2-3-4 Challenge Book Discussions #1 discussion

12 views
Why Mermaids Sing > Question R

Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jonetta (new)

Jonetta (ejaygirl) | 7591 comments Mod
The fathers in this story were more concerned about covering up the truth than protecting their children and others by helping to find the killer. Was the disclosure of their cannibalism worth the costs, considering the societal norms at that time? Would modern men and women possibly have behaved the same?


message 2: by Charlene (new)

Charlene (charlenethestickler) | 1379 comments I should hope that modern parents would love their children more....


message 3: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (laurenjberman) | 2239 comments One would hope, Charlene, but human nature is what it is and shame be a very powerful emotion...


message 4: by Jonetta (new)

Jonetta (ejaygirl) | 7591 comments Mod
I don't believe that children of the aristocracy were loved and cherished the way they are today. They were just a means to continue a legacy. Their fathers' self preservation bore that out. These men had so little empathy.


message 5: by Veronica (last edited Mar 09, 2016 09:30AM) (new)

Veronica  (readingonthefly) | 694 comments The fathers in this story sickened me. And though Hendon has made many mistakes where Sebastian is concerned, I can't help but compare his actions in the first book to these fathers. He confessed to those murders to spare Sebastian. Yes, it would also ensure that the title passed to Sebastian but Hendon going to prison (did they hang aristocracy?) would still be a taint. Whatever Sebastian may think, I do believe that Hendon loves him; he's just a member of a society that is not well equipped to show it.


message 6: by Jonetta (new)

Jonetta (ejaygirl) | 7591 comments Mod
That's a telling point, Veronica.


message 7: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (laurenjberman) | 2239 comments Jonetta wrote: "I don't believe that children of the aristocracy were loved and cherished the way they are today. They were just a means to continue a legacy. Their fathers' self preservation bore that out. These ..."

I don't think that one can make generalizations. I'm sure that there were members of the aristocracy who did love their children and didn't view them as extensions of their own egos just like there are regular people today who abuse or neglect their children.


message 8: by Jonetta (new)

Jonetta (ejaygirl) | 7591 comments Mod
I'm not one to make sweeping generalizations so I apologize for not qualifying that statement and creating the wrong inference. Of course, there were many parents of the aristocracy who loved their children. Unfortunately, quite often they were a means to extend a legacy, as it seemed with these fathers.


message 9: by Charlene (new)

Charlene (charlenethestickler) | 1379 comments Agreed, Jonetta. We're considering the fathers who sacrificed their sons to hide the shame of cannibalism. That was sickening to consider, and we wonder how these individual could have weighed the pros and cons and come up with the choices they made.

Once some of the men knew what was going on, how could they live with themselves knowing that all the young people were being hunted down?


message 10: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (laurenjberman) | 2239 comments Jonetta wrote: "I'm not one to make sweeping generalizations so I apologize for not qualifying that statement and creating the wrong inference. Of course, there were many parents of the aristocracy who loved their..."

No worries, Jonetta and I totally agree that in many cases the aristocracy viewed their children as extensions of themselves and not as people in their own right.


back to top