Thinking about how Jane Austen's six novels taken together (in writing order, not publication order) become an increasingly scathing criticism of social class, i.e:
Northanger Abbey: Individual members of the gentry (General Tilney, chiefly) come in for some criticism, but mostly on a personal level: General Tilney is a grasping, tyrannical father to be sure but we hear little (though we might easily infer) of what he is like as the resident landholder. The final crisis of the novel, General Tilney's refusal to sanction Henry and Catherine's marriage, is resolved by Eleanor's marriage to a Viscount.
Sense and Sensibility: The "correctness" and "elegance" of the fashionable members of society- the Dashwoods, Robert Ferras, Lady Middleton- are negatively contrasted to the warmness and frankness of Mrs Jennings- whose kind-heartedness makes her more attractive, in spite of her lower-class origins and perceived vulgarity, than Fanny, Lady Middleton or Mrs Ferras (snr).
Pride and Prejudice: The aristocratic Lady Catherine de Bourgh is an interfearing busy body whose title and money only excuse her officiousness and rudeness. Darcy's pride in his superior situation to the Bennets leads him to act wrongly with regard to Bingley and Jane. Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, in trade, are more respectable- certainly better parental figures- than the gentleman Mr Bennet (and Mrs Bennet too). At the same time - Darcy's strengths are displayed in his undertakings as the resident landholder of the Pemberly estates- he supports the poor, and his situation allows him to shield the more vulnerable when he his spurred to act (Georgiana, to a less successful extent Lydia). Wickham's circumstances - debt, etc- could easily be read as the consequences of his wanting to step out of his place- his desire to be the oldest, or at least the second, son of a Mr Darcy- rather than what he 'is'- the son of Mr. Darcy's steward
Mansfield Park: Hey. HEY. look at the shitshow of a baronetcy. Lady Bertram is functionally useless. Sir Thomas is such a bad father that his daughters marry idiots just to get away from him. Also, having money can't give you intelligence or a personality. Most of "fashionable society" are actually miserable and mercenary and also probably immoralistic. The Church is clouded by corruption and isn't actively benefiting the local parish the way it should. The whole thing is underpinned by slavery, and the hardworking Price Children are ultimatley more deserving than the flighty Bertram ones. THAT BEING SAID: the portrait of Mr. Price is hardly better than the one of Sir Thomas, and Mansfield Park does stabilise- indeed, begins grows stronger with the reformation of its heir, and the implication that Fanny and Edmund go on to have children of their own. There is less of a quarrel with establishment, and more of a quarrel with the people who fill it.
Emma: "Gentility is inherent one can sense it in a person-" no you can't lmao shut up. There is literally no inherent difference marking out a gentleman's daughter and a farmer's daughter. Emma's snobbery as to class leaves her, at various times, both isolated and into some *serious* missteps. Emma and Frank Churchill both have a tendency to treat others as playthings, as their money allows them to do so.
Persuasion: The peerage/nobility are patently ridiculous throw them out in favour of [relative] meritocracy and hard workers. Sure, the resident landowners are supposed to be of benefit to those beneath them but they're not, actually, they take all of the privileges and fulfil non of the responsibilities and are pretty much uniformly selfish and our heroine Casts Them Off.
494 notes
·
View notes
imagine ganon, link and zelda all working together to find the best way to crucify the fucking koroks
Considering what Zelda canonically did with zonai tech, I like to imagine the monstrosities that she would create if she swapped roles with link and was running around carting koroks to their friends
80 notes
·
View notes
Let me tell you my problem with the Samadhi Fire.
So we're given a toddler who understandably throws tantrums and is emotional a lot.
Much like any other toddler.
But this really fucking strong fire is thrown into the mix.
Instead of trying to find ways to teach him how to be calm and control his fire better, they try to control him(as said by PIF, even their combined might could not control him) eventually they decide that they should take it away from him
Now remember what Red Son told Mei in the final battle? That she doesn't wield the fire, she IS the fire
Probably talking from experience.
So basically, they locked parts of this kid into rings.
Also the amazing parenting of DBK makes an appearance: he kept one of the rings.
Since he got a mountain on top of him he wasn't around that much, but he didn't know that would happen, so he fully intended to keep a part of his son on his person at all times, as a constant reminder to the kid that yeah that was ripped from him.
And he didn't even get it back???
I love Mei and i fully support her girbossing around, but it would have been such an amazing move towards Red Son's inevitable redemption arc if he was the one to use the Samadhi Fire in the final battle.
(His whole significance in JTTW was because of the Samadhi Fire, so it feels to me like this way of dealing with it was just an excuse to hint toward dragonfruit(which i feel is forced, but i explained that a bit more in another post))
(For some reason, I feel strongly for characters who got things taken from them, or got replaced, or any combination of the two)
(Dunno why)
91 notes
·
View notes