"Van Rijn patted [Joyce's] head. 'You just leave the philosophizing to me, little girl,' he said smugly. 'You only got to cook and look beautiful.'" (p. 72)
He does not mind if she repeats her explanations because:
"He patted her knee. 'I can always admire your lips and things while you talk.'" (ibid.)
Does this dialogue reflect the period when the story was published, 1963?
Van Rijn has something to learn. But we know that he is capable of learning. If he has dismissed someone as only good for cooking and looking beautiful but then realizes that she is capable of much more than this, then his attitude will change accordingly. But where did he get his existing attitude from in the first place? 1963?
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No, Old Nick's mannerisms does not reflect what was seen in 1963. It reflects van Rijn admirably supreme self-confidence. Also, it's a mistake to think that many of the mores of our contemptible, decadent, woke, Politically Correct age will last forever. One thing history tells me is that the fads, whims, foibles, crotchets, etc., of one time will be replaced by very different ones in the future.
What could be more appalling than a woke, PC Old Nick??? Ugh!!!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sexual equality and respect is not a fad, though.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And is not common or universal--it was a product of Christianity and Western civilization.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Don't claim too much for Christianity. It has been patriarchal.
Paul.
"van Rijn admirably supreme self-confidence"
No matter how great your abilities, recognizing that you can't be an expert in everything and the other person might know something you don't is wise. Realizing that the sex of that other person doesn't make it more or less likely that person could know something helpful is even wiser.
Post a Comment