quick note
July 29th, 2010
I’ve been gone a long time, I know, but I’ve got six weeks to finish these revisions and then I’ll be free(er). I’m stopping in now because I’ve read about the millionth comment asking why Luke would leave his children in Paradise.
It was quite common even up to 75 years ago for families to trade children. You went to live with your aunt or grandfather or whatever, for a year or longer. This happened multiple times in my own father’s generation (at a very young age he was shipped off to Italy to be raised by an uncle who had no kids). And in my maternal grandmother’s, too (she was sent to be raised by grandparents after her mother died).
Men did not think themselves capable of caring for young children. Certainly Luke had the resources to hire whatever help he needed, but he had five traumatized children to think about. Take them home to Manhattan to be cared for by strangers, or leave them in the care of Elizabeth, Nathaniel, and the rest of the family?
Luke couldn’t give up his business, and he didn’t want to hurt the children any further, and so he left them where they were loved and safe and happy (under normal circumstances). He still spent every summer with them, which is more than most fathers would have done in that time and place.
va bene?
Categories: wilderness
Yes, that makes perfect sense. In my own family my Great Uncle was killed in an accident, then his wife died and then the children were parceled to relatives on both sides of the family.
Sorry, I was one of the people that asked that question and thanks for answering it (again). It did make me think though that we really interprete characters’ actions through the gaze of our own culture and time.
no need to apologize, really. I think you’re right, the hardest thing in reading historical fiction is letting the characters be who they are. were. You know what I mean.
I am sure I am not the only one in thinking what I am about to say: I miss you, Rosina.
Take care, xx
I thought it was something like that. In doing some research on my family tree I ran across a female ancestor in 1869, who at 12, was living in an orphanage. I knew her father was still alive and that she had older brothers. In trying to find out more about her I was told by a archive librarian that it was not unusual back then for a single parent to place a child in an orphanage. The parent had to work and if there was not anyone to take care of the child, the orphanage was the usual solution.
Rosina, glad to see you stop in, even if it is only to answer that particular question. Hope you are able to be here more frequently in the future.
Va molto bene. Grazie.