Nearly every historical drama — look no further than My Dearest — drives home the point that life in those times was often nasty, brutish and short. Bearing that in mind, what positions in society, for men and for women, had the best chance to live a relatively peaceful life? Between facing famine as a peasant, getting poisoned as a dethroned noble or dying on a battlefield as a soldier … I’m not sure what the best options are. Sailing to an uninhabited island and living under the radar? What are your thoughts?

11
17

    Honestly none no societal position from back then sounds appealing or peaceful – those in the higher socio-economic band might have pretty good financially, but life seems like it’d be rife with politics and absolutely stifling, especially if you’re a woman. But if we played the game of relativism, I suppose some troubles are better than others so maybe being a dude with a lot of money to cushion your life would be the most peaceful out of the lot (but also not royalty or royalty adjacent because as you said, who knows when you’ll get killed or asked to do the killing). I’m with you there on the fact that running away to be off the grid sounds the most freeing though, but then again it’d be pretty isolating too wouldn’t it? 😮‍💨

    6
    3

      *honestly none no societal position…

      2
      0

      I did consider moderately successful merchant — well-off enough to be insulated from daily hardship but not so powerful as to be swept up in court-related intrigue as the official supplier of doodads and whatzits.

      3
      0

      Sometimes I wonder if the reason for watching sageuks must come down to some sort of schadenfreude.

      I mean no one really wants to go back there, so why watch it get played out?

      Do we WANT to see how bad it was, just to feel how bad it was?

      Or, do we want to take some sort of fundamental satisfaction in the fact that—while CERTAINLY not perfect—things are better now on many fronts, and we can be made to feel happy about what we do have?

      6
      3

        I think there are two main reasons:
        1) We want proper reasons for all those secrets and repressed emotions, reasons like for example starvation, hostage situations, torture, murder and the draconian laws meant to hold everybody in their place. This also forms the background as well as for meticulously laid plans, giving us (if all goes well) the Ocean’s 11 feel of the triumphant twist.
        2) Silk, gold, jewels, ceremonial outfit and men jumping down from the roof.

        4
        2

          It’s true that the payoff is far greater when the situation is literally life and death, not just a figure of speech.

          2
          1

            What I mean is, if people do something very dangerous, or if they do “Noble Idiocy”, taking Hong-jo and Shin-yu as examples; When Hong-jo goes alone into the forest knowing that a murderous stalker has her as his special target, I don’t get so much worried as just angry: Stupid girl!
            And the same goes for people who say they don’t love someone that they love – one thing is to be nervous to lose a friend, but if the barrier is broken, you should be able to be honest. But if you lie because the father of your love is at that very moment making ready to take out the eyes of the woman who took you in when you were a helpless orphan, then it is not dumb to lie, even if it hurts.
            So if you are going to pressure cook your emotions, it only makes sense if there’s an actual pressure.

            4
            0

          I like the way you used Aeng-cho/Hong-Jo to illustrate your point. It’s one thing to be critical of a character for not following their heart or some such, but when loved one’s lives are truly at stake or one’s family faces annihilation, who is truly going to be able to fight against fate.

          4
          0

        It’s fascinating to see how bad things were, as you put it, and at the same time recognize that many of the root problems remain the same — inequality, prejudice, sexism, incompetent leadership, nepotism, etc. are the same.

        5
        0

        @attiton I think maybe not to fall into the trap of romanticising the past. I mean the US had MAGA. But I do agree does watching immense suffering help or defeat the purpose?

        1
        2

          Also sorry I’m still angry at my own country for voting no in the referendum. This was to give Voice to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in our parliament. I guess I was living in my own bubble, thinking that everyone understood the genocide and atrocities that happened to our Indigenous Peoples. That are still occurring today. I wonder if a popular television series depicting this would’ve helped people become more empathetic? I don’t have an answer because I wouldn’t want the pain and suffering of our Indigenous Peoples to be a spectacle or entertainment either

          3
          1

            Oh tell me about it – absolutely shameful to say the least. I completely tuned out of the news after I saw how quickly they announced it too.

            On the note of whether media might have helped – maybe actually? It shouldn’t be at this point in the first place, but honestly that’s just society for you apparently. There’s also something to be said about the education systems role in this – so many people have no idea about what our country’s history is because they’ve never been exposed to it academically or otherwise. I’m not entirely sure school curriculums are like now across the board but it’s not something that was taught when I was growing up and a lot of the teens I tutor right now are also clueless because history lessons are mostly WW1 and WW2 focused it seems. Some very big changes need to occur I think here in general, because I’ve met more people who are sympathetic to struggles abroad or know US history and politics like the back of their hand – niether of which is wrong or anything, but it says something when a lot of these people are also either completely ignorant or oblivious of what has happened and what continues to happen on this land.

            3
            0

          To the question of if watching historical suffering can serve as a warning … maybe? But I think its effectiveness, as with many things, depends on the presentation. Does the show transport you to the past and make you feel the characters’ emotions? Or is the brutality so overwhelming that you start to tune it out and it becomes less impactful?

          3
          2

            @lapislazulii The issue of teaching history and school curriculum in general is a huge one in the US currently, with a loud, activist movement taking over school boards, promoting book bans and trying to silence any concepts or even historical facts they don’t agree with, as well as roll back rights for all marginalized groups.

            5
            0

            And how much of it is that “in order to feel the emotions that the writers want us to feel” it has to be set in a context of extreme violence?

            How much does the cruelty serve as a necessary backdrop to stage the more uplifing emotions?

            Otherwise stated, can we be encouraged to feel those uplifting emotions WITHOUT the violence and sadness? Is the violence a crutch, perhaps, of sloppy writing?

            3
            0

    It’s hard to find proper information; I was going to compare life expectancies, but I could only find this:
    “Before the introduction of modern medicine by the Korean Empire government in the early 20th century, the average life expectancy for peasant and commoner Korean males was 24 years and for females 26 years, accounting for infant mortality.”
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseon
    but 1) I can’t find anything about the life expectancy of nobility and 2) Infant mortality makes a huge difference; if we talk about how life was, maybe if you were old enough to think about it, your life expectancy would be 50 rather than 26.

    3
    0

    Wise old sage living in a mountain hut?

    2
    0