...and we focus on some woman he was married to but never had sex with, never loved, and had no historical significance other than whom she married. Bravo.
shareGiven the title of the film, the focus is appropriate.
shareThe idea of marrying for romantic love is a recent thing-in that time if you didn't marry well you could be a governess/nanny or prostitute. Women were at the mercy of men.
She is lucky he was not a bast%$#@ who beat her. Sure he had quirks but she was well cared for (please correct me if I am mistaken).
She should have been thankful.
Conceive Deceive or Leave
https://disqus.com/home/channel/conceievedeceiveorleave/
She is lucky he was not a bast%$#@ who beat her.
(please correct me if I am mistaken).
She should have been thankful.
I agree with everything you wrote (also Lord Byron is a favorite of mine) its definitely the hint that I always thought that was being dropped.
But it still falls under "quirk". Thankfully! its fast becoming a non-issue now, it was against the law in those days.
Quirk means (semi-important caveat coming....) At That Time-it just means something the rich and privileged gladly get away with whereas had they been poor they would have gone to jail for.
Eccentric is another euphemism I hear used for it.
With that said it does not include any violence.
Well we have proof that he was disgusted by her female form (her letter April 10, 1848) it is often said that she may have had BO or it been that time of month but the truth may be that he was attracted to a prepubescent form of the body.
Just like the sculptures and paintings of the day. After all didn't he fall in love with a ten year old when he was in middle age?
She was a strong female to not let this dampen her self esteem and her love of sex. A less sure of herself female would withdraw from sex --fearing his words to be true. I'm sure, as we females tend to do she at least partially internalized this.
Conceive Deceive or Leave
https://disqus.com/home/channel/conceievedeceiveorleave/
She should have been grateful for a sexless childless marriage with a man who calls your body repugnant? Not at all the fact that she used the lack of sex to get the marriage annulled was the only legal way to get free from him. He fell in love with a 10 year old when he was 39, when she was 18 he asked her to marry him but she said wait until she was 21, her parents contacted effie about her marriage and that answer led to the engagement being ended.
shareHe also seems to have first been infatuated with Effie when she was 12 years old, having written "The King of the Golden River" for her.
In early 1854 he also went on walks with her sister Sophy, after Effie had already left him, and at least in this movie he does seem to have a parallel infatuation with Sophy as he did with Effie when she was younger.
The guy did seem to dote on preteen girls.
He also asked Kate Greenway (children's book illustrator) to draw him girlies without clothing:
"Will you – (it’s all for your own good – !) make her stand up and then draw her for me without a cap – and, without her shoes, – (because of the heels) and without her mittens, and without her – frock and frills? And let me see exactly how tall she is – and – how – round. It will be so good of and for you – And to and for me."
As well there's a letter to his physician from 1886 (when he was 67) in which he wrote:
"I like my girls from ten to sixteen—allowing of 17 or 18 as long as they’re not in love with anybody but me. — I’ve got some darlings of 8—12—14—just now, and my Pigwiggina here —12— who fetches my wood and is learning to play my bells."
He also asked Kate Greenway (children's book illustrator) to draw him girlies without clothing:
"Will you – (it’s all for your own good – !) make her stand up and then draw her for me without a cap – and, without her shoes, – (because of the heels) and without her mittens, and without her – frock and frills? And let me see exactly how tall she is – and – how – round. It will be so good of and for you – And to and for me."
As well there's a letter to his physician from 1886 (when he was 67) in which he wrote:
"I like my girls from ten to sixteen—allowing of 17 or 18 as long as they’re not in love with anybody but me. — I’ve got some darlings of 8—12—14—just now, and my Pigwiggina here —12— who fetches my wood and is learning to play my bells."
And all the pieces matter (The Wire)share
Where did you get these citations from? Could you include links for your sources?
Um, embarrassing - I posted my comment in a new thread and two minutes later I see this OP posted almost the exact same comment a year earlier. Glad to see I'm not the only one who had this reaction to the movie. You just know all the people who reacted angrily to this comment wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes into a movie that explored the revolutionary ideas in art and politics that John Ruskin developed. If the only possibly interesting thing about him for you is that he never banged his wife, well, you're pretty much everything that's wrong with the world.
shareThe movie chose to examine an overlooked aspect of the artistic circles of the time: the experiences of an insignificant background individual, a woman who was merely the person married to a Great Mind. In doing so, it sheds a great deal of light on the character of Ruskin himself, but it is not about Ruskin. In the same way, Lady Elizabeth Eastlake is a fairly important character in the movie, while her husband, who was important in the arts and probably more significant than his wife, in this story is only Lady Elizabeth's husband.
It's legitimate, and not unusual, for a story to turn its attention to characters who were considered of no importance, such as the servants, slaves, or wives of important people. A great deal can be discovered in these hidden corners; and everyone has a story.
It's also worth mentioning that, according to this version of events, Ruskin didn't merely avoid sex with his wife, he treated her with contempt and indifference, and barely acknowledged her as a spouse. Effie Gray's story reveals that, while Ruskin may have been a great mind, he was not a good man.
"You can't handle the post-truth!"
He was one of those greatly exaggerated minds, if you ask me.
Are you aware he happened, and not once, to mistake an oil painting for aquarelle? Or the reverse. In fact he knew a bit (well, quite a lot) about architecture, buildings and all that, and his first books were about this kind of art. But he was so eloquent, so fluent in his way of writing - it was sensational in those times. Bold enough to write about anything he dares. So, he kept writing, writing and more writing, actually the thing he could do best. Thus he guessed he found his way to fame. He was first in many ways, he was fluent, he was bright. And sometimes he was able to smell something new, but it was a bit later, when he became fashionable, when Nuovo riches started to buy Art, to collect Art, they had to ask for advice - they just knew none about art. Thus Ruskin made a name, as an expert. Before that the one thing he did wisely - it was to support Turner. Who was famous enough, but happen to change his style the way usually not approved by the audience, and critics. Ruskin got the chance to show his skill - to persuade anyone that black is white. Or the reverse, no matter.
I've read a lot of Ruskin the man, but I just unable to read his so famous works. Too many words for my liking. Sometime, maybe, I'd do that...
I think it's kind of a cheating, maybe not intentional, but still. He was sure he's great, in first place. He was brought up this way, from the childhood by his over the top caring elderly parents. He had no chance to became "normal" grown up. Kinds of twist in his head were granted to be sure.