When life is short and family lineage, power and property are what keeps the fittest surviving sex for the purpose of pro-creating becomes an obvious focal point, as is clearly evident in the Wreath. A virgin's protection is of uttermost importance and once you lost that you were a dead woman walking. Life was over, or at least your shot at success was. Although it was humorous that just like the Puritans, to have sex and conceive during engagement was funny but not a problem or even something to feel real shame about. So virginity was only important so far as your husband being able to possess it, less important for the biblical reasons. I know that in many cultures after one marries, family and friends help prepare the bride and groom for each other and in some cultures the men even watch to witness the big event. But i struggled to get past my 21st century prudishness to imagine being ok with my own father helping prepare me and talking and worrying about the event! Enough about that, on to some questions I hope you can help answer:
1) at the end of the wreath (pages 291-297) Kristin's parents have a very honest conversation in which Kristin's mom admits she didn't know if her husband was the father to their first son. Also, her husband acknowledges that he couldn't go through with the "event" at their wedding...i couldn't tell from their conversation if it implied they NEVER had done the deed? If so then who fathered the children? Or was it more Emotionally he had never opened up to his wife in that way? I felt for the mother, carrying around such a secret and shame for so many years-can you imagine how that would wear you down and fill you with self-loathing? And to be in such a culture that even admitting your truth to your husband so many years after the fact could have meant death or total ruination.
2) Page 95-right before Kirstin goes to the cloister Lavrens and Simon have a conversation in which Lavrens says he thinks Simon is fond of Kirstin and Simon laughs-what does the laugh denote? I couldn't help but feel in some of his comments that he admired Kirsten's naive girlishness, but was much more a man of the world who had had experience with other women. Anyone else get this vibe? Myabe i'm reading too much into it..i was still mourning Arne's death.
I interpreted the conversation between Lavrans and Ragnfrid as a confession of something that they had always felt, but never spoken- that their marriage was void of passion. It sounded as though they obeyed their parents’ desire that they wed, but that neither desired another. Lavrans didn't find Ragnfrid attractive, and she was pining for a man that wouldn't have her (there is no better way to hold onto a woman's heart that to tell her you don't want it). Near the end of their lives they truly love each other - I found the scene where he gives Ragnfrid his mother's ring so touching, it truly spoke to the depth of their relationship. I also liked the contrast between their relationship and the relationship between Kristin and Erlend. Lavrans would not force his children to marry anyone they didn't want (perhaps as a reflection of his feelings as a young man) and yet it is glaringly clear that he should have forced Kristin. She chooses a relationship based entirely on passion, and once the passion withers away there is nothing left. Once the shine wears off, Kristin and Erlend constantly try to make the other back into the person who enamored them. They are so obsessed with pointing out the flaws that they never truly learn the other person (at least to the point I'm at in the book), and each grows bitter over the weaknesses within the other. Quite the marriage fable!
ReplyDeleteLove your comments Julie, and I totally agree with a lot of what you are saying. It's amazing that being so close with his daughter and spending most of her life together, he couldn't bring himself to be honest with her and put his foot down...i think that he was jealous of their passion and couldn't get past it or imagine forcing his daughter to be unhappy. I liked what you said about them trying to make themselves into the person they were because it's amazing what a temptation that can become!We change so much as individuals and couples over the years and the nature of relationships changes. you have to be able to let go, and let your mate grow into their own self and love them just for who that is! And i find that as a wife the balance between "nagging" and "helping" is a fine line...making a man feel you want him to be someone different or that he isn't good enough has to be one of the most damaging things you can do to his fragile ego. You gave me a good reminder to always love others for who they are as Jesus does, not make them into who i think they should be.
ReplyDeleteI was really annoyed with Ragnfrid (ps who can pronounce that name???) for most of The Wreath until the conversation between Lavrans & Ragnfrid you mentioned. My heart went out to her when I realized she had been "trapped" by her unrequited love and her shame for not being a maiden. Also, the age difference between Lavrans & Ragnfrid & his lack of desire for intimacy. Anyone else find it tragically ironic that so many of their children died? To me, their childrens' deaths were symbolic -- like dying fruit from a diseased tree.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing -- Peter and I were talking recently about why virginity before marriage has been emphasized so heavily. One of the themes throughout this book is the idea of having a legitimate son, an heir to carry on the family name and property. What if a woman was barren, though? The family's line dies with her and her husband. So, forbidding sex before marriage becomes a way to protect women -- once a man is married, there is theoretically no turning back. If a man could "test drive" his wife before marriage to see if she is fertile or not, women would undoubtedly be the losers in the arrangement. Preserving sex for marriage is a way of honoring one's spouse with regards to fertility (or infertility): I married you for YOU, not for your ability to produce children.
ReplyDelete(Of course, this theory doesn't take into account that a bastard child has no rights to property or lineage unless the parents are married quickly enough to prevent the child from being a true bastard...hopefully you get what I mean.)
Rachel, very interesting thoughts here by you and Peter! It really is striking the protection of Virginity then and the complete lack of that today, and again i think that not by protecting it women get hurt..just for different reasons. Makes you realize too why Sarah was so desperate to have Abraham conceive with Hagar because she was barren and their line would have been stopped. It's a lot of pressure on women, and life would have been a lot different back then if men knew they were responsible for the sex of the baby!!
ReplyDeleteOh, and as for pronunciation-i leave the "g" as silent, so i say it in my head a "rainfried or ran-fried" but i'm sure i'm wrong!!