Blog Post 8

“They asked, finally, that he renounce the aim of equal rights for natural and illegitimate children in order to preserve the integrity of the home.” (168)

A reoccurring discussion within the story is about illegitimate children and their sinful existence. The reader, due to modern norms, is easily and obviously onboard with the wrongness of such acts, but interestingly the discussion is continuously brought up throughout the text.

There are multiple instances of incest despite it being clearly spoken out against. Why is it that the public opinion is so clear and yet the actions are still committed in contradiction? What does the renunciation of “illegitimate” children say about the culture of the people and the story as a whole? Would the similar discussions be held if the illegitimate children were born in non-influential, low power, families?

I feel that the discussion may represent a desire to rid single families, or single bloodlines, of progression and rule. In a time where single families would take power, having children amongst the family could lead to continuous rule without any outside intervention. At a time of exploration and wonder incest may also be frowned upon because it represents a standstill, keeping the community from incorporating an array of mindsets and experience.

Does science/biology play a role in the discussion within the book? They do talk about “pig tails” numerous times but it doesn’t seem to be a strong convincer. When does the morality around the act start to overpower any desire that individuals have, finally putting an end to it?