Things I have been thinking about recently

[sapote]

For some reason I spent a lot of time last week thinking about Wendy from Peter Pan, and how she is like and unlike Susan Pevensie. I know I haven't done a close enough reading of either book recently to really back any of this up, but it's interesting, isn't it, that she and Susan cross really similar thresholds - ineligibility for admissions to magical lands on account of being too pubertal - and, I don't know. I always felt the injustice of Wendy's situation really keenly when I was a kid, especially in the Disney adaptation - she tried to escape from being separated from her brothers and forced to grow up, but she just ended up having to cook and clean for everybody, even if it's imaginary food. Honestly, this always really influenced how I felt about Katara, too - I've described her to people as having the Wendy Problem, where everyone really needs someone to do the adult responsibilities but no one wants to admit to it and it results in weird expectations getting piled on whoever steps up. (I think a lot of older siblings have had the Wendy Problem at some point, honestly. I know people who are in their fifties and still having the Wendy Problem every Christmas.)

But I don't know, I was also thinking this week about how, if playing house in the woods forever really is Wendy's fantasy of getting to never leave childhood, it's kind of a sweet sad fantasy. I mean, part of the conflict over her father making her leave the nursery was that she'd be separated from her brothers. I don't know, what if she's really genuinely concerned that no one will take care of them if she leaves? I know that it's a fantasy novel but these kids are mainly being raised by a sentient dog. What if her fantasy of staying in childhood really is that she can protect and care for her brothers forever, because she's afraid that no one else will? If so: poor Wendy. If so: let's talk about Wendy and Valentine Wiggin,


My family just watched this, and it was pretty interesting. I can claim very little knowledge of Queen Victoria, besides that she was queen for a while, she had a lot of kids, she presided over some of the more empire-y parts of the British Empire, and she was super into Albert. This movie was pretty much about her being super into Albert! It started off being about how she was raised in a sad repressive household by people who wanted to control her, and came into her own by standing up to Lord Melbourne, but then she fell in love with Albert and accepted him as a kind of co-ruler, which, I am not arguing if these things are historical fact, but Jullian Fellowes was kind of as disorganized and romanticizing as ever and it wasn't entirely clear what kind of story he was trying to tell. There was a point at which it really looked like his editorial viewpoint was that Albert was basically the heroine of a regency romance, swept off his feet by a queen who was super into him for his good looks and then left after the marriage to make a life for himself where he felt like his contributions were meaningful. That was an interesting take! I have no idea if it would be supported by fact. ...I would like to apologize to everyone who is less ignorant than I am about Victoria, btw.

I would watch it again! The dresses were very good.

Comments

[phnelt]

I have so many feelings about queen Victoria.

[phnelt]

Also there's this really awesome English working class social historian who wrote about labour and all that stuff for a while and then had this like, mid-life rebellion at getting pigeon holed and wrote this huge Victoria biography.