Mega Victorian Meta part 1

Apr 07, 2009 18:45

Or why I set my legacy during the years 1837-1901.

(Alright strictly speaking that should be 1865-1901 since I'm not referencing the earlier part of the period, but hey).

The secret about me, my legacy and PB this week over atRead more... )

thoughts: meta, story: victorian legacy, extras: victorian stuff

Leave a comment

Comments 33

regacylady April 7 2009, 21:58:00 UTC
This was a really interesting read, Di. It makes me want to explain my inner thoughts while doing my legacy, but I don't know if I could put them down and have them makes sense. XD

Ah, Stanley. I never saw him as a cad for some reason, maybe because he's really...not? Again, really interesting read!

Reply

dicreasy April 7 2009, 22:43:23 UTC
Thanks. :D I admit that this was harder than I thought it would be. My thoughts tend to just run on, so having to put them down like this took some doing.

I think that opinion is split on Stanley. There are those who see his womanising, and those who see the otherside to him too. I'm on the otherside crew.

Reply


docnerd April 7 2009, 23:46:24 UTC
I find that period fascinating as well, for a lot of the same reasons. There was so much change in so many ways in such a short period of time.

I've never seen Stanley as a cad either. He's very clear about what he wants, and I really don't think he would set out to hurt anyone, and if he did, he'd more than likely feel badly about it.

If you wanted to do an "illegitimate baby" scandal, you could always have a woman obsessed with the heir who's insane and he rejects her because she's a complete nutter, and she gets pregnant and claims the baby's his as revenge. Drags the family's name through the mud, the whole bit. Kinda Shakespearean in a way.

Reply

dicreasy April 8 2009, 18:41:05 UTC
Exactly, there was just so much going on, creating such a dynamic and exciting environment. It's fascinating.

*nods* Absolutely, Stanley cares deeply and it isn't all about the woohoo. He would be devastated to think that he had hurt one of his ladies to tell the truth.

Funny you should say that...one of the ideas I had when brainstorming what would happen after Marielle left, used a townie of mine with Beth's face, S3 skin and green eyes. I'd still really like to use the idea...

Reply


dgjamie April 8 2009, 00:36:31 UTC
This was really interesting to read Di. The period you're dealing with is one of the ones I'm most unfamiliar with in History actually and I loved hearing your take on it from this angle and I'm genuinely excited to hear more from you on the era because it's really pretty new to me.

Coolness :D

Reply

dicreasy April 8 2009, 18:45:40 UTC
Thank you. :D I liked putting these thoughts down actually, and I have others planned. It's nice to be able to edumacate people. :)

Reply


orikes13 April 8 2009, 01:44:41 UTC
This was a really interesting read, Di. I've always found the Victorian era fascinating, both in the way it's romanticized and the actual tumultuous way things changed so quickly. I've always wondered which saw more change, the 19th century or the 20th century. I could see arguments for both, but certainly most of what happened in the last 109 years couldn't have happened without the groundwork in the previous century ( ... )

Reply

dicreasy April 8 2009, 19:01:08 UTC
Thanks. :D I agree, it's hard to know which century saw more change, but the changes in the 20th century were possible only because of the innovations of the 19th.

The Victorians attitude towards sex is one of the most fascinating attitudes they held, and really does have far reaching consequences, on both sides of the Atlantic it seems.

When I was in NYC, I visited the Merchant House museum and was amazed at how similar the daily lives of rich middle class Americans were to their British counterparts. Even the way in which visiting acquaintances was carried out was the same.

Stanley is one of my favourite sims ever, and I love how his character has grown as I've played and written him. I agree that there are readers who miss the subtlety in his character. I probably shouldn't say this, but there is one who I think has missed not only the extra layers of Stanley, but also a couple of other of my characters too.

I've still got this mad idea of trying to tally up points at some point. lol.

Reply

orikes13 April 8 2009, 20:07:41 UTC
I remember back in middle school or early high school, a teacher brought in a night gown that had belonged to her great great grandmother from before 1900. It was meant to be worn on a wedding night to consummate the marriage. It basically covered every part of the body except the one part the man needed access to and it had a hood to cover the face. It was really rather disturbing ( ... )

Reply

dicreasy April 8 2009, 20:39:19 UTC
That nightgown does sound disturbing. I've never heard of anything like it. It really does take the shame of humans being sexual creatures to a ridiculous level, and shows how interesting these people were and how much they make you think.

Now see this is making me want to start researching America during the same era, to find out how different parts of your country were,a nd the attitudes that prevailed.

This person has said a couple of things about my characters that makes me wonder if they've fully digested what the characters say and how they act I must admit. They've also made me doubt my abilities, but then everyone else seems to get them so...

*nods* Oh absolutely. There really does seem to be that dichotomy there, it makes reading some comments pretty interesting.

Reply


profbutters April 8 2009, 02:54:25 UTC
There would have been a lot of married ladies who would have been happy with a "friend" like Stanley. LOTS. And a lot of husbands who would have been happy for their wives to have a friend like Stanley so they could go on their merry way and do whatever ( ... )

Reply

dicreasy April 8 2009, 19:18:02 UTC
Oh I totally agree, and I think that Stanley would have been very popular had he been about then and real.

I always think that reading the stories of those who lived in the time is fascinating. They get right to the heart of the matter and blow away all the romanticism and pre-conceptions that we may have. A lot of the aristocracy was (and still is, those stately houses cost a fortune to run) cash poor, but asset rich. Titles don't pay bills. The heiresses would have been in for a nasty shock certainly.

Oh the Victorians loved decorations of all sorts. The more ruffles and bows and pom-poms the better as far as they were concerned. That's why I really do think that they covered tables for decoration and protection.

Thanks. Stanley's a love and when he's with his cousins, he's even better. They work so well together. :D

Reply


Leave a comment

Up