people who like villains and want to emulate them, especially if they're good looking, and I think it's not a good thing for the good looking, glamorous characters to also espouse racism.
I don't like the Cherokee girl because I think she saw Charles with Jeanne, so I think she knew he was married. I don't know what ancient Cherokee feelings were about that sort of thing, but, either way, she still had sex with a man she didn't really know and couldn't even communicate with. I mean, it's not like they courted first, they just do it. I think that's where Ashton got her ways.:D She could easily have sex with men she didn't even know.
That being said though, I don't know whether he carried it out, but that he could even think of impregnating a woman and then taking the child from her, just shows how low he could go. I don't like the girl, but she didn't deserve to have her child taken from her, and I doubt she did, but like I said, that he would even think of it is low. I also wonder how the girl would have felt had she known he was with her partly for the idea to get her pregnant, and not just because he was attracted to her. I mean, it is a sort of manipulation on his part, sure she was a willing participant, but would she be if she knew he was planning to impregnate her and then steal the child? Who knows, but it's something to think about. Sort of like, he's taking advantage of a woman who can't understand his language, who doesn't want to be sold into slavery, who is a "second class citizen".
Oh, Ashton didn't redeem herself, lol. I just meant I found her a little more likeable in Heaven and Hell with Will. I thought it was kind of cool for her shallow self to be able to like a man who was old and couldn't perform, and she just genuinely rather liked him, for his personality. He was a decent guy, too. I also thought she was amusing with one of her lovers (Will let her have lovers because he was unable to perform), he wasn't that handsome but what she liked about him was the size of his manhood, lol. It was just kind of funny.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
I think girls will want to be like Ashton because she has a pretty fun looking life. She's attractive, she gets to have sex with a bunch of guys, a handsome man is her lover for 4 years, and she never really has to work a real job to get her money like women have to do today. There are people who like villains and want to emulate them, especially if they're good looking, and I think it's not a good thing for the good looking, glamorous characters to also espouse racism.
But I still think that most people will see that behind all her beauty and charm, Ashton is a really rotten woman. Racism is also a big no-no for most people today, even if the occassional ugly thing will happen.
I don't like the Cherokee girl because I think she saw Charles with Jeanne, so I think she knew he was married. I don't know what ancient Cherokee feelings were about that sort of thing, but, either way, she still had sex with a man she didn't really know and couldn't even communicate with. I mean, it's not like they courted first, they just do it. I think that's where Ashton got her ways.:D She could easily have sex with men she didn't even know.
I'm no expert at Native American cultures either, but I wonder if it couldn't be okay for a Cherokee man to have two wives. So that could be why this girl didn't mind that Charles already had a wife. I'm not sure though.
That being said though, I don't know whether he carried it out, but that he could even think of impregnating a woman and then taking the child from her, just shows how low he could go. I don't like the girl, but she didn't deserve to have her child taken from her, and I doubt she did, but like I said, that he would even think of it is low. I also wonder how the girl would have felt had she known he was with her partly for the idea to get her pregnant, and not just because he was attracted to her. I mean, it is a sort of manipulation on his part, sure she was a willing participant, but would she be if she knew he was planning to impregnate her and then steal the child? Who knows, but it's something to think about. Sort of like, he's taking advantage of a woman who can't understand his language, who doesn't want to be sold into slavery, who is a "second class citizen".
Oh yeah, I agree with all of this. Charles's treatment of that Cherokee girl probably was worse than his treatment of Jeanne, and even that was dubious. And still, that is what many men in his position were like back then.
Oh, Ashton didn't redeem herself, lol. I just meant I found her a little more likeable in Heaven and Hell with Will. I thought it was kind of cool for her shallow self to be able to like a man who was old and couldn't perform, and she just genuinely rather liked him, for his personality. He was a decent guy, too. I also thought she was amusing with one of her lovers (Will let her have lovers because he was unable to perform), he wasn't that handsome but what she liked about him was the size of his manhood, lol. It was just kind of funny.
Well, even becoming a half-likable person, and the fact that she made you smile instead of cringe, still sounds like a very big progress for a character like Ashton. And I also like how she supported the suffragette movement later on in her life.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
Well, you would think that most people who weren't already a racist wouldn't want to imitate Ashton's elitist thoughts simply by seeing the movie, but you never know. More likely the people that would adopt her and the other racist characters as their poster children, would be people who were racist already.
Charles was just one of those people who didn't mind stepping on whomever to get what he wanted. Unfortunately there are many people like that out there. I just hope that people realize that this is not the way to be though.
What I liked about Ashton's feelings for Will was, he was no sexy looking, sexy guy, he was a pretty decent person, and I was really pretty shocked to see that she could have affection for someone just based on his personality alone.
I forgot about the suffragist thing! I liked that too. I mean, she's still Ashton, with her sociopathic ways, but book 3 definitely had some small improvement, which is about as good as we could get with her.:D
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
I seem to remember that Ashton was supposed to be some kind of proto-feminist, who just hated to be a woman in a society, where men had almost all the power. And there was no way for her to do much about her ambitions, except for using her beauty and charm to trick men into giving her what she wanted. And it seems like John Jakes described Virgilia in a similar fashion, that she too hated to be a woman in male-centred society. And I understand that you can see it as bad, that he turned the proto-feminists into a crazy fanatic and a promiscuous sociopath. Then again, Constance and Madeline were also well-educated women, who did what they could to help the slaves (which we know that Ashton never would do) and had a mind of their own. So I guess that he showed us that a woman could be a good person without being a worthless wuss.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
It seems part of the reason Ashton had issues was because somehow she found out that her father had wanted her to be a son. He already had two sons but I guess he wanted as many as he could have to ensure the family name lived on. She seemed to have an obsession with making her father proud of her, which is shown a bit in Book 3. That was part of why she wanted to be powerful. I wonder how she would have known he wanted her to be a boy. My father wanted me to be a boy too, but he only had one daughter, it wasn't something that my family should have told me, but oh well, lol. Maybe it was the same way with her, someone told her something kids shouldn't really be told....
I agree about Madeline and Constance, imo Madeline is probably the best role model because she's more focused on than Constance is, I think.
Virgilia is my favorite though, because I think she's the most complex. She makes mistakes but she is well-intentioned, which I think is more relateable than women like Constance and Madeline who are almost, if not completely, perfect, or someone like Ashton who just never really has any good intentions or feels any remorse for her wrong doings like Virgilia does.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
It seems part of the reason Ashton had issues was because somehow she found out that her father had wanted her to be a son. He already had two sons but I guess he wanted as many as he could have to ensure the family name lived on. She seemed to have an obsession with making her father proud of her, which is shown a bit in Book 3. That was part of why she wanted to be powerful. I wonder how she would have known he wanted her to be a boy. My father wanted me to be a boy too, but he only had one daughter, it wasn't something that my family should have told me, but oh well, lol. Maybe it was the same way with her, someone told her something kids shouldn't really be told....
I agree about Madeline and Constance, imo Madeline is probably the best role model because she's more focused on than Constance is, I think.
Virgilia is my favorite though, because I think she's the most complex. She makes mistakes but she is well-intentioned, which I think is more relateable than women like Constance and Madeline who are almost, if not completely, perfect, or someone like Ashton who just never really has any good intentions or feels any remorse for her wrong doings like Virgilia does.
reply
share
furienna
9 years ago
Yeah, I know that Tillet had wanted a third son. And yeah, maybe it makes sense for a man back then, who would have seen himself as just a link in a prestigious dynasty, that he was desperate to make sure that the family name lived on. Then again, I don't see how one daughter (or even two) would be such a disaster either, especially as he already had two sons. If every child was a boy, and no girls were born, that would be the end of the human race. But yeah, I can see how that made Ashton feel a need to prove herself to her father and the world.
Yeah, I can see that Madeline and Constance (and Brett as well) can come across as too perfect. But I believe that it was needed as a contrast to Virgilia and Ashton, who did some terrible things out of fanatism or egoism.
Intelligence and purity.
reply
share
rikajessie
9 years ago
I see what you're saying. Most stories do need that sort of "perfect" person to be the role model or hero/heroine, someone who is really virtuous and does the right thing, someone to root for.
reply
share