![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What, never? -- well, hardly ever
Dec. 6th, 2023 03:07 pmI was listening to HMS Pinafore yesterday -- and dealing with the associated memories from having done pit orchestra for the Gilbert & Sullivan group in college -- when I realized something.
The plot involves (among other things) a sailor "lad" falling in love with the captain's daughter, who returns the sentiment but is aware that the difference in social class means their union would be a scandal. She is being wooed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is of yet higher rank than her. Sir Joseph tells her that "love levels all ranks" -- meaning hers and his, so he has a "no not like that" moment when she uses that as a justification for being with the sailor.
Generally speaking, this is cast with the daughter and the sailor being young adults, the captain being middle aged, and Sir Joseph older still.
But. The big plot twist at the end means that *the captain and the sailor are necessarily the same age*.
I haven't done any research but it's likely this was deliberate on G&S's end, part of the many satirical elements. But it's just boggling me -- both the "discrepancy" itself and the fact that I never noticed until now.
The plot involves (among other things) a sailor "lad" falling in love with the captain's daughter, who returns the sentiment but is aware that the difference in social class means their union would be a scandal. She is being wooed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is of yet higher rank than her. Sir Joseph tells her that "love levels all ranks" -- meaning hers and his, so he has a "no not like that" moment when she uses that as a justification for being with the sailor.
Generally speaking, this is cast with the daughter and the sailor being young adults, the captain being middle aged, and Sir Joseph older still.
But. The big plot twist at the end means that *the captain and the sailor are necessarily the same age*.
I haven't done any research but it's likely this was deliberate on G&S's end, part of the many satirical elements. But it's just boggling me -- both the "discrepancy" itself and the fact that I never noticed until now.