TigerShadow wrote:
I don't remember the episode's specifics, but didn't Lucy go off on her own when she was specifically told not to? If that's the case, I'm not sure how being bored is a good reason to break the rules. And if Lucy's attitude later on (in either "The Nemesis" or "The Battle", I think; the two kind of run together in my head), Lucy admits that she did what she did out of a desire to be rebellious and different from the goody-goody she'd been known to be.
I don't recall Connie's response being that unreasonable, in any case; I thought Lucy indulged in a string of rule-breaking before Connie finally sent her home.
How isn't it? The rule was reasonable, but so was going off. They go on a camping trip for fun, and they're made to scrub the floor and do little else? The kindest way to describe this is unfair, and a huge oversight on the part of the camp to not let them know ahead of time that this wonderful camp would be Drudgery Camp. Then when the "fun" finally came along, it was dull. Lucy had more than sufficient reason to go on her own and break the rule. All she did was go do something fun, on only two occasions. She did no harm. That's the "string" of disobedience you refer to.
As I said, this is problem. When punishments come into play, people are going to differ on how severe they should be. Arguably, Lucy did nothing unreasonable. But you disagree.
That's really the problem with Connie becoming a disciplinarian. We all like Connie. She is a common ground we all share, and one of the biggest things that bind our hearts to aio. She is universal, easy to like.
Punishment is opposite of universal. It leads to disagreement. To go back to the example of Jules, most of what Connie said to Jules made sense.
However, forcing Jules to go to church crossed a line. Jules practices atheism. Suppose Connie were Islamic and Jules Buddhist Would it be acceptable for her to tell her house guest and sister, "I know you're Buddhist but while you're here, you have to worship Allah with me. Okey doke?"
Again, you may disagree. Which again proves the point.
Connie is universal and to become a disciplinarian authority would destroy that. The few instances they already have may already be too much. As said previously, when you get into things like discipline, you step on people's toes.
We want a fun older sister. Not a strict babysitter.
ArnoldtheRubberDucky wrote:
That is to say, marriage itself does not inherently and automatically give any character a personality overhaul. I can actually understand why the writers are so resistant to Connie getting married (I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about a married Connie just feels all wrong.), but I think it might actually be good for characters like Jason or Wooton.
Agreed, Sir Ducky.
_________________
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury