Wake of Forgiveness: Love, Marriage and Family in Another Time and Landscape

[Rachel-K]

We tend to think of time with our families as being our "leisure" time, where the family used to be an economic unit (there would be no family farm without plenty of family to work it!). If we take the novel as historically accurate, how would you say marriage has changed from the time of the novel's setting to our present? 

In this setting, is there an idea of marrying "for love?"

If there was any philosophy behind the parenting we see in the novel, how would you describe that?

Are there any ways that we see love and tenderness between family members?

[Zia01]

If there was any philosophy behind the parenting we see in the novel, how would you describe that? I generally see the female as the main parenting role until a male is born.

Are there any ways that we see love and tenderness between family members? I do see it with Karel and his family. Little bits and pieces here and there.

[ssizemore]

The passages that indicated a real tenderness within the families were the times of storytelling.  Vaclav did become more tender when he was relating stories of his past to his sons and Karel remembers and does the same with his children.  It is interesting that memories were important to them, just as it was a family story that inspired the author to write this novel.

I remember a strong tradition of story telling in my family, some of which I have resurrected in my work on our genealogy.  I only wish I had paid more attention to these stories when many members of the generation older than I were still living. 

I do believe that the children in a family in this novel were expected to do their share of the work on the farm, no matter how young they were.  It was necessary to the survival of the family that everyone work and then the farm would survive with the family's descendant tending it.  Almost a thing of the past today..

[thewanderingjew]

Rachel-K wrote:

We tend to think of time with our families as being our "leisure" time, where the family used to be an economic unit (there would be no family farm without plenty of family to work it!). If we take the novel as historically accurate, how would you say marriage has changed from the time of the novel's setting to our present? 

For one thing, there are more single parent families and far fewer successful marriages or lasting marriages. Multiple marriages are a common theme.

Women no longer feel the need to be in abusive relationships. They are more independent and can often support themselves which they could not do easily in the days of the novel. Few women worked outside the home. They no longer feel they need a husband, rather they choose to have one.

Also, it is no longer necessary to be in a traditional marriage in order to have a family. Adoption rules have changed, there are same sex parents, single parents are able to adopt or have a child of their own. This was unknown in the last century, as was the technology.

Elizka was an exception for her day. She was, perhaps, a harbinger of the future. However, if her dad didn't have the business I am not sure she would have had such freedom of choice. She was given a higher education, rare for women in those days, yet she chose not to take full advantage of it. Would she have made that choice if she didn't have the family business? Could she have chosen the single life she has?
Today, I am reminded of backward attitudes, remnants of the past, which remain about women. In "Spoken From the Heart", by Laura Bush, mention is made (paraphrasing) that the town "old maid" was marrying  the "most eligible bachelor". She was after all 31 and a few months older than him, for shame!  So, the more things change, the more they often remain the same.

There are still arranged marriages today, in certain cultures, and boys are valued more than girls because of what they can produce. Farm families wanted large families because the family tended the farm. Every able bodied person had a purpose. Farms have grown in size and they have staffs working on them now. There are still family farms but many rely on migrant workers to plant and harvest. Often family members choose not to remain in family businesses because the options for other work are much greater.

---

[thewanderingjew]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

We tend to think of time with our families as being our "leisure" time, where the family used to be an economic unit (there would be no family farm without plenty of family to work it!). If we take the novel as historically accurate, how would you say marriage has changed from the time of the novel's setting to our present? 

In this setting, is there an idea of marrying "for love?"

 I believe that Vaclav and Klara married for love as did Sophie and Karel. Perhaps Villasenor came from a background of arranged marriages and so he arranged them for his daughters. There are many societies today where marriages are arranged and couples say they learn to love each other. With the current rate of unsuccessful marriages, who is to say what is the correct path?

[dhaupt]

In the event of the family being an "economic unit" I don't think that has changed too much from then until now with farm families, in many rural communities school is based around harvest and planting time and there are still many family farms that depend on "all" members of the family to pull there share. It also shows how and why sons and daughters move away into more urban communities to get away from the farm life like in the case of the Dalton boy, and that still happens in farm families today too.

I think in this novel it's more about marrying for like, and I'm going by how Karel describes Sophie when he first laid eyes on her on page 153. ""Here was a girl stout enough to shoulder more than simple housework and easy enough on the eyes to make a man stop to watch her while she did."

I think love comes later from companionship and familiarity.

The philosophy of parenting was spare the rod, spoil the child

I see tenderness between Karel and Sophie and the children, I've seen tenderness between Karel and Sophie also

[thewanderingjew]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

We tend to think of time with our families as being our "leisure" time, where the family used to be an economic unit (there would be no family farm without plenty of family to work it!). If we take the novel as historically accurate, how would you say marriage has changed from the time of the novel's setting to our present? 

If there was any philosophy behind the parenting we see in the novel, how would you describe that?

It seems to be feast or famine, lots of love or lots of abuse and brutality. The job of giving affection and love seems to be allocated to the woman. Once she is gone or unable to provide the warmth, often there simply is none. Perhaps men viewed the showing of affection as a sign of weakness, yet they viewed lovemaking as a sign of strength!

[thewanderingjew]

---

dhaupt wrote:

snip...

I think in this novel it's more about marrying for like, and I'm going by how Karel describes Sophie when he first laid eyes on her on page 153. ""Here was a girl stout enough to shoulder more than simple housework and easy enough on the eyes to make a man stop to watch her while she did."

I think love comes later from companionship and familiarity.

I think you are probably right and my original assessment was incorrect. They probably had a larger purpose in mind than love, when they took a wife.

The philosophy of parenting was spare the rod, spoil the child

I see tenderness between Karel and Sophie and the children, I've seen tenderness between Karel and Sophie also

Then what do you make of the way Dalton, Knedlik and Skala did to their children. They didn't seem to spare the rod. Perhaps for the women in the family it was spare the rod and spoil the child. Somehow, I wonder if that philosophy would have produced the likes of Skala, Knedlik or Dalton. Their modus operandi was one of brutality.

---

[dhaupt]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

---

dhaupt wrote:

snip...

I think in this novel it's more about marrying for like, and I'm going by how Karel describes Sophie when he first laid eyes on her on page 153. ""Here was a girl stout enough to shoulder more than simple housework and easy enough on the eyes to make a man stop to watch her while she did."

I think love comes later from companionship and familiarity.

I think you are probably right and my original assessment was incorrect. They probably had a larger purpose in mind than love, when they took a wife.

The philosophy of parenting was spare the rod, spoil the child

I see tenderness between Karel and Sophie and the children, I've seen tenderness between Karel and Sophie also

Then what do you make of the way Dalton, Knedlik and Skala did to their children. They didn't seem to spare the rod. Perhaps for the women in the family it was spare the rod and spoil the child. Somehow, I wonder if that philosophy would have produced the likes of Skala, Knedlik or Dalton. Their modus operandi was one of brutality.

---

---

Hi twj,

I don't think there's any wrong or right it's all about perception

However about spare the rod it comes from proverbs I'm sure you know and mean opposite of how it sounds, that's how I always took it to mean.

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

[coffee_luvr]

---

ssizemore wrote:

The passages that indicated a real tenderness within the families were the times of storytelling.  Vaclav did become more tender when he was relating stories of his past to his sons and Karel remembers and does the same with his children.  It is interesting that memories were important to them, just as it was a family story that inspired the author to write this novel.

I remember a strong tradition of story telling in my family, some of which I have resurrected in my work on our genealogy.  I only wish I had paid more attention to these stories when many members of the generation older than I were still living. 

I do believe that the children in a family in this novel were expected to do their share of the work on the farm, no matter how young they were.  It was necessary to the survival of the family that everyone work and then the farm would survive with the family's descendant tending it.  Almost a thing of the past today..

---

Working together as a family does make for a very different dynamic in the family relationship. I grew up on a family fruit farm in the north.  We all were expected to work in the fields from a very young age.  I was the youngest of 4 children.  Pretty much by the age of 5, we were out in the fields with my parents working.  I believe you are right in that this is more a thing of the past now.  When raising my son, I frequently would tell him stories of some of the very late nights working in the packing shed getting our produce ready for market the next morning.  It was survival and we all "understood" that at a very young age as children.  It is surprising how much responsibility a child can take as I look back on my life and upbringing.  Today, I find that "work" is nothing like it was for me while growing up.  My perspective is much different from most of my contemporaries due to my upbringing and experience of working on the family farm.  It could be telling that not one of the children in my family decided to pursue farming.  All of us chose to leave the farm.  The land remains in the family but is no longer a functioning farm. 

[Deltadawn]

Family time is definitely more leisurely now than in the time of the novel's setting. At that time it was more of a necessity for all families to participate in the daily work of running a farm. Therefore, marriage was also a necessity as was child bearing and rearing.

In this setting,although I'm sure there were many marriages entered into for reasons other than love, I still believe that there could be the idea of marrying for love - or that although other (economic) concerns were present, so was the idea of love and/or affection (at least in some cases). Specifically in this novel, Vaclav seemed to have loved his wife (as much as he was capable of love). Also, Karel seems to have love for his wife (though he does not honor her and his marriage the way they should be honored).

Well the philosophy behind parenting in this story seems to be to raise 'em rough so they'll be tough. Though the mothers provide a softer touch!

Yes, there is definitely some tenderness between family members at different times throughout the book. It's subtle but it's there.

[thewanderingjew]

---

dhaupt wrote:
Hi twj,

I don't think there's any wrong or right it's all about perception

However about spare the rod it comes from proverbs I'm sure you know and mean opposite of how it sounds, that's how I always took it to mean.

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Thanks for clearing that up. I rushed to judgment. I have always used it meaning if you spare the rod you do spoil the child but when you wrote it, I saw it literally thinking you meant they wanted to spare the rod and spoil the child. I couldn't figure out why you thought that because they definitely seemed to use the rod too often! Sorry

---

[dhaupt]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

---

dhaupt wrote:
Hi twj,

I don't think there's any wrong or right it's all about perception

However about spare the rod it comes from proverbs I'm sure you know and mean opposite of how it sounds, that's how I always took it to mean.

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Thanks for clearing that up. I rushed to judgment. I have always used it meaning if you spare the rod you do spoil the child but when you wrote it, I saw it literally thinking you meant they wanted to spare the rod and spoil the child. I couldn't figure out why you thought that because they definitely seemed to use the rod too often! Sorry

---

---

Don't be silly I should have made myself clearer, sometimes my mind goes much faster than my mouth or my fingers on the keyboard.

[flouncyninja]

---

Rachel-K wrote:

We tend to think of time with our families as being our "leisure" time, where the family used to be an economic unit (there would be no family farm without plenty of family to work it!). If we take the novel as historically accurate, how would you say marriage has changed from the time of the novel's setting to our present? 

Marriage at that time was more of a business arrangement.  You needed someone who could assist in the creation and running of your business, whether it was a farm or a shop.  Now we normally have the option to marry for far many more reasons other than just to someone who will assist us in our livelihood.

In this setting, is there an idea of marrying "for love?"

No, I don't think so.  It's more like find someone you can hopefully get along with for the long haul and maybe down the road you will fall in love.

If there was any philosophy behind the parenting we see in the novel, how would you describe that?

The wife is the nurturer, which the main characters all seem to lack, while the father disciplines and teacher who shows the male children how to get through life.  We don't have many examples of the raising of daughters yet.

Are there any ways that we see love and tenderness between family members?

I think there's love and tenderness between Karel and his family.  The way he plays with his daughters, how he caresses his wife with the back of his hands so she doesn't have to feel the roughness of his calluses.  I think that what might have started out as a marriage of convenience has turned into love.

---

[DSaff]

While marriage roles have changed over the years, many core principles have remained the same. Two people come together to build a life. That life includes a home, finances, etc., and may or may not include children. Love? Even today we find people who marry without love, hoping to find it once they have committed to the union. Children from farming communities have almost always been expected to work on the farm. School would be closed during planting and harvesting times so that the children wouldn't miss their work. Women were keepers of the house and children, sometimes working with the animals and in the field. Men were expected to keep a roof over his family's heads and work the land. Marriages seem to be portrayed as almost cookie-cutter types in books dealing with this time period. Go from one house to the next and you will find the same basic set up. But today we have a lot of different types and roles in families. Both parents usually work outside the home and hopefully share the work inside as well. Children should have chores they are expected to do, although that isn't always the case. I find that when everyone contributes to the home, the unit is more cohesive and everyone is better prepared for the world outside their front door.

Parenting in this book seems harsh from the father and loving from the mother. Punishment doesn't seem to be tempered with mercy, or even with forgiveness. The boys we have seen so far are very like their fathers - rough and tumble. Have we seen any light in these men? I think we have with Karel. When he was playing with his daughters before his son was born, he was very different from the picture we had of his father.

[coffee_luvr]

We tend to think of time with our families as being our "leisure" time, where the family used to be an economic unit (there would be no family farm without plenty of family to work it!). If we take the novel as historically accurate, how would you say marriage has changed from the time of the novel's setting to our present? 

I would say marriage has changed, but I can only speak from my personal experience and observations based on what I saw in my mother's and her sister's relationships compared to what mine is and those women who are within my circle.  Based on that, I feel woman have a much bigger voice now and are much less submissive than they were in that time period.  I also feel that in general in America, women have more choices than they did in that time period.  I know my marriage is much more of a partnership than my mother's was and for any of her sisters.

In this setting, is there an idea of marrying "for love?"

Hmmm....I don't think this book really shows an example of that type of relationship.  I think someone else mentioned that there was marriage for "like" and maybe for companionship, but with these characters, I did not see an example of marriage for "love".

If there was any philosophy behind the parenting we see in the novel, how would you describe that?

I did not see that in these characters; they seem like they react vs. think or analyze how they would or should "parent". 

Are there any ways that we see love and tenderness between family members?

Yes, I think we see some tenderness and care with Sophie and her children; I see it between Karel and his children too.  I also start to see support and a bond between Joe and Raymond.

---

[maxcat]

Rachel_K wrote:

In this setting, is there an idea of marrying "for love?"

I don't think there was a marriage for love in those times, more like marriage as a convenience and money. I have not seen love in this book, except Vaclav did love his wife but was a bitter and hardened man.

If there was any philosophy behind the parenting we see in the novel, how would you describe that?

I see forms of parenting with fathers playing with their children or fathers telling their son to make sure he goes to the bathroom and not in his pants. Very little parenting but at least some.

Are there any ways that we see love and tenderness between family members?

Vaclav did love his wife before she died, Karel shows tenderness to his newborn son. Not much there, but it is in little fragments.

[BookWoman718]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

It seems to be feast or famine, lots of love or lots of abuse and brutality. The job of giving affection and love seems to be allocated to the woman. Once she is gone or unable to provide the warmth, often there simply is none. Perhaps men viewed the showing of affection as a sign of weakness, yet they viewed lovemaking as a sign of strength!

---

That says a lot about one of the fundamental differences between men and women when it comes to sex.  For men, copulation isn't necessarily a sign of affection at all.  Hence the wide popularity of bar girls and prostitutes.  I'll bet the term "lovemaking" was never uttered in male conversations.  Sex itself, on the other hand, has always been considered a sign of strength for a man.  There are stories of professional sports teams who insisted that the players refrain from sex the night before a big game, so they wouldn't be drained of energy.  (a theory now discredited, I know)  Because a man has to 'perform' in sex - he can't merely be passive, as a woman can - Viagra has become one of America's most widely used drugs.   That 'shame' of being unable to perform can be averted.   

[mommybooknerd]

In this setting, is there an idea of marrying "for love?"

I feel like there is a wish to marry for love or a sense that one will grow to love the one that you marry, but overall in this setting that is not the case.  There is a realness that is still true now about the grass being greener on the other side. 

[StewiesMom]

Pertaining to the ideal of marrying for "love" - 

As it relates to this story - marriage was a contract.  A woman married whomever her father made a deal with, and made the best of it.  The hope that love would grow is universal and timeless.