#mrs bennet critical | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

themalhambird · 11 months

Text

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.

#jane austen #class #its late okay i haven't neccessarily thought about it *thoroughly* but. y'know.#i thought #northanger abbey #sense and sensibility #pride and prejudice #mansfield park #emma #persuasion

494 notes · View notes

princesssarisa · 6 months

Text

Since @bethanydelleman has been posting about blatantly wrong statements that have been made about Pride and Prejudice (by one specific author, but that author isn't the only one who does it), I thought I would share a minor one I once read.

I once came across an online discussion of Mrs. Bennet, which (rightly) criticized the tenancy of fanfic to portray her as having abused Elizabeth all her life.

Amid the accurate arguments that just because Elizabeth is Mrs. Bennet's least favorite daughter doesn't mean she abuses her, there was one inaccurate claim. Someone wrote that we shouldn't assume Elizabeth is really Mrs. Bennet's least favorite daughter, per se, because Mrs, Bennet "only says it in a tantrum" after Elizabeth rejects Mr. Collins' proposal.

Except that's not true.

It's not Mrs. Bennet herself who says calls Elizabeth her least favorite daughter; it's the omniscient narrator. And not during Mrs. Bennet's anger about the rejected proposal either. On the contrary, the narrator says it when Mrs. Bennet happily thinks Elizabeth is going to marry Mr. Collins, as an explanation of why she was less excited about that pending marriage than about Jane and Bingley's.

Elizabeth was the least dear to her of all her children; and though the man and the match were quite good enough for her, the worth of each was eclipsed by Mr. Bingley and Netherfield.

While it certainly doesn't make Mrs. Bennet an abusive mother, the fact that Elizabeth is her least favorite daughter is canon.

That passage above might also undermine the popular claim that Mrs. Bennet is only being practical and trying to secure her own future and her daughters'. If this were true, then wouldn't Elizabeth's apparent pending marriage to Mr. Collins be her greatest joy, since it would ensure that she could still live at Longbourne with them after Mr. Bennet dies? Yet her response is effectively just "Meh... that's nice... but Jane and Bingley!" She doesn't seem to care much about it until Elizabeth makes it clear that it won't happen. I'm very much a proponent of "Both Bennet parents are bad in different ways," and just because Mrs. Bennet has some valid concerns and is treated badly by her husband doesn't mean she deserves much defense.

#pride and prejudice #mrs. bennet #tw: abuse mention

108 notes · View notes

bethanydelleman · 1 year

Text

Unconsciously Done: An Examination of Misogyny in the Treatment of Caroline Bingley in Jane Austen Fan Fiction

This essay is not meant as an attack on any specific author who writes JAFF. It is a criticism of a trend that is very strong in the genre and I find extremely problematic.

It is my firm belief that Jane Austen felt deeply for the plight of women in her era and that her books examine the difficult decisions that women were forced to make because of their secondary position in society. Jane Austen presents women to us who have little power and whose only hope in future provision and comfort lies in the whims of men. Moreover, Jane Austen never in her collected works, asks us to delight in the downfall or destruction of a woman. Given this context, I find it highly distressing and untrue to Jane Austen’s legacy that so often in Jane Austen Fan Fiction (JAFF), authors invite readers to celebrate the degradation of Caroline Bingley. This is a repugnant practice that both goes against the intent of Jane Austen’s works and by attacking a woman in particular is an unconscious display of misogyny.

After the Netherfield Ball, where the Bennet family shocks Elizabeth, Darcy, and Caroline with their vulgar behaviour, Caroline and Darcy agree that it would be better for Charles, Caroline’s brother, not to marry into such a family. Together, they go to London and convince Charles to remain there, away from Jane. Caroline writes to Jane to inform her of this. Later, when Jane follows them to London, Caroline cuts off the friendship, which lasted, we should remember, for only a few weeks. She also works to conceal Jane’s presence in London from her brother. She is aided in this endeavour, again, by Mr. Darcy. Her final act of the book is attempting to embarrass Elizabeth in company at Pemberley and then insulting Elizabeth to Darcy in private.

For the purposes of this argument, I will first lay out what the original Caroline Bingley does in the novel Pride & Prejudice. Caroline dislikes the unmannered inhabitants of Hertfordshire, specifically the Bennet family, a sentiment she shares with Darcy. They make fun of the Bennets behind their backs together in the first section of the book, along with Caroline’s sister Louisa. When Jane Bennet is sick at Netherfield, Caroline is not as attentive to her as Jane’s sister would like, despite spending several hours with her multiple times.

It is important to note several things. Firstly, none of Caroline’s actions cause lasting harm to anyone. In the end, Jane and Charles do marry. Secondly, Caroline is drawn by Jane Austen as a social-climber who is not above using artifice to reach her goals, but her actions are entirely rational within that context. Every action that Caroline makes is a logical expression of her two motivations, a wish to marry Darcy and a wish to see her brother marry well. Thirdly, Caroline is aided in nearly everything she does by Darcy himself. One could speculate that without Darcy’s interference, Charles would have returned to Hertfordshire as he planned. Darcy’s own words imply this, “with a stronger dependence on my judgement than on his own.” (P&P, Ch 35.)

The position of women in Georgian society is made clear through Jane Austen’s works. Women are dependent on their parents or guardians until they marry at which point they are dependent upon their husbands. There are only two acceptable options for women of the gentry, marriage or becoming a governess. When Charlotte Lucas submits to a marriage with Mr. Collins, we are told marriage was the only provision for well-educated young women of small fortune (P&P, Ch 22). Jane Fairfax, in Emma, is so upset with her the profession of governess, that she compares it to slavery (V 2, Ch. 18). Jane Austen is clearly of the opinion that a woman should marry for affection rather than only for wealth, but she acknowledges how difficult this line is to draw when marriage is so vital to a woman's life. Caroline is set up as a representation of a mercenary worldview in Pride & Prejudice. Like many other Jane Austen women, Mary Crawford (Mansfield Park, specifically her early interest in Tom Bertram), Lucy Steele (S&S), and Charlotte Lucas (P&P) for example, Caroline is pursuing a man for wealth rather than love.

Lydia Bennet is another woman whom Jane Austen, in the social morays of the time, could have condemned and invited us to hate. In Mr. Collins letter we hear the morality that would delight in a woman’s downfall, “The death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison of this.” (P&P Ch. 48). Yet again, the narrator does not invite us to treat Lydia with scorn. We are reminded of Mrs. and Mr. Bennet’s faulty parenting and that he ignored Elizabeth’s advice, we are reminded of the character of Wickham, and we are assured of Lydia’s future provision. Lydia will not fall into poverty because her two wealthy sisters will protect her. Her sisters do this despite the fact that they had the most to lose from her rash actions. This demonstrates an acknowledgement that all women, despite their faults, deserve to be protected.

It is important to note that while Jane Austen invites the reader to disapprove of these women who marry for money, she does not outright condemn them. Charlotte Lucas’s decision to marry Collins is explained with some compassion. The narrator notes that, “the boys were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte’s dying an old maid” (P&P, Ch. 22) which again reminds us of the importance of marriage for a woman’s future provision. Maria Bertram (Mansfield Park), who married for money and then committed adultery for love and whose actions are clearly condemned, is still allowed compassion. The narrator mourns that Maria must suffer more than her male counterpart for the offence, "In this world the penalty is less equal than could be wished” (MP, Ch. 48) and Sir Thomas spends a good deal of time blaming himself for not raising his daughter properly, “here had been grievous mismanagement” (MP, Ch 48).

Unlikely as it is for Jane Austen to desire further punishment for Caroline, it is more improbable that she would wish for men to exact that retribution. We are told in the history of Eliza Brandon, (S&S) how much power a man can exert over a woman in their guardianship. Eliza is confined to the house and allowed no pleasures until she submits to a marriage to a man who will treat her with cruelty and steal her fortune. This action is despicable and is presented as such. Yet, many authors write Charles Bingley exerting this same sort of control over his sister, or at least threatening it. They wish for him to cut off her allowance and thus financially constrain her behaviour. They have Charles threaten to disown his sister, who in such stories is under his guardianship, or sometimes even give her money away. Not only is this unnecessary, as Charles already can control his sister’s behaviour to an extent as we see during the visit from Mrs. Bennet when he “forced his younger sister to be civil also” (P&P, Ch 9), it is cruel.

It is unlikely therefore, that Jane Austen meant for us to hate Caroline or take pleasure in her imagined downfall. In the original novel, the ‘punishment’ Caroline receives is equal to her actions, she must endure seeing Elizabeth Bennet raised to the position of mistress of Pemberley. It is the same thing that happens to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who like Caroline, wants Darcy to marry for wealth rather than affection.

More distressing are the words used by characters in works of JAFF, mostly by men who in Jane Austen’s original works treat women with respect, about how Charles might control this “deviant” sister. These terms are often far harsher than anything used for the correction of Lydia Bennet, whom we know to actually be unmannered and wild. Proposals that Charles, “bring Caroline to heel” are repugnant. Caroline is a human woman, not a dog. However one imagines speech in the Georgian era, these are not words used by Jane Austen. Suggestions that Charles cast her out of the family home or be obliged to lock her up, when not said in jest, are terrifying. In this society, these things could happen and would be catastrophic to Caroline.

Even the mere suggestion that Charles should control his sister’s speech in in a start contrast our exaltation of Elizabeth’s lively manner. Jane Austen allows us to find Mr. Collins distasteful for suggesting that Elizabeth controls her tongue, “and your wit and vivacity, I think, must be acceptable to her, especially when tempered with the silence and respect which her rank will inevitably excite” (P&P Ch. 19). Yet, JAFF authors want Charles to do this to his own sister! Would it be in keeping with the morality of the creator of Elizabeth Bennet to have a man force a woman into silence? Jane Austen gave women voices and ideas in a time when that was counter-cultural, yet 21st century authors, most of them women, want to send Caroline back to the dark ages.

Some authors have this same abuse performed by a husband that Caroline unfortunately marries for money or through "compromise" (a common but likely ahistorical trope), only to find out he is cruel. There are stories that present this outcome as just instead of horrifying. Again, these are 21st century authors, relegating a 19th century woman to a cruel marriage in which she has few rights and little chance of honourable escape. Occasionally Caroline is married to Wickham, and instead of Elizabeth Bennet pitying the match, as she does for her sister Lydia, she often finds it funny or just. The idea that any woman deserves to be trapped in an abusive situation, or have her wealth stolen from her by a deceitful suitor, is again, repulsive.

The final degradation that Caroline faces is also the most troubling: authors repeatedly deprive Caroline of her rationality. Jane Austen’s Caroline is a rational creature, as are all the women that are depicted in her works. Good or bad, Jane Austen’s women are carefully rendered images of real life and they have motivations that guide their actions. Caroline’s two motives were discussed above and her actions are entirely rational based on her goals Even if we dislike Caroline’s reasoning and acts, we ought to respect her humanity. Unfortunately, many works on JAFF, in an effort to create a more villainous character, twist Caroline into an evil, insane, psychopathic version of herself, bent only on cruelty and hatred, without any clear goals.

As for authors who relegate Caroline to a life of perpetual dependence, Jane Austen herself only consigns a single woman to this fate, Miss Bates in Emma. Jane Austen treats Miss Bates with respect and kindness, creating a town around her that takes care of both her physical and emotional needs. Emma is admonished by Mr. Knightley for ridiculing Miss Bates before other members of the community. To Jane Austen, a woman in perpetual dependence should excite pity, not disgust or laughter. Miss Bates also is granted a voice and we, along with Emma, are encouraged to listen to her and respect her value as a person.

The reason that all of this is so disturbing and repugnant is because these words are written by modern authors, people who should understand how oppressive and wrong the subjugation of women was in the Georgian era. For those authors, many of them women, to attack a fellow woman with the very tools of the patriarchy that we have ourselves struggle to throw off and fight against is horrid. Jane Austen does not resort to these methods; Caroline Bingley is not bent under the power of her male guardians in Pride & Prejudice. The only woman who is, Eliza Brandon, is an example we are supposed to pity, not scorn.

Worse, Mr. Darcy himself is an active participant in almost every bad action of Caroline. Yet, while Darcy is forgiven completely, and often given excuses like shyness for his actions, Caroline is again and again vilified. It is a double standard of the worst kind and one that especially female authors should recognize as unfair and unjust. Yes, we do not see Caroline’s apology or reformation in Pride & Prejudice, but she is also not a main character. Many JAFF works almost seem to forget Darcy’s interference or rudeness towards Jane and the rest of the Bennet family. He is excused and Caroline is hated and destroyed.

Instead of a human with rational motives, JAFF authors imagine Caroline as a demon. Caroline becomes a playhouse mirror imagine of Elizabeth, who is often turned into a “Mary-Sue” or a picture of perfection. This Carrie-Sue (credit to Amelia Marie Logan, who coined the term) acts in a way that Caroline of Pride & Prejudice never would. Carrie-Sue attacks and insults people in public without motive, including her own brother; she continues to pursue Darcy after he is married; she continually attempts to “compromise” him; and she will do anything no matter the cost. She is a grotesque in the worst sense of the word and she is not of Jane Austen.

If there is one overall thesis of Jane Austen’s works, it is that women are rational creatures. Elizabeth Bennet and Sophia Croft (Persuasion) actually use that term explicitly, but every heroine in Jane Austen demonstrates this same theme. We see inside their heads and we understand their humanity. Even the women we are meant to despise display rationality. Fanny Dashwood of Sense & Sensibility for example, talks her husband out of giving money to his sisters because she is greedy. Lucy Steele lashes out against Elinor Dashwood because she is fearful of losing her one chance at financial security: Edward Ferrars. Mrs. Norris (Mansfield Park), probably the cruellest woman in Jane Austen’s works, abuses her niece because she cannot bear her own inferiority to the Bertram family. She relieves her own feelings of dependence by pushing her niece further below herself. All of the actions of these women are despicable, but they also follow cogent motivations.

This is especially problematic because it is almost always Caroline who faces this treatment. Wickham, a character who actually deserves the term “villain”, is allowed rational motives, most often lust, revenge, and greed. He is allowed to retain his humanity and his mind; it is a woman who is deprived of hers. As I have stated, I believe this is done without malice on the part of the authors, but I would ask them to reflect on every instance, for I know there have been many i their own lives, where another person has deprived them of their humanity based on their gender. It is a pervasive problem that persists in our modern society and we ought not perpetuate it in our works of fiction.

To conclude, Jane Austen does not delight in the destruction, humiliation, or subjugation of women. If we wish as JAFF authors, and as women, to honour Jane Austen’s legacy, then we should refrain from doing those very things and from depriving a woman of her rational mind. The treatment of Caroline Bingley in JAFF is a form of misogyny and as such it should be stopped. This is important because while Caroline Bingley is of course fictional, the representation of women in fiction can perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices in real life. Jane Austen wanted to tell the world, through her fiction, that women are humans worth listening to and worth respecting. Let us leave Carrie-Sue behind and allow Caroline Bingley to finally live in peace.

#caroline bingley #pride and prejudice #jane austen fan fiction #JAFF #people hating her only makes me want to defend her harder #women are rational creatures #even Caroline #even Lady Catherine #Jane austen never delights in a woman's destruction #not even Mrs. Norris is really punished that much #I call fanon Caroline a Screaming Bag of Evil #fictional women do matter #fiction can shape our biases over time and our expectations of how people act

210 notes · View notes

warrioreowynofrohan · 6 months

Text

I’m subscribed to Wildfell Weekly, so here’s some thoughts on the first three chapters of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I’ve read it before, so there are some very general spoilers for later events, but no specifics.

So, who is Gilbert Markham, from what we’ve seen so far? I would say that, on the whole, he’s a fairly average guy. He has a good relationships with his family; he has a job (important, as we will see later - Anne Brontë has strong opinions about the negative effects of idleness and privilege upon men of the gentry class); he has a pretty high opinion of himself; and he’s good with kids. He is decided not Byronic - his life to this point has been very normal and uneventful - whereas Mrs. Graham is the unconventional one with a mysterious past and distinctive looks.

He is a mix of the practical (looking at the Romantic scenery around Wildfell Hall, he thinks first in terms of its agricultural properties) and the romantic (he nonetheless spends a while looking at the house and daydreaming; and, while telling himself he doesn’t like Mrs. Graham, he powtically describes her “sweet, pale face and lofty brow, where thought and suffering seem equally to have stamped their impress”.

He and his social circle seem clearly of a lower social class than what we see in, for example, the novels of Jane Austen - none of Austen’s rural characters farm their own land, and all of them have servants. In Pride and Prejudice, Mrs. Bennet is offended by Mr. Collins’ assumption that one of her daughters cooked their dinner; their servants do that! Whereas Gilbert’s mother prides herself on her cooking and criticizes Mrs. Graham’s lack of knowledge in that area (which provides a hint towards Mrs. Graham’s background).

He has conventional opinions, and defends them determinedly against Helen’s equally determined advocacy of unconventional ones, and he’s very annoyed by how effectively she reveals the unconscious double standards buried in his views. Mrs. Graham’s views - that young men should not be expected to resist all temptation unaided, and that young women should not be sheltered even from the knowledge of evils, but that both should be aided by the experience of others - is the same that the author expresses in the Preface:

When we have to deal with vice and vicious characters, I maintain it is better to depict them as they really are than as they would wish to appear. To represent a bad thing in its least offensive light is doubtless the most agreeable course for a writer of fiction to pursue; but is it the most honest, or the safest? Is it better to reveal the snares and pitfalls of life to the young and thoughtless traveller, or to cover them with branches and flowers. O Reader! if there were less of this delicate concealment of facts - this whispering of ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace - there would be less of sin and misery to the young of both sexes who are left to wring their bitter knowledge from experience.

#the tenant of wildfell hall #anne bronte #helen graham #gilbert markham #wildfell weekly

52 notes · View notes

gothhabiba · 1 year

Text

I want to have conversations about Netflix's Persuasion that are very different from the ones I've seen. For the most part we seem to have retreated into a literary-textual discussion about what Jane Austen's Persuasion "means" or "is about" and how the adaptation differs from this "meaning" (in 'moral,' tone, composition, plot). At their best, these conversations take a socially situated view in speculating on why an adaptation (and all the people who go into making one) might have felt that changes in a specific direction were necessary or desirable in presenting Persuasion to a particular audience—at their worst (by which I mean: most mundance, least challenging), they merely catalogue how the adaptation is "different from" the text, including in terms of general historical inaccuracies, with a sense of indignation approaching to violation.*

I see people saying that the "modern" tone, dialogue, jokes, and narration style are out of place in what is supposedly (from dress, technology, and other details) a period piece—they specify that they don't mind modern adaptations (Clueless, even Bridget Jones' Diary is mentioned with generosity!) so long as they bill themselves as such (e.g. "if they wanted to make a modern adaptation, they should have just made a modern adaptation"). We don't expect a period piece to make such unabashedly modern jokes or references.

But why not? We are offended when our expectations of what a "period piece" is are transgressed against. But why? We insist that these modes of storytelling (the "period" and the "modern") must not be mixed. But why not?

Quotations of the more obviously "modern" concepts and turns of phrase in the dialogue are trotted out ("I'm an empath," "exes," "alone, in my room, with a bottle of red," "if you're a 5 in London you're a 10 in Bath")—but then we kind of stop there, as though it is enough to say that this sounds awkward in a period setting.

Of course it sounds awkward in a period setting—it's obvious enough that even the writers undoubtedly knew it sounded jarring and were doing it on purpose. So what might this instinctive recoiling from this type of period mish-mash tell us about what we usually hope to get out of period pieces? Obviously every adaptation is "modern" in that it is produced for an audience of the producers' contemporaries, and in that the sensibilities of the "original" will inevitably be shifted in a thousand ways more or less perceptible to us—so what we can we learn from the places where these shifts raise our ire, as opposed to the places where they go largely unnoticed (a shift to a modern concept of "romantic" love that removes much of the requirement of tutelage, for example—no adaptation that I know of has Mr. Bennet tell Elizabeth to look up to her husband "as a superior")?

Literary-critical-style analyses of the adaptation complain that it got Anne Elliot "wrong" (interestingly, the people saying this have pretty different interpretations of her character amongst themselves). I don't think this is untrue so much as I wish we could push this conversation further. Assertions that the adaptation "failed" assume what its goals were—but what can we deduce about the team's goals from interviews (which I admit I haven't read) or from the film itself? Why do these goals offend us so much? We have a feeling that an adaptation has to "respect" its source material (I recall one person in a youtube video essay baldly stating as much)—but why?

What happens when an adaptation does not respect its source material, in terms of literary or adaptation / book-to-film studies or in terms of the commercial marketplace for movies? How does this movie reveal its own assumptions to us? How does it reveal our assumptions to us? Has it stumbled onto anything clever in its attempt to be more, well... 'clever'? What's going on with the audience-addressing narration? What pitches and shifts does that produce? How does it compare to Austen's narration? Why is this kind of question fruitful or unfruitful to ask of an adaptation?

For anyone who doesn't already get it, this isn't a 'defense' of Netflix's Persuasion (nothing with so much money behind it needs me to defend it). I just wish we were asking more interesting questions!!!

*Of course the language of fandom is frequently self-consciously exaggerated and emotional, as well as based around collective rituals of sharing and commenting, assuming a framework and an idiom that is common to those of others in the same spaces, for fun. This kind of indignation is fun! I get it! As Elizabeth Bennet says, hating something is a spur to one’s genius. And some of these literary-textual discussions are genuinely insightful and convincing. There's nothing "wrong" with these discussions. They're just not exactly what I want to read and therefore I'm making that everyone's problem.

#Persuasion #Jane Austen #Anne Elliot #literature #adaptation #adaptation studies

99 notes · View notes

anghraine · 2 years

Text

Speaking of Charlotte Lucas—while I don’t ever like Mrs Bennet or have much patience for sweeping defenses of her, this scene always reminds me of just how deeply unpleasant I find her:

“I fancy she [Charlotte] was wanted about the mince-pies. For my part, Mr Bingley, I always keep servants that can do their own work; my daughters are brought up differently. But everybody is to judge for themselves, and the Lucases are a very good sort of girls, I assure you. It is a pity they are not handsome! Not that I think Charlotte so very plain—but then she is our particular friend.”

“She seems a very pleasant young woman,” said Bingley.

“Oh! dear, yes; but you must own she is very plain.”

Then there’s her reflection on Elizabeth marrying Mr Collins:

Elizabeth was the least dear to her of all her children; and though the man and the match were quite good enough for her, the worth of each was eclipsed by Mr Bingley and Netherfield.

167 notes · View notes

emilysidhe · 10 months

Text

Does anyone know if there’s been any historical literary criticism on why Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice is called “Mr. Collins”? Because if he’s inheriting the estate because it’s entailed away from the female line, then he must be descended through the male line, which means he and Mr. Bennet should have the same surname.

#pride and prejudice #meta

14 notes · View notes

jackoshadows · 1 year

Note

"A Darcy who falls in love with Jane Bennet is not the Darcy in the story Austen is writing. In the same way a Jon Snow who falls in love with Sansa Stark is not the Jon Snow in the story George R R Martin is telling. "

Yes, exactly. I was just talking to someone about this. Their Jon is not all the same character, I'm convinced none of them have read the books. There's no way one can read his chapters and come out of it saying he will fall for someone like sansa, he just loves warrior and independent women so much. Sansa is the exact opposite of what he wants. The fact that people put this ship on the same level as jonrya or jonerys just because he is related to these women is insulting and I'm not even a die hard jon stan.

As I mentioned in my previous ask, my interpretation of Jon has always been that he has a lot of respect and love for the characters who are proactive, the go-getters who decide what they want to happen and then actively work towards making that happen, the characters who don't settle but want more for themselves. You are right in that he does like the independent and aggressively proactive female characters.

And yes, I used the P&P example to highlight the absurdity of the Jonsa fandom. For the non ASoIaF readers, It’s like reading P&P and thinking that Darcy and Jane or even Darcy and Miss Bingley is the superior ship.

Imagine Darcy/Jane shippers hating on Lizzy for walking in all that mud to Netherfield park and all these essays on how Lizzy’s a NLOG undeserving of romance or how any criticism of Miss Bingley’s treatment of Jane and Lizzy is from women who have internalized misogyny or how we are against the Darcy/Jane ship because we are ‘sexist dudes’ who hate beautiful, girly girls.

Imagine these shippers arguing that Darcy/Jane is what is actually happening in the books and not Darcy falling for Elizabeth. That every interaction that Darcy has with Elizabeth is actually telling us something about Darcy and Jane. And that Jane and Mr. Bingley is actually just a stepping stone and foreshadowing for Jane and Darcy happening.

For ex., take this bit in the book:

"To walk three miles, or four miles, or five miles, or whatever it is, above her ankles in dirt, and alone, quite alone! What could she mean by it? It seems to me to show an abominable sort of conceited independence, a most country-town indifference to decorum."

"It shows an affection for her sister that is very pleasing," said Bingley.

"I am afraid, Mr. Darcy," observed Miss Bingley in a half whisper, "that this adventure has rather affected your admiration of her fine eyes."

"Not at all," he replied; "they were brightened by the exercise." A short pause followed this speech, - Pride and Prejudice, chapter 8

Imagine reading the above and interpreting that as Darcy talking about Jane’s eyes, not Elizabeth’s. That while saying the above, in his mind he is thinking of Jane up above in her room. Anyone would think this person is living in cloud cuckoo land right? This is precisely how normal asoiaf readers feel about the Jonsa fandom.

Imagine these shippers saying that Darcy is not attracted to Elizabeth’s intelligence and wits, no he is attracted to snobby Miss Bingley’s love for rules and propriety or to Jane’s beauty and sweet, gentle nature.

Imagine if someone argues that a true Darcy fan would only ship Darcy and Jane, that Darcy and Jane was what Austen intended all along and that’s what happened off page...

The thing is that no matter if some shippers want Darcy and Jane Bennet to be in a relationship, for Jane to get the beautiful grounds of Pemberley and a handsome husband and children or they ship Darcy and Jane together because Jane’s more beautiful than Elizabeth and sweet and gentle and therefore deserves the traditionally happy ever after ending compared to Elizabeth who walked miles in the mud and is therefore a ‘not like other girls’ type, not marriage material - no matter all this, the central relationship in the book from start to end is between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet!

Darcy is not subconsciously thinking of Jane or Miss Bingley all the time, he’s interacting with Elizabeth Bennet. He’s attracted to Elizabeth’s mocking of the rules for ladies, to her pretty eyes brightened by walking miles in the mud, by her opposing him and arguing with him and matching wits with him. All the while, the more beautiful Jane’s right there. Again, TO MAKE DARCY FALL IN LOVE WITH JANE, ONE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE DARCY’S ENTIRE PERSONALITY. THIS WOULD THEN NO LONGER BE MR. DARCY.

To ship Jonsa, one has to change Jon’s entire personality and story right from AGoT, Chapter I. They have to remove all the themes about underdogs and valuing the person instead of giving importance to societal prejudice from his story. They have to remove his important relationships with Arya and Sam Tarly. These relationships are important because it defines who he is as a character, makes him a fully realized three dimensional character. They have to make him pathetically self loathing. Take away his self esteem and self worth. Remove his entire arc with the Freefolk. Make him a side character in Sansa Stark’s story of being QITN (Like the TV show did), instead of a politically savvy strategist main character with identity issues and being instrumental to dealing with the threat from beyond the Wall.

The only way anyone is going to ship Jonsa is if they skip all of Jon’s chapters, have never read the books or deliberately misread or misinterpret the text to try and shove one’s nonsensical crackship in there.

#asks #anti Jonsa

45 notes · View notes

keirainaustenland · 2 months

Text

I created this template of two dogs making “caught off guard” or embarrassed expressions to emphasize my own feelings when I read the part in Mr. Darcy’s letter where he insults the behavior of Elizabeth’s entire family. He says that, “the situation of your mother's family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison of that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly, betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father. -- Pardon me. -- It pains me to offend you.”

The left side shows a dog with a somewhat apprehensive and polite expression, with the text "Roasting Lizzie's whole family." This refers to the part of the novel where Mr. Darcy writes a letter to Elizabeth Bennet (Lizzie) after she rejects his marriage proposal. In the letter, he explains his actions and also, quite frankly, criticizes her entire family's behavior, though he does so with a mix of directness and restraint, similar to the polite apprehension shown on the dog's face.

My reaction was closer to the second dog’s face – I was cringing internally when I read this, and wanted to tell Darcy that maybe the way to a woman’s heart is not pointing out how distasteful you find her loved ones. We are all rooting for you Mr. Darcy, but don’t offend her if you want to get a yes to your next attempted proposal!!

While doing research for this scene, I found a website, Shmoop, that has created a scale for “Pretentiousability” that you will be charged with if you were to quote any line given from a novel. The line “until then I never knew myself” (stated by Elizabeth Bennet after reading Darcy’s letter) was given a 4/10. The writer explains that it is always a little pretentious to quote a classic novel, but since it is self deprecating it is less of an offense. I thought this was just a funny and silly website discussing Jane – and wanted to bookmark and make sure to reference it before my next dinner party of course.

Elizabeth Bennet’s revelations made after this letter were definitely pivotal to understanding Austen’s intentions with both titles of the novel, her first draft being titled “First Impressions” and the second being “Pride and Prejudice.” Elizabeth becomes aware of her own pride and prejudices that she held towards Mr. Darcy based on her (incorrect) first impressions of him and is very embarrassed at herself. Lizzie is beside herself, stating,

“She grew absolutely ashamed of herself. -- Of neither Darcy nor Wickham could she think, without feeling that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd.``How despicably have I acted!'' she cried. -- ``I, who have prided myself on my discernment! -- I, who have valued myself on my abilities!”

Noting the use of the words “prejudice” and “prided,” referencing the title in a very satisfying way, Jane Austen reveals her declaration to always be careful when assuming things based on a first impression. However, I still think Mr. Darcy should have watched his manners and not insulted her entire family. But I guess his appeal is in his honesty?

2 notes · View notes

justzawe · 2 years

Text

Zawe Ashton Is Manifesting Her Future

Thrillist has coffee with the 'Mr. Malcolm's List' actress as she heads into Marvel stardom.

When Zawe Ashton walks into La Bergamote, a small French café in Chelsea with fruit pastries gleaming in a glass case, she's bubbly and enthusiastic. "I was here in 2019," she calls to the proprietor. The British actor and writer is feeling a bit overwhelmed by nostalgia. She lived up the street when she was starring in the acclaimed revival of Harold Pinter's Betrayal opposite her now-fiancé, Tom Hiddleston, and Charlie Cox which closed in December 2019, shortly before Broadway shut down due to COVID-19.

"I came here every single day, and this became part of my ritual of doing the show. The chocolate mice they do, I welled up just then when I saw them again because they felt like such an iconic part of my experience here," she says, referencing a truffle-and-cookie delicacy. "And of course, what makes it all the more emotional is the fact that this is also the Before Times for me."

Three years and a pandemic later, Ashton is back in New York, this time promoting Mr. Malcolm's List, a Regency romance where she plays the scheming Julia Thistlewaite, a daft but conniving woman who plots to take down the titular Mr. Malcolm (Sope Dirisu), an eligible bachelor, with help from her goodhearted friend (Freida Pinto). She is delicious in the film, a delightful bit of Regency escapism directed by Emma Holly Jones. Ashton is open about the fact that she was third in line to play Julia: Gemma Chan starred in the short, a test run for the feature which got the go-ahead after the success of another diversely cast Austenian spin, Bridgerton. Constance Wu was initially slated for the role before Ashton was called to step in at the last minute on the suggestion of Pinto. "We'd worked together a couple of years ago, and so she was like, 'Can we finally just try Zawe?'" she says. "The script came across my desk and I had about 24 hours to say yes or no.”

Ashton has been acting since she was a child and has fallen in and out of love with it, but she's on the precipice of even greater fame. Next year she'll appear in the Captain Marvel follow up The Marvel. She can't say who she's playing, but it's been reported she's a villain. For now, she's a different sort of baddie in the charming romantic comedy, out in theaters now. "What is right on brand for me, which I keep realizing, is she is very much the antihero of the piece," she says, digging into a shiny strawberry tart. "People are loving to hate Julia, which makes me feel really happy."

Ashton has thought critically about her work as an actor, even writing a semi-autobiographical novel called Character Breakdown, so she has been long conscious of the tradition of overbearing whiteness in British period adaptations. Even though she could read the novels and see herself as an Emma, for example—"Lizzy Bennet is not me," she says—she was never cast in the endless parade of BBC adaptations.

"There's been a lot of unpacking, having now sat down at the table," she says. I ask her to elaborate: "Well, my first costume fitting, for example. I put on a corset and a bonnet and these little silky slippers, and I felt so soft and tender and aspirational and was transported to this world that peers of mine had been transported to millions of times. And I found myself thinking, 'Why would anyone not think I was capable of this softness and sweetness?' Because this is an aspirational genre. We weren't there. We're making it up."

Coincidentally, Ashton had been seeking a break in reality. "Just before Malcolm's List came in, I'd said to my manager, 'Get me in a corset,' after seeing Bridgerton," she says. "It was a throwaway comment. And just before that, I'd had a frustrated rant about the industry and its expectations, and I was like, 'I just feel like I should only play characters that are seriously fictional. I shouldn't play real people, I think I should find a niche where I play people not from this realm.'" Then The Marvels came along.

After Betrayal, Ashton had her agent set up meetings with underrepresented directors. She was more interested in finding people to work with than projects to work on. One of those filmmakers was Nia DaCosta, whose indie Little Woods had yielded a gig directing the new Candyman. They bonded over their love of Austen's Persuasion. And then DaCosta was tapped to direct the Captain Marvel sequel and called up Ashton.

Ashton, of course, had been adjacent to the MCU in Betrayal, given that Hiddleston is best known as Loki and Cox was Netflix's Daredevil, but she wasn't really versed in the material. "It sounds so disrespectful because you should always watch your costars' work when you go to work with them," she says, but she was a fan of their theatrical performances and Hiddleston's work in The Souvenir auteur Joanna Hogg's early films. For Halloween, Cox and Hiddleston decided to swap roles and dress as their respective characters. Ashton donned a blonde wig and went as Captain Marvel, but she had never seen the movie—or any of the movies outside of Black Panther.

"We all just sat down as a cast and looked at the costumes that were going to be available in time for Halloween," she says. "I was like, 'This outfit is cool, I'm definitely going to wear this.' And obviously was a huge Brie Larson fan in her other work, but that was a random manifestation." When her part in The Marvels was announced, the Halloween photo spread across the internet. She's since gotten caught up with the MCU, but still wasn't fully aware of what she had gotten herself into. "I didn't think it through," she says. "I just knew that I wanted to serve Nia."

The clash of fantasy and reality is a theme in Ashton's life right now. The night before we speak, she attended a special screening of Malcolm's List wearing a stunning jeweled Sabina Bilenko Couture gown that gave her the aura of a goddess. Her getting ready process was featured in a Vogue story that doubled as a pregnancy announcement. Some time into our conversation, I ask her about feeling as if she had to reveal her pregnancy with the media attention around her relationship.

"Maybe me a few years ago would have said something different, but I don't feel like I have to do anything," she tells me. "And we're having really important conversations that will help us out of very, very disturbing times about women and their own power and autonomy over their own bodies. That can also be a mindset. So I feel very autonomous in myself at this point in my life." If she can make some kind of statement by appearing pregnant on a red carpet, she will.

As we wrap up, she gets a container for her fresh berries to-go and sweeps out into the Chelsea streets in the billowing dress with flowers growing out of its seam. It's something out a fairytale, just like Mr. Malcolm's List.

"We've had such a difficult, bleak couple of years, and there is just something extremely pure about [the Regency] era and peoples' intentions, and also the tropes that run through these pieces," she says. "There will be enemies becoming lovers. There will be romance, there will be someone who's desperately trying to marry for love rather than position. It's a bit like going to your favorite café every day rather than switching it up." Perhaps even a place like La Bergamote. (x)

#zawe ashton #thrillist #article #interview #mr. malcolm’s list #the marvels #mml promo

57 notes · View notes

princesssarisa · 2 years

Text

Quick reminder, because some Pride and Prejudice fans seem to think otherwise and criticize Austen for it:

Mr. Bennet doesn't call Mary "silly" because she's less social than her sisters or because she's a bookworm. If he did, that would be very hypocritical of him! He calls her "silly" because she's she's a pretentious, preachy bore who always tries to show off her intellect and accomplishments, which she thinks are greater than they are.

That doesn't mean we can't sympathize with her or relate to her. She behaves the way she does to try to compensate for her lack of beauty, and to gain the attention she rarely gets either from society or from her family. And of course Mr. Bennet is wrong to just write off Mary, Kitty, and Lydia as "silly" instead of giving them real parental guidance – this is the lesson he learns after Lydia runs off with Wickham. But Mary is a comic character, not just a relatable and unfairly judged nerd.

#pride and prejudice #mary bennet #mr. bennet #fictional characters

214 notes · View notes

bethanydelleman · 7 months

Text

Northanger Abbey Readthrough Ch 12

Mrs. Allen, true to her character, says two lines in this chapter and they are both about gowns.

“Go, by all means, my dear; only put on a white gown; Miss Tilney always wears white.”

“My dear, you tumble my gown,” was Mrs. Allen’s reply.

Such a cute line:

This novel is always making me go AWWWWWWWW

Anyway, we begin with Catherine running over to the Tilney's residence to apologize and explain herself. Now during a morning visit, a person can "not be home" even if they are if they don't want to see someone, so when Catherine sees Miss Tilney shortly after she calls, she assumes this is a snub (we later learn it's actually because the General doesn't like being kept waiting).

Catherine knows this is an insult, but she isn't exactly sure what to make of it:

Catherine, in deep mortification, proceeded on her way. She could almost be angry herself at such angry incivility; but she checked the resentful sensation; she remembered her own ignorance. She knew not how such an offence as hers might be classed by the laws of worldly politeness, to what a degree of unforgivingness it might with propriety lead, nor to what rigours of rudeness in return it might justly make her amenable.

Again, we see that unlike Marianne Dashwood, Catherine has a really hard time dwelling in her disappointment, "She was not deceived in her own expectation of pleasure; the comedy so well suspended her care that no one, observing her during the first four acts, would have supposed she had any wretchedness about her."

Now when she sees Henry Tilney and he gives her such a short bow, she thinks he's very angry with her. However, we do know from later in the book that Henry turns into a different person around his father, so that may be some of the explanation for his sour expression. He does, however, come to see Catherine at her box and she immediately explains herself, borrowing an expression from Miss Thorpe, "I had ten thousand times rather have been with you"

We find out that Eleanor Tilney has been in just as much anxiety to explain herself as Catherine has been! Eleanor is clearly shipping Henry and Catherine already (AS SHE SHOULD!).

Then we get into this little bit about Henry Tilney having no right to be angry. I think the point here is that she hasn't made any promises to him really, so he can't be jealous of her time. This is very non-presumptuous, unlike Mr. Elton in Emma, who at the Weston's party tries to assert control over Emma's movements (telling her not to visit Harriet). My point is...

The way Austen has with words is amazing, "He remained with them some time, and was only too agreeable for Catherine to be contented when he went away." So understated but also so cute! This novel is just SO CUTE!

It'd be cuter if stupid John Thorpe wasn't back. Now we know from later that this is a critical moment, John tells the General that Catherine is the wealthy heiress of the Allen's fortune. On this information, General Tilney will instruct his son to "seduce" Miss Morland (to marriage). This also explains the invitation to Northanger.

Now, we know that Henry and Eleanor are confused by their father's interest in Catherine, but I don't think they know exactly how wealthy she is either. Henry does clarify that Catherine has never been abroad when she mentions the countryside of France during their country walk. We can assume that Catherine has been very honest about her family situation. I think John Mullen talks about how Catherine doesn't even seem to really know how wealthy she is. When it comes to reality, a dowry of £3000 isn't the best, it's not bad. (cough cough, did you see how a clergyman with ten children managed to save for dowries MR. BENNET?! cough)

John Thorpe tells an entirely ridiculous story about beating the General at pool (I doubt this happened) and then says again, that General Tilney's "as rich as a Jew", which is apparently his favourite phrase to use with rich people. Then John attempts to flirt with Catherine but she is having none of it, she's only happy that General Tilney likes her.

#northanger abbey readthrough #northanger abbey #john thorpe #general tilney #jane austen #catherine morland

45 notes · View notes