Was the novel as self-consciously PC as the show is? - The Alienist (2018) Discussion

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

I don't recall that the author mentioned the race of every single minor character or person that walked down the street, these things aren't as immediately obvious on the page as they are on the screen.

But NYC in 1896 wouldn't have been all-white, it was extremely multicultural. It was the original "melting pot", where people came from all over the US and most of the world's nations to make new lives, so yes, you'd have seen people of all colors on the streets in that era. Okay, maybe you wouldn't see people of all colors in the good jobs, discrimination by race, sex, or ethnic origin was widespread, blatant, and legal. It's entirely possible that Dr. Kreizler, who may have been Jewish and therefore the victim of discrimination himself, would make an effort to look for talent in all groups, although I don't remember if the book made a point of his doing so.

And yes, Sara was a determined feminist in the book.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Great synopsis of the era! I read the book some 20 years ago, as well, and can't recall if every character was described in detail, either. But as you point out, in the 1890s there would be people of different race, religion, etc in the melting pot. This was one of my all-time favorite books and hope this mini-series does it justice. Looking forward to it.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

"A little PC would be OK, but all this correctness piled on top of each other in an 1890s period piece really stretches the truth and seems quite anachronistic."

Saw it last night and thought the same thing.

I read it back when, and no, I don't recall that either, and surely I'd have noticed.

The showrunners have done a great job creating a dreary and ominous atmosphere, though.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I'm watching it now because I like Bruhl. But this show isn't just PC, it's over the top too modern and disparate from how people were back then. It's also quite unhinged from reality, and it's not because of the inclusion of the woman secretary or the other ethnic groups but on the character of Bruhl himself representing the PC audience, how the women here are too casual with sex in Victorian England, and the lingering abundance of shots of the prostituted boys. It's presented not disparagingly, but as a romanticized version of what these boys must've been through. Maybe it would be excusable if the show was more stylized and gothic, but still there is too much of a modern sensibility and not enough harkening of the time period.

reply

[–] exatera (3955) 7 years ago

There was indeed a woman working at the NYPD Headquarters in 1895, I wouldn't say that's the part that strains credulity.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I never said it did, in fact I even mentioned that that wasn't one of my complaints.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

What, exactly, do you think is anachronistic or "too PC" about the show? Or the book, for that matter. Can you give examples? Because I think that for the most part, the show is doing a pretty damn good job of showing is 1890s New York, or living up to what I've learned about 1890s New York. I wasn't there in person, obviously. And if Sara is much bolder than you'd expect a woman of the 1890s to be, it's because she's supposed to be an exceptional woman.

But yeah, I do agree that the camera lingers a little too much on the underage boy hoors in Victorian undies.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Again, my issue isn't with Sara being strong as this was the age of suffragettes. My issue is with the character of Bruhl stating that there was no problem with being a sado masochist or having gender identity issues in the 19th century. His outrage over their discrimination and promoting it instead of helping them survive in a world that would've severely had consequences for it. I also have problems with the way many women are casually portrayed with premarital sex. The women of the time who would engage in it would either be actresses, artists, mistresses, and women seduced/tricked into it thinking of marriage. And most of them would've engaged in premarital sex with the intent of long term permanence, not a casual fling. Make no mistake women outside of certain professions would've been treated badly and would've been aware of their circumstances and there time. Women of that time would not just casually sleep with anyone, it was still very much taboo. I also don't like that the transsexual boys are treated in a romantic light, with these children taking part in the rape of John Moore. These boys are not presented as victims but as willing subjects of their plight and predators even. You want to watch strong women set in this time period? Watch Road to Avonlea, it's an amazing show and far more realistic and grounded in how strong women must've been. I also had similar issues with Penny Dreadful.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

As for Kreizler, you're not taking into account that he's a total wierdo by the standards of the 1890s. Yes, people of that era condemned any sexual variances, but psychiatrists are supposed to deal with their client's unusual habits with a spirit of nonjudgemental clinical detachment, and of course Kreizler walks around the real world talking about mass murderers and pedophiles with nonjudgemental clinical detachment and it's creepy, and in the TV show at least it's meant to be creepy.

As for premarital sex, if you're referring to Sara's college friend proudly whispering "We've done it", remember that feminism had made a lot of advances by 1896. Women were demanding the vote, well-educated women like Sara were proudly shocking their grandmothers by "earning their own living", and yes, some feminists were questioning the idea that a women could only have sex with the approval of God and their fathers and husbands. It was an era when one highly educated feminist might whisper to another that she'd broken that rule (in a way she could get away with) and was proud of it, and fully expected the other feminist to be shocked.

The 1890s were a time of tremendous technological advancement, within the lifetime of someone like Moore, the city around him had gone from being lit by candles to lit by gas or electricity, instant intercontinental communication had become possible due to undersea telegraph cables, horseless carriages and flying machines were appearing, medicine was curing previously incurable diseases, and among sophisticated people like our heroes, thought was dominated by a fervor for science and progress! Science and technology had made so many advances that anything seemed possible to the educated and well-to-do. And that was the heart of the book, at least, the sort of people who believed that SCIENCE made anything possible... setting out to do the impossible.

But no, I'm not going to defend the show's treatment of the lingerie-clad boy hoors.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

The technological advancement being the heart of the show and book was probably influenced by Dracula as BS was fascinated by technology and featured that prominently in his book.

As for Sara's friend, proudly whispering in a public event, I disagree. If it was the 1920s perhaps I could believe it but not the 1890s. And suffragettes are not necessarily the same as modern day feminists. Modern day feminists are not even the same as 1960s feminists. Her and Sara seemed like they have not met in quite some time, and for her to nonchalantly state it in public where others may overhear seems to be taking it casually. Also what about that other girl the sergeant was sleeping with in the same room with the baby and another woman? Was she meant to be a prostitute or some easy girl from that era?

As for the doctor, even as a weirdo he must be aware of the consequences these children will face if he promotes and encourages the behavior. Also who exactly were the prominent weird psychiatrists/psychologists at that time? Were Freud and Nietzsche as 2018 minded as Kreizler? Is Kreizler in the book as 2018 PC opinionated as Kreizler on the show? I haven't read the book so wondering?

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

I can't post at length now but it certainly looks like you'd have been happier in the 19th century than today!

The mid or early 19th century, of course, not the age of science and progress.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Idk I'm from the Philippines and we would've been under the Spaniards then. The 1890s was a revolution which also led to the Philippine American war which was also bad. I'm just fascinated by period films and history especially the West as it's very different from my own. Also there are still a lot of tradition and conservative Filipinos today so what is prevalent in the West or the US may not be prevalent here. But I am fascinated by the 1920s and 19th century of Europe.

Ps. We treat our transgendered people historically different so we have different views of them since they're all new to you guys.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Again, can't post at length, but those boys aren't actually transgendered, as far as we know. They wear regular boys clothes when they're on their own, and only wear girly underwear and act femme because their employers/pimps/slave masters make them. Because in Caleb Care's twisted mind, there was a big market for cross-dressing boy prostitutes in the 1890s.

In all my reading about the era I've never encountered a single mention of that market, but then some things don't make it into the history books.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

That's what I wondered actually if they were boys forced into dressing up or if they were transgendered because the show presents them as the latter not the former.

reply

[–] Costumer (1822) 7 years ago

Far more likely that they are not transgendered. They are street prostitutes dressing as necessary to do business.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

In the book, it was established that one of the boys hated wearing girl clothes and his clients, and had been forced into prostitution and cross-dressing. And in the book, it said that some of the clients liked forcing themselves on an unwilling boy. Carr has a sick mind!

reply

[–] Costumer (1822) 7 years ago

Or he simply sets his story in an historic venue. Just because there are disturbing individuals and scenes in a book or film does not imply that the author(s) approve of them.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Maybe I should read the book.

reply

[–] XistenZ (1) 7 years ago

Don’t forget that at the time (and still today unsurprisingly) some homosexual men feel more ‘virile’ if a boy wears women’s garments before and during the “act” somehow it nullifies and suppressed their guilt. The show did a great job at illustrating the outrageous gay repression of the time. I doubt many of those boys were trans...

reply

[–] ferjy (21) 7 years ago

I thought the show represented them as the former. When the boys were on their own they wore boy clothes sans wigs.

reply

[–] ChalupaBatman99 (188) 7 years ago

So, Otter, instead of waiting and taking the time to have a reasoned response, you just attack the poster and assume something about them that is not apparent in the post.

I thought vicky made some good points. For me, when I'm watching a period piece, it takes me out of the story when I see or hear something anachronistic. Such as someone saying "bro" or "that's my jam" as someone in the 21st century would say but the show is supposed to take place somewhere in the 20th century or before.

I hate it when something is supposed to be a period piece but it has been written through the eyes of someone in the 21st century. A good writer has to put themselves aside and imagine what it would've been like at the time without passing judgement on that time.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Again, what exactly did you find "too PC" about the show?

And do you know anything about 19th century social mores, unlike some people?

reply

[–] ChalupaBatman99 (188) 7 years ago

I don't know if PC is the term I would use. Anachronistic is more what I was thinking. I would have to go back and look for specific examples. I just remember thinking in the first few episodes that it seemed to have a very 2018 mindset which broke the illusion of it being in the 19th century for me.

I honestly don't remember what all made me think that. I just finished the last episode the other day and have already forgotten much of it. I'm really kind of mad at myself for wasting my time watching 10 episodes of this because it wasn't all that good.

I could go back and rewatch in order to argue my point but it's not that important enough to me and I'm not going to waste my time and effort. The real point of my post was to say that I hate when shows have anachronisms like The Goldbergs using modern slang. Or when they are written with a modern point of view like when Mad Men would do something like have a pregnant woman smoking with a wry wink to the viewer as if to say, "Look how stupid people used to be." That kind of stuff pulls me out of the narrative and then I miss what's going on in the story because I'm too busy thinking about that.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Of course there's going to be at least some modern thinking in any historical novel written in modern times, especially if the book in question basically plants a current idea (the 1990s fad for "criminal profiling") into another era. So yes, although the book and TV series do a beautiful job of recreating the late 1890s, anyone who looks hard enough can find modern ideas.

Which is an entirely different question than whether the show was too "PC".

reply

[–] ChalupaBatman99 (188) 7 years ago

I'm not saying it should be completely devoid of modern thinking, that's impossible. But at least make it believable. Two women talking in public at a social gathering about sex in 1895 is not believable. If you think otherwise, then you need to study a little history.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Oh come on, haven't you ever heard the expression "... as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses"?

That came from the late 19th century, when the streets were still full of horses, but when feminism was advancing and Victorian prudery was being abandoned, at least by the wealthy and educated upper classes. And yes, those two women were from the wealthy and educated upper classes, and knew what they could get away with.

reply

[–] ChalupaBatman99 (188) 7 years ago

You're talking about what would've been first-wave feminism which was much different than the feminism that people are familiar with today. First-wave was primarily focused on suffrage. Other issues such as property ownership or child custody were also a part of the movement but were not at the center of the movement like suffrage was. It focused mainly on legal issues as opposed to sexual freedom. Also, it was by and large led by women of the middle class, not upper class.

So you're suffering the same shortcoming as the show; you're looking at it with a 2018 perspective as opposed to what things really would've been like at the time.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

First-wave feminists were of course deeply concerned with all those issues you name, and it's nice to know someone here knows their history, but some first-wave feminists also cared about sexual double standards and the treatment of "fallen women". There weren't mass campaigns for sexual freedom, that had to wait until birth control became widely available, but some feminists were definitely questioning the idea that women had to follow rigid rules of conduct that men did not.

And some upper-class women became feminists, look at Eleanor Roosevelt.

So I can't go back in history and point to a concrete example of a woman of that era confiding to another feminist that she'd had premarital sex, I just think it might happen. It would have taken a lot of courage for a woman of that class and era to do, and frankly, I think that girl was trying to impress Sara (who was bold and fierce in the book) with her bravery.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

But I imagine she would confide in a more private setting or if she were surrounded by like minded individuals, a party is not such a place.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Two points:

1) It WAS at a gathering of like-minded individuals, a class reunion for female graduates of a prestigious college. In the 1890s, that would have meant that everyone there was forward-thinking, highly educated, and had some degree of feminist or sufferagist sympathies. Not necessarily sexual adventurousness, which is why the confidence was so quiet.

2) No human behavior is impossible. However stupid, however bizarre, however irrational, however against the grain - if it's possible for a human being to do or say something, anything, someone somewhere will have done it. Because the intrinsic nature of human beings is to be a bunch of damn fools who are always miscalculating the impact of their actions.

Honestly, I'm sick of belaboring this point, enough so to call it badly written. I know enough about that period to think it's possible (if unlikely), but obviously it didn't go over bit with the show's viewers.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

"I also have problems with the way many women are casually portrayed with premarital sex. The women of the time who would engage in it would either be actresses, artists, mistresses, and women seduced/tricked into it thinking of marriage. And most of them would've engaged in premarital sex with the intent of long term permanence, not a casual fling. Make no mistake women outside of certain professions would've been treated badly and would've been aware of their circumstances and there time. Women of that time would not just casually sleep with anyone, it was still very much taboo"

For fuck's sake, get your head out of your ass. If you really think that this assumption is accurate, you are quite ignorant. Yes, waiting until marriage was the common way to go. This being said, it doesn't mean that many women (outside of the classes you clearly just took out from your mind) proceeded otherwise.

Plus, what the fuck is this sexism?? Like if only women had to follow these rules and men could do whatever they wanted. Yeah, I'm aware, this was how shallow minded people were back then. It simply feels like (with the way you say it) women absolutely had to behave because society expected them to do so.

Pre-marital sex existed since the beggining of time (well, since the moment the concept of marriage was invented) and even if it was frowned upon, it happened.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Whether you like it or not there are rules that govern and governed how the sexes behaved back then. Many men during Victorian period also did not engage in premarital sex. Don't bring your current biased views into this, the past does not subscribe to your views.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

I never said that things weren't like this. Neither did I claim that what's depicted in the show is accurate.

I simply say that premarital sex always existed, in different classes. Not everyone was a puritan following social norms.

It's simply that the way you said it, sounded like you pretended that people weren't fucking around back then, which is false.

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) 6 years ago

Rereading it now and yes the ethnicities of the characters are mentioned. There's one scene where John asks Cyrus for some help and a few men stop him because of his race. (I'll be PC on the actual language).

reply