For the third time, I concede failure in trying to convince you of the relevance of popular literature as a glimpse into the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs of its contemporary readers. It involves a degree of abstract analysis and perspective switch that you evidently reject. I leave you to believe that the readers of said works scratched their heads in bafflement because they had no idea what the writers were talking about. You also may believe that Austen and Dickens were clairvoyant in describing a behavior 150-200 years before it happened.

I can see it was a mistake to cite literary references to behavior that allegedly didn't exist until after the works were written. I'm not going to try to explain the full context of the works referenced; that would be too long and detailed. If you want to see for yourself whether the characters I mentioned were merely "literary devices" or whether they rounded out the universe of the novels to for the readers' enjoyment, read Sense and Sensibility, Bleak House, and Great Expectations. The families I referred to were either middle-class (Jellybys and Pockets) or gentry (Middletons), so your summary of 19th century British history (which I am quite familiar with) doesn't prove that their creation was purely imaginary rather than based on the authors' experiences. These are minor characters, with little or no effect on the plot, kind of like Jerry's stand-up scenes in Seinfeld. They were clearly included to amuse the reader by poking fun at something familiar, even if exaggerated for comic effect.

It's hilarious that I now see Facebook copypasta by people my age (Gen X) boasting about how well behaved they were in contrast to the mobs of little hellions today. When I clearly remember hearing "kids today" rants when I was a kid.

I saw a comment in a Mad Men thread about those halcyon days when kids respected their elders and neighbors talked over fences and every mom stayed home--Leaving aside that this is a clueless response to Mad Men, the kicker was that this person was recalling life in the early 1990s! Which is really odd, considering that I remember hearing in the 1980s, when I was a sub teacher, that the whole generation of teens was lost and the world was going to hell in a hand basket.

I avoid boring my kid with tales of my virtuous youth. I'd rather bore her with tales of hardship, like missing your favorite tv show and having to wait for the rerun because there was no TiVo and no Netflix.

Many posters have commented on the increasing presence of kids in places formerly considered adult provinces. I believe a big factor here is the prevalence of kid-centric parenting philosophies that accuse parents of selfishness and heartlessness if they hire a babysitter to go out and enjoy themselves as adults. This stuff tends to trickle down, so even parents who don't read the books tend to pick up on this. Some of those parents out with kids are True Believers in these ideologies. Others might have been browbeaten into compliance by some parenting guru or meddlesome sister-in-law.

Perhaps the message "you can't let your kids create a disturbance" needs to be accompanied by the message "parents are people, too. Hire a babysitter and don't feel guilty."

<And doesn't - "Elinor confessed that she never felt abhorrence for tame and quiet children." - mean (because of the double negative) that she favoured tame and quiet kids....?>

Duh, yes, of course. Because Austen is portraying Elinor as a rational person who disliked bad behavior in contrast to irrational people who coddle badly behaved kids.

< I suspect you are interpreting 18/19c "bratty kids" through a modern lens. Would not extreme misbehaviour in those days would be a model of perfect behaviour in this day and age...? 18/19c "bratty kids" through a modern lens. Would not extreme misbehaviour in those days would be a model of perfect behaviour in this day and age...?>

No, I don't know anyone today who would consider the Middleton children as a model of perfect behavior. Or the Jellybys or the Pockets.

I also haven't had any significant encounters with children misbehaving in a restaurant. Perhaps a few incidents when a parent did not remove a screaming child as quickly as they ought to have, but nothing really disruptive.

Unfortunately, I often have seen expressions of hostility toward children on CH. It usually comes up in discussions of dogs in restaurants, markets, etc, when children are compared unfavorably to dogs. I haven't had a dog-in-restaurant experience yet, but I've had numerous unpleasant experiences with dogs in homes. My ex-FiL had a huge dog that jumped on me, put his paws on me, and barked aggressively--FiL just laughed his ass off at my distress. XH had a friend who allowed his dog to beg at the table. The dog actually pushed his head onto my plate. Owners thought this was hilarious. And now these people could easily get these dogs into restaurants under color of disability rights statutes. I don't usually wallow in what-is-this-world-coming-to angst, but the thought of children being excluded from restaurants while dogs are welcome really reflects a sad state of priorities.

I do. All my life I've heard ethnic used as an all-encompassing term for the various ethnicities of the world. If I ask someone "which ethnic foods do you like?" the answer could be anything other than ordinary American foods.

BTW, many people think of hamburgers, hot dogs, and potato chips as American, non-ethnic foods. Your ethnic = low prestige dichotomy doesn't exactly work there.

Ethnic is a relative term. Japanese cuisine isn't ethnic in Japan, and polenta isn't ethnic in Italy. It carries no pejorative connotation.

"Even if the mainstream media isn't as high quality as it could be, its a lot more fun to read."

I have some reasons why the popular media, especially the least reputable and most sensational sources, gain traction with certain consumers:

(1) They are easy to understand, and therefore less intimidating to consumers' egos.

(2) They appeal to consumers' prejudices against various popular bogeymen , such as big business, the medical establishment, scientists, government, and the education system.

(3) They flatter consumers by telling consumers that they can know more than legitimate experts.

(4) They appeal to consumers' warm and fuzzy sentiments, such as the belief that nature is a benevolent intelligent force that takes care of people rather than indifferent and largely random, or the belief that society was kinder and safer in the "good old days."

Be especially skeptical of any source that invokes the trope that everything was hunky dory when everything was "natural," but then civilization came along and f***ed everything up. Remember that nature isn't really loving and caring. Nature did nothing to protect dinosaurs from annihilation, and it will do nothing to protect people from calamity, man-made or otherwise. Whether it's people against plague-infected fleas, people against a tsunami, or people against grizzly bears, mother nature doesn't have a dog in the fight.