Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
New User
jcnapoleon
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-07-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

I agree with you Koppie11 the 16 year jump did add more detail. It really made for a interesting and attention grabbing plot for the last chapters. I thought that it was really a great idea. I personally can say that I had a hard time putting the book down during these last few chapters. It just kept you wanting to know what was going to happen and that made the whole book better in my opinion.
New User
jcnapoleon
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-07-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

In the final part of this book a theory that I had became clear. In my reading of the book I could not help but observe that George Elliot seemed do emphasize on the womens conversations. I believe that she was trying to make a point about the way women were treated during her time. A example of this is when the women were judging other women at the party by their wardrobe. In this scene one of the women called the other one ugly in a indrect way, and George Elliot made a point that a character tell her that she may have offended her. I believe that in this writing George Ellitot is saying that women are judged in a unfair way and that they should not be judged so easily. Another point of this is when Eppie stands up for herself when Godfrey asks her to move in with them. A women making her own decisions especially in this situation was not a commom thing back in that time peroid. I believe that she is trying to say that women should be able to speak for themselves and make up their own mind. These points are no coinsidence in my opinion. George Elliot is making a point to fight for the rights of women and I think she was brilliant in her technique in doing so.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

Several comments have been made here about the character development of Nancy.  Let me add that thinking about the impact of miscarriage and the inability to bear children on a woman and a marriage probably increases one's empathy for Nancy and the evolution of her character.  She could have turned bitter and rigid, but she did not.
"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

[ Edited ]

That is a good point JC and of course GE herself was considered 'ugly', lacking in dress sense etc. so she would have been sensitive to this aspect of criticism.  Henry James wrote about her:-

 

'She is magnificently ugly — deliciously hideous... in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty which, in a very few minutes steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end as I ended, in falling in love with her.'

 

And GE wrote this about ugliness:- 

 

'These fellow-mortals, every one, must be accepted as they are: you can neither straighten their noses, nor brighten their wit, nor rectify their dispositions; and it is these people — amongst whom your life is passed — that it is needful you should tolerate, pity, and love: it is these more or less ugly, stupid, inconsistent people whose movements of goodness you should be able to admire — for whom you should cherish all possible hopes, all possible patience. '
'Ugly and deformed people have great need of unusual virtues, because they are likely to be extremely uncomfortable without them.'
NB: Please do not rank this or any of my posts.  Thankyou.  C. 

 

 

 


jcnapoleon wrote:
In the final part of this book a theory that I had became clear. In my reading of the book I could not help but observe that George Elliot seemed do emphasize on the womens conversations. I believe that she was trying to make a point about the way women were treated during her time. A example of this is when the women were judging other women at the party by their wardrobe. In this scene one of the women called the other one ugly in a indrect way, and George Elliot made a point that a character tell her that she may have offended her. I believe that in this writing George Ellitot is saying that women are judged in a unfair way and that they should not be judged so easily. Another point of this is when Eppie stands up for herself when Godfrey asks her to move in with them. A women making her own decisions especially in this situation was not a commom thing back in that time peroid. I believe that she is trying to say that women should be able to speak for themselves and make up their own mind. These points are no coinsidence in my opinion. George Elliot is making a point to fight for the rights of women and I think she was brilliant in her technique in doing so.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-21-2009 04:11 AM
Contributor
Maximilien_Robespierre
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-04-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

To jcnapolean:

You make a very strong point.  If Elliot would have voiced opionions like that in her time, she would be seen as a visionary today.  Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.  Humans make mistakes.  Humans were wrong to treat women that way, they were wrong when they treated african americans that way, and it makes you wonder.  What could we be doing in today's world that is wrong?  What mistakes are we making now that will be look back at in the future and frowned upon?  Just makes me think.

Contributor
pumpkin23
Posts: 9
Registered: ‎01-28-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

Alaska14:

 

I completely agree with what you said.  You can see this in everyday life.  Even an outsider can become a new person with the love and care of someone else.  If Silas loses Eppie, there is a chance that he could go back into that seclusion that he was once in.  He's already experienced alot of losses, and if he loses Eppie, he may never be able to trust people the same way.

Contributor
Megan456
Posts: 9
Registered: ‎02-03-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

The last couple chapters were in my opinion the most interesting of the whole enitire book. Just because it was the point in which everything came together. I really enjoyed the ending as well I'm a happy ending kinda of person and I was very happy to see Silas ended up happy in the end. He deserved it. The part where he returned to Lantern Yard was quite interesting because when he first moved to Raveloe he was upset and hated the town and wanted nothing more than to return to his old home. Now 16 or so years later he returns and finds it gone. I"m sure that fact had to have got to him a little but for the most part he was so happy with his new life it didn't bother him as much as I thought it would. Its very toutching the way an seeminly awful situation turns into the best times of his life.
Contributor
pumpkin23
Posts: 9
Registered: ‎01-28-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

I am not quite through all of the chapters yet, but I have seen a whole new side of Silas since Eppie has come to live with him.  With everything happening, I worry that Silas may fall into that same trap that he was in for so long.  If Eppie somehow leaves him, he won't be the same Silas that everyone has come to know and love.  Though he wants the best for Eppie, he may never be as sociable as he is now.
Contributor
Megan456
Posts: 9
Registered: ‎02-03-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

 jcnapolean:

You make a very strong point.  If Elliot would have voiced opionions like that in her time, she would be seen as a visionary today.  Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.  Humans make mistakes.  Humans were wrong to treat women that way, they were wrong when they treated african americans that way, and it makes you wonder.  What could we be doing in today's world that is wrong?  What mistakes are we making now that will be look back at in the future and frowned upon?  Just makes me think.

 

 

 

Yes, I have thought of that as well. How we don't know what people will consider wrong of us now in the future. I believe we talked about it in class a few times, and I found the thought intriguing. Wow I have posted 3 times now. 

Contributor
BookFair13
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-01-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

I really like the father side of Silas. I think it is great how much he cares for Eppie. With the jump in time you can really see how Silas an Eppie's positive relationship helped Eppie become nice young lady.
New User
toetapper16
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎01-27-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

In these couple of chapters, many major events are taking place.  We first learn that it is 16 years later, and Eppie is now 18 years old. Eppie is told about her real father, and Godfrey has found his brother's skeleton.  I think it was a smart choice for Eppie to stay with Silas as he is the one who raised her.  Although he is not her biological father, he certainly was a better father to her than Godfrey would have been.  We can tell that nothing can separate Silas from Eppie because their love for each other is so strong.  Eppie is also getting married to Aaron in the conclusion.  At first I thought that they would leave Silas and once again, he would be lonely and unhappy.  However, they decide to stay at the cottage with him. 
New User
toetapper16
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎01-27-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

 

 pumpkin23 wrote:


I am not quite through all of the chapters yet, but I have seen a whole new side of Silas since Eppie has come to live with him.  With everything happening, I worry that Silas may fall into that same trap that he was in for so long.  If Eppie somehow leaves him, he won't be the same Silas that everyone has come to know and love.  Though he wants the best for Eppie, he may never be as sociable as he is now.


I also agree with the point that pumpkin23 has made here.  Silas was a very unhappy man before Eppie.  There were many tragic losses for him. Without her, he may not have been the loving and caring father that he developed into by the end of the novel.  He has turned into a much better man, and I think he is more respected than ever for raising this young lady. 

Contributor
Alaska14
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎02-01-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

I agree with Koppie and everyone who else commented on the 16 year jump.  It did help developed the characters and tell the story. I agree that is was a little odd that Dunsey wasn't found for 16 years and wasn't really mentioned during the story plot.   
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

I agree that to us in a time when communication of all kinds is freely available, Dunstan's 16 year old disappearance seems odd but in those times, when people could only communicated by letter, it must have been quite normal.  Quite a few Victorian novels deal with 'long lost sons' who return after long absences or who never return at all.    

 

 

 


Alaska14 wrote:
I agree with Koppie and everyone who else commented on the 16 year jump.  It did help developed the characters and tell the story. I agree that is was a little odd that Dunsey wasn't found for 16 years and wasn't really mentioned during the story plot.   

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.

 

Well, not quite.  They were also valued as producers of the next generation.  For the upper classes, it was important to have a son to pass on the estate and wealth to.  For the agricultural classes, children were an important source of labor.  No women, no children, no next generation. So that was perhaps their most important role in society.


Maximilien_Robespierre wrote:

To jcnapolean:

You make a very strong point.  If Elliot would have voiced opionions like that in her time, she would be seen as a visionary today.  Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.  Humans make mistakes.  Humans were wrong to treat women that way, they were wrong when they treated african americans that way, and it makes you wonder.  What could we be doing in today's world that is wrong?  What mistakes are we making now that will be look back at in the future and frowned upon?  Just makes me think.


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

:smileysurprised:

 

Do we think George Eliot, nee Mary Ann Evans, would agree with these assessments, let alone Mary Wollstonecraft (1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman) or even Dorothy Winthrop (to mix real with fiction)?

 

Were women no longer of child bearing age without societal value?  What was Nancy's "societal value" in the Silas Marner story, given that she was unable to bear children?

 

If bearing children is the woman's chief societal value, what is man's? 

 

Does "producing" include nurturing?

 


Everyman wrote:

Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.

 

Well, not quite.  They were also valued as producers of the next generation.  For the upper classes, it was important to have a son to pass on the estate and wealth to.  For the agricultural classes, children were an important source of labor.  No women, no children, no next generation. So that was perhaps their most important role in society.


Maximilien_Robespierre wrote:

To jcnapolean:

You make a very strong point.  If Elliot would have voiced opionions like that in her time, she would be seen as a visionary today.  Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.  Humans make mistakes.  Humans were wrong to treat women that way, they were wrong when they treated african americans that way, and it makes you wonder.  What could we be doing in today's world that is wrong?  What mistakes are we making now that will be look back at in the future and frowned upon?  Just makes me think.



 

 Bold added.

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

Got some dander up, did I?  :smileywink:

 

First, let's be clear that the bolded part of my post was quoted from the previous poster, not my viewpoint.

 

 Second, note that I didn't say they were "only" valued for childbearing, but that they were "also" valued for childbearing.  Certainly there were and are many other important roles that women held/hold in society. 

 

But let's also be clear -- no childbearing, no human race.  The fact that some women can't or don't bear children doesn't negate that simple fact.  If all women chose not to bear children, bye bye human race. 

 

Every other function women fulfill beyond bearing and nursing children could be carried out by men -- not as effectively, certainly, but could be carried out.   So I don't think it's inaccurate to say, given that the basic imperative of every species is to reproduce, that producing the next generation is the chief function of the female of every species (or every mammalian species; I'm not going to get into other forms of reproductive processes).  

 

That's not to discount their many other valuable contributions.  I would NEVER suggest that the gender which produced Jane Austen, George Eliot, and my wife had no other virtues or contributions to make.  They have many.  But we also have to accept that we are still at our core a species which is stuck with the biological imperative to reproduce or vanish. Everything else we do is secondary to that.

 


Peppermill wrote:

:smileysurprised:

 

Do we think George Eliot, nee Mary Ann Evans, would agree with these assessments, let alone Mary Wollstonecraft (1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman) or even Dorothy Winthrop (to mix real with fiction)?

 

Were women no longer of child bearing age without societal value?  What was Nancy's "societal value" in the Silas Marner story, given that she was unable to bear children?

 

If bearing children is the woman's chief societal value, what is man's? 

 

Does "producing" include nurturing?

 


Everyman wrote:

Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.

 

Well, not quite.  They were also valued as producers of the next generation.  For the upper classes, it was important to have a son to pass on the estate and wealth to.  For the agricultural classes, children were an important source of labor.  No women, no children, no next generation. So that was perhaps their most important role in society.


Maximilien_Robespierre wrote:

To jcnapolean:

You make a very strong point.  If Elliot would have voiced opionions like that in her time, she would be seen as a visionary today.  Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.  Humans make mistakes.  Humans were wrong to treat women that way, they were wrong when they treated african americans that way, and it makes you wonder.  What could we be doing in today's world that is wrong?  What mistakes are we making now that will be look back at in the future and frowned upon?  Just makes me think.



 

 Bold added.


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Contributor
GeorgesJacquesDanton
Posts: 9
Registered: ‎01-25-2009
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

    We all know that Silas loves Eppie... A LOT.  He essentially had nothing left in his life until she came along.

 

    But, what of Godfrey's love for Eppie?  Now, he obviously didn't love her or his wife enough to cross the social "barriers" that kept him from confessing to his marraige and daughter.  However, after seeing how much Silas meant to Eppie and Eppie to Silas, he knew that both of them would have happier lives together than apart.  I guess what I'm trying to say is we can't focus so much on just the compassion that Silas and Eppie shared.  Godfrey realized that the companionship and compassion that Eppie would get from Silas would beat anything that Godfrey's money could have given her in her entire life.

Distinguished Bibliophile
Peppermill
Posts: 6,768
Registered: ‎04-04-2007
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

[ Edited ]

No particular dander, more bemusement.  :smileyvery-happy:

 

I repeat: the implications of these viewpoints for assessing the primary societal values of either gender???  (You do write:  "Everything else we do is secondary to that.")

 

Finally, both writers' assessments of value were bolded in my response; my tongue-in-cheek comments were addressed to both posts.  I would submit that Nancy, unable to bear children, had as much societal value as manager of a household with responsibilities into a community as she did as a cute entertainer of men.


Everyman wrote:

Got some dander up, did I?  :smileywink:

 

First, let's be clear that the bolded part of my post was quoted from the previous poster, not my viewpoint.

 

 Second, note that I didn't say they were "only" valued for childbearing, but that they were "also" valued for childbearing.  Certainly there were and are many other important roles that women held/hold in society. 

 

But let's also be clear -- no childbearing, no human race.  The fact that some women can't or don't bear children doesn't negate that simple fact.  If all women chose not to bear children, bye bye human race. 

 

Every other function women fulfill beyond bearing and nursing children could be carried out by men -- not as effectively, certainly, but could be carried out.   So I don't think it's inaccurate to say, given that the basic imperative of every species is to reproduce, that producing the next generation is the chief function of the female of every species (or every mammalian species; I'm not going to get into other forms of reproductive processes).  

 

That's not to discount their many other valuable contributions.  I would NEVER suggest that the gender which produced Jane Austen, George Eliot, and my wife had no other virtues or contributions to make.  They have many.  But we also have to accept that we are still at our core a species which is stuck with the biological imperative to reproduce or vanish. Everything else we do is secondary to that.

 


Peppermill wrote:

:smileysurprised:

 

Do we think George Eliot, nee Mary Ann Evans, would agree with these assessments, let alone Mary Wollstonecraft (1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman) or even Dorothy Winthrop (to mix real with fiction)?

 

Were women no longer of child bearing age without societal value?  What was Nancy's "societal value" in the Silas Marner story, given that she was unable to bear children?

 

If bearing children is the woman's chief societal value, what is man's? 

 

Does "producing" include nurturing?

 


Everyman wrote:

Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.

 

Well, not quite.  They were also valued as producers of the next generation.  For the upper classes, it was important to have a son to pass on the estate and wealth to.  For the agricultural classes, children were an important source of labor.  No women, no children, no next generation. So that was perhaps their most important role in society.


Maximilien_Robespierre wrote (excerpt):

To jcnapolean:

You make a very strong point.  If Elliot would have voiced opionions like that in her time, she would be seen as a visionary today.  Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men....



  Bold added.



Message Edited by Peppermill on 02-23-2009 12:18 AM
"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly. It is the one thing we are interested in here." -- Leo Tolstoy
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SILAS MARNER: Week 3, Part II, Chapter 16 - Conclusion

[ Edited ]

Women in her time were treated like pets.  They were just there to look cute and entertain men.

 

 

Women were far more than this to Victorians.  They were Angels in the House and expected to be domestic paragons, not just childbearers.  In her famous book on Household Management Mrs Beeton wrote:-

 

'1. AS WITH THE COMMANDER OF AN ARMY, or the leader of any enterprise, so is it with the mistress of a house. Her spirit will be seen through the whole establishment; and just in proportion as she performs her duties intelligently and thoroughly, so will her domestics follow in her path. Of all those acquirements, which more particularly belong to the feminine character, there are none which take a higher rank, in our estimation, than such as enter into a knowledge of household duties; for on these are perpetually dependent the happiness, comfort, and well-being of a family. In this opinion we are borne out by the author of “The Vicar of Wakefield,” who says: “The modest virgin, the prudent wife, and the careful matron, are much more serviceable in life than petticoated philosophers, blustering heroines, or virago queens. She who makes her husband and her children happy, who reclaims the one from vice and trains up the other to virtue, is a much greater character than ladies described in romances, whose whole occupation is to murder mankind with shafts from their quiver, or their eyes.” ' [My emphasis. C]

 

The last sentence, in particular, is in keeping with Mary Wollstonecraft's idea that excessive concern for romantic love and physical desirability were not the natural conditions of female existence but rather the socially imposed means by which male domination enslaved them.

 

What was Nancy's "societal value" in the Silas Marner story, given that she was unable to bear children?

 

Given the emphasis on good household management I think that a wife like Nancy, unable to bear children, would be expected to pour all her energies ino keeping a well managed home and would also do charity work amongst the poor.  Her sister Priscilla, a spinster, is portrayed as a good housewife too.  In GE's Middlemarch, which we recently read, Dorothy has no children but is portrayed as an excellent housekeeper and nurterer of the poor, both when she was a wife and when she was a widow.   

 

On the question of childbearing and nurturing I think we have to remember the very high infant mortality rate in these times - 1 in 5 children died before their fifth birthday.  This meant that caring for babies and children was of paramount importance in a marriage which, in turn, gave rise to numerous idealised portrayals of family life and children in Victorian art. Children who lived were regarded as a 'blessing' from God.    The portrayal of both Eppie and Aaron in Silas Marner is similarly idealised. 

 

If bearing children is the woman's chief societal value, what is man's?

 

As middle/upper class women did not work and were the 'angels in the house', men were the sole breadwinners and supporting his wife and family became a man's raison d'etre.  Herbert Spencer believed that men were the 'active' agents in society and that women were 'sedentary', storing and conserving energy. As a result, women's position in society came from biological evolution -- she had to stay at home in order to conserve her energy, while the man could and needed to go out and hunt or forage. Victorian theories of evolution believed that such feminine and masculine attributes could be traced back to the lowest forms of life. Men (like Godfrey) were represented as fallen, sinful, and lustful creatures, wrongfully taking advantage of the fragility of women. Patrick Geddes wrote (Victorian Web):-

 

'Male intelligence was greater than female, men had greater independence and courage than women, and men were able to expend energy in sustained bursts of physical or cerebral activity... Women on the other hand... were superior to men in constancy of affection and sympathetic imagination... [they had] "greater patience, more open-mindedness, greater appreciation of subtle details, and consequently what we call more rapid intuition." ' 

 

'Women had to be held accountable, [therefore they had to be 'pure'] while the men, slaves to their sexual appetites, could not really be blamed. ....A young lady was only worth as much as her chastity and appearance of complete innocence, for women were time bombs just waiting to be set off. Once led astray, she was the fallen woman, and nothing could reconcile that till she died.'  (Victorian Web.)  Men like Godfrey, on the other hand, were never 'fallen' and whatever their indiscretions could remain pillars of the community. In writing a story where a poor weaver gets to keep a child of a wealthy landowner I think  GE was perhaps criticising this unfairness between the sexes.  (For there is no doubt that a wealthy landowner of this time could, whatever the wishes of Eppie, have taken her away from Silas.) 

 

 

 

 

NB: Please do not rank this or any of my posts.   Thankyou.   C.    

 

 

 

 

 

 


Peppermill wrote:

:smileysurprised:

 

Do we think George Eliot, nee Mary Ann Evans, would agree with these assessments, let alone Mary Wollstonecraft (1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman) or even Dorothy Winthrop (to mix real with fiction)?

 

Were women no longer of child bearing age without societal value?  What was Nancy's "societal value" in the Silas Marner story, given that she was unable to bear children?

 

If bearing children is the woman's chief societal value, what is man's? 

 

Does "producing" include nurturing?

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-23-2009 06:33 AM