Mostly Jane Austen, favourite is Mansfield Park. Also JAFF. This is what happens when a very bored Cognitive Neuroscientist gets super into 19th century British literature? she/her Canadian
I write about Jane Austen because I love her works, but also because I write JAFF (Jane Austen Fan Fiction). I also really enjoy Anne Brontë, especially The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, George Eliot, and Elizabeth Gaskell, specifically Wives & Daughters.
I have two self-published novels, Prideful & Persuaded: A Jane Austen Crossover Romance and Unfairly Caught: A Mansfield Park Variation. You can find my free stories and other stuff here. I also write on AHA and AO3 under this same username. If you want a comprehensive list of every named character in Jane Austen’s six novels: here. (for Regency names in real life here), Mansfield Park probably isn't about slavery and Regency-ish household budgets
My Northanger Abbey readthrough can be found here
My Lady Susan readthrough can be found here
Link to my AITA Jane Austen posts
Link to find all my Jane Austen Charted posts
Link to find all my Why You Should Read This Jane Austen Novel posts
Objective (lol) hotness ratings for Jane Austen's heroes, heroines, and dubious men
Some of my favourite posts:
Estimated Sexual Abilities of Austen Men
First Kiss for each Austen Heroine Couple
Who would each Jane Austen Heroine stab?
The sluttiest thing a (Jane Austen) man can say
Each Jane Austen Hero Writes a “Wentworth Letter”
Fighting ability of Austen Men
If you want to learn more about my other life in science, check out this post.
My Asian drama sideblog Fake Married my Dead Fiance is here (this does not work on phones? just search fake-married-my-dead-fiance)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Thanks AI, the words and the picture are in direct contradiction. That really helps for answering the question.
Remember when Google actually gave accurate answers?
It's not actually intelligent. It cannot think. It cannot judge. It just spits out what it's stolen from others and sometimes what it has stolen is wrong.
Another odd thing I've found in Austen commentary, this time about "Sense and Sensibility": some people are convinced that Marianne is Austen's self-insert, a self-mocking reflection on her own adolescence, while other people insist that Elinor is much more like Austen, and that she might even be the closest to a self-portrait out of all her heroines. Now, of course it's a mistake to assume that any fictional character is the author's self-insert unless she actually says so. But which of those claims do you think is more likely true, if either?
I don't think any of Jane Austen's characters are self-inserts, though of course I can't say for sure since I didn't know her. I have heard multiple times that Austen's family said she most resembled Henry Tilney of Northanger Abbey. I think this might be in the biography written by James Edward Austen-Leigh (I don't really read biography). I do think Henry Tilney's voice is pretty close to that of the narrator.
The biography I have read said Jane Austen was a frivolous social butterfly as a youth, which sounds like neither Marianne or Elinor Dashwood. So I pick none! Both of the Dashwood sisters are pretty introverted, even though only one is self contained. I wouldn't use "social butterfly" to describe any Jane Austen heroine except maybe Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse. Marianne is a Romantic drama queen and Elinor is an Elder Sister.
As an side, one of the only books I've read where a character really felt self-insert is Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park by Micheal Crichton, but that's just a personal vibe. I don't go around basing analysis on it. I just think it's telling that when asked to write a sequel, he resurrected Ian Malcolm from the dead.
Authors probably put bits of themselves in every character, but that's just because they are human and we aren't completely unique.
Ann Radcliffe is KILLING ME right now in The Mysteries of Udolpho
Oh, she says, you want to know about Emily's escape from the castle? No, new character in final quarter of the novel, let's learn about Blanche and how much she loves mountains (why does everyone love mountains!?!)
Oh, you want to know about the ghosts and Ludovico? No, let me tell you the entire history of the book he's reading and what he's reading about. Like literally, how the housekeeper got her hands on this book, it's history of being damaged, and then her giving it to Ludovico and then HE READS IT AND YOU GET TO READ IT TOO. This story within the story goes on for like 3 pages
Why did I need to know that Dorothee found this book slightly damaged behind a bookcase? WHY!? GET TO THE GHOSTS
Ann Radcliffe you needed an editor SO BADLY
....
She also had the audacity to say that Emily was usually in better spirits and could enjoy things. WHEN? When Ann Radcliffe? Because I'm pretty sure she's been upset for the entire novel (not that she didn't have cause BUT STILL)
"If you think you have wronged me by giving me your friendship, and occasionally admitting me to the enjoyment of your company and conversation, when all hopes of closer intimacy were vain—as indeed you always gave me to understand—if you think you have wronged me by this, you are mistaken; for such favours, in themselves alone, are not only delightful to my heart, but purifying, exalting, ennobling to my soul; and I would rather have your friendship than the love of any other woman in the world!”
Gilbert Markham in Anne Brontê's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I just saw a comment on fb that ran off the misconception that dowries were a sexist subjugation of women for the purposes of buying and selling them like objects, and since this morning I would rather die than engage with a stranger on fb I'm going to talk on here instead about dowries as they were around Jane Austen's era/regency England.
Basically: dowries were an inheritance. It was a way to give a daughter what they would need to live comfortably at the time when they were most likely to need it - leaving their father's care and support and beginning a home elsewhere. In Austen terms we're generally talking about a sum of money, but dowries can also include items for a household like linens and China (goods like this were called a trousseau from at least the 1830s onward). Dowries very materially improved the life of a woman as they were meant to.
Some of the ways they did this were actually before marriage. We tend to call every inheritance a woman was to receive a dowry but that's incorrect, most of Austen's heroines don't have a dowry, though we know how much they'll inherit upon the death of their father and/or mother. Fortune =/= dowry. The Bennets of Pride and Prejudice, the Dashwoods of Sense and Sensibility, Anne Elliot in Persuasion, and even Emma Woodhouse in Emma all will inherit a little to a great deal of wealth but not as a dowry. This means that even Emma, who will one day have the staggering amount of thirty thousand pounds, would not be bringing wealth immediately into a marriage (though in her circumstances she has a father who would hardly let her live impoverished if she had chosen to marry a penniless man).
For women as poor as the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice (though they should've had more money each, if their parents weren't useless, as has been discussed) the distinction between dowry and eventual inheritance didn't mean much: a max of fifty pounds per annum in interest was literally less than what some servants were paid so couldn't alleviate the need for their husbands to have an independent income. But what money a woman could bring into a marriage definitely increased the likelihood of her preferences being realised. Northanger Abbey's Catherine Moreland, who "would have three thousand pounds" means she has enough of a fortune to "smooth the descent of [General Tilney's] pride" and make him consent to the marriage of his son to her. She certainly would've been glad her parents saved this money for her, instead of feeling that she was an object being bought or sold. It empowered her choices, rather than reduced them.
That the inheritance of a woman is presented as a dowry also reduces the chances a woman and the man she loves will need to wait to marry until either of them inherit something or he makes a living. If Anne Elliot of Persuasion had had a dowry, instead of a future inheritance (a "share of ten thousand pounds which must be hers hereafter"), would she have broken off that original engagement? In ch23 she tells Captain Wentworth she would've been engaged to him when he had only "a few thousand pounds" and the likelihood of more thanks to an advantageous posting. If she would receive her own few thousand pounds upon marriage would that've been enough to remain engaged from the first, and perhaps even marry once he had added a few more thousands to that instead of needing to wait for Wentworth to build their shared fortune himself?
We can also see that a dowry was an inheritance parents provided for their daughter's benefit, rather than a sale price, by how carefully marriage articles were drawn up. This could legally define pin-money (how much money a woman would receive for her private usage and upkeep from her husband), and often specified that the husband couldn't diminish the bulk sum of his wife's fortune, only use the interest it generated, so that there would always be something to support the wife and her children no matter how spendthrift he was. Think of it like an old-fashioned pre-nup or family trust.
This is a huge reason why eloping was so bad, it meant there hadn't been articles drawn up beforehand and so the legal default of 'everything the wife has is now the husband's in full' applied instead of the chance to preserve her rights to her own fortune. If Wickham had succeeded in eloping with Georgiana Darcy in Pride and Prejudice her thirty thousand pounds would've become his in full when she turned twenty-one, though her guardians could've withheld it before then, and he could've spent it all and left her penniless without legal consequence.
There are plenty of historical examples of husbands without the regulations of marriage articles squandering the fortune and selling off assets, leaving the wife eventually destitute. Marriage articles are a response to that as father's wanted to protect their daughters and her future children. It actually limited the power of a husband in favour of preserving the comforts and rights of his wife, so was opposite of misogyny (though the society and laws which required these extra protections was undeniably sexist and male-centred)
Nor was receiving an inheritance upon marriage a specifically female-only practice. Eldest sons would generally receive the bulk of their inheritance when their father died, but it was common in this time and for centuries beforehand for them to be confirmed as heir or given a set income from their father (or one of their father's lesser estates, if we're talking nobility and the ultra rich) as part of the marriage articles (which would generally benefit the wife for the remainder of her life, either as a jointure or dower). Younger sons, if not already provided for, could also be given something upon their marriage and may have a commission in the army or a church living bought for them, to give them some independence. In Sense and Sensibility, after accepting the engagement of Edward and Elinor, Mrs Ferrars gives her son ten thousand pounds "towards augmenting their income" and this allows the marriage to occur. No one accuses Mrs Ferrars of selling Edward off in matrimony, even though what she's doing is so similar to a dowry that the narration points out it's exactly what "had been given with [her daughter] Fanny".
Fortune hunters and those marrying purely for money and a comfortable lifestyle definitely existed, as they do now, but dowries were not a socially and legally mandated way to give women to men to benefit them financially. 'Mercenary' marriages were frowned upon, and women were taught to look out for fortune hunters (like Wickham). Nor was it considered only men who might marry primarily to benefit from their spouse's wealth (Charlotte Lucas being a sympathetic female example). That both men and women could have inheritances gifted upon marriage, and were represented as seeking to marry for money, helps show that the practice of dowries wasn't a sexist practice which reduces women to little more than livestock.
In fact, there's an argument to be made that the very existence of large dowries being a cultural norm indicates that daughters were valued and loved. Instead of leaving everything they could to the sons (which would be expected if daughters were worthless objects to be given away at any price) these daughters were considered worth saving for, worth drawing up legal contracts to protect the living standard of, and worth leaving an inheritance often equal or greater than what younger sons would receive (as they could earn their own income). A dowry didn't reduce the humanity of a woman, it empowered her choices and protected her future. It was the women without dowries or an inheritance that were in danger of needing to marry whomever would take them.
Vaguely related to your post about Darcy being socially able to marry the Bingleys, is there an argument to be made that he - for want of a better phrase - 'led Caroline on' prior to his falling for Elizabeth? They got on well and she was obviously into him - could expectations have been raised in wider gentry society?
In this case, I think Darcy manages to walk a fine line where he isn't raising Caroline's expectations, but she also isn't delusional to hope that one day he'll propose to her.
Darcy doesn't really respond to Caroline's obvious flirting. He does dance with her at the Meryton assembly, but he also dances with her married sister Louisa, though no one else. He seems to mostly enjoy mean girl gossiping with her.
From Caroline's perspective, it's not wedding bells, but for someone who is that taciturn to seem to enjoy hanging out with her, she has some rational hope. Both that Darcy might someday be interested in more with her and that Charles might be able to marry Georgiana.
It's in the contrast instead of outright encouragment that Caroline has hope and then later fear. When Darcy is distant from most people but close to her family, there is reason to hope. When Darcy starts being interested in Elizabeth and seeking her out to listen to and speak to her, Caroline gets jealous and worried. I think Darcy is very careful not to raise real expectations in either Caroline or Elizabeth until he finally gives in at Rosings.
As an aside, I do wonder if Darcy dancing with just Caroline and Louisa at the Assembly gave people in Meryton the idea that he already had a tacit understanding with her. They mostly dislike his rudeness, but rude and unavailable? Unforgivable.
I was just listening to a YouTube video about Jane Austen's life, and in passing, it suggested that the reason why mother/child relationships are so often distant in Austen's books (with the mothers either dead, absent, or incompetent) might be because of Austen's own class- and period-typical lack of childhood bonding with her mother: living with a village wet nurse as a baby, then having a nanny, and then going to boarding school. Do you think this link is likely true, or does it sound like an excessive attempt to link the art to the psychology of the artist?
I don't personally like to draw parallels between the author's real life and their novels, unless something is clearly semi-autobiographical (Agnes Grey for example). But I would also say that not all Austen mothers are dead, absent, or incompetent. Mrs. Jennings is quite active, visits her daughters frequently, and seems to have a very loving relationship with at least Charlotte and her son-in-law (Lady Middleton doesn't like her mom). Mrs. Dashwood in Sense & Sensibility may not be as prudent as Elinor, but she is loving and close with her daughters, especially Marianne. Mrs. Morland is mostly not around for Northanger Abbey, but seems to be very involved with her children. The Musgroves seem very close despite boarding school and Mary Musgrove seems to be around her kids a lot, if not directly taking care of them.
Also, I think sometimes we get arrogant in our modern ideas of parenting and think children would have felt unloved in the past. However, expectations would have been different and comparison would be different as well. Children would look around and see that the way their parents expressed love for them was similar to other families, so they probably wouldn't feel deprived. I remember even reading a study that 20 minutes per day of genuine bonding with a child is all they really need. The Austens visited their wet-nursed children daily as far as I remember. And children today still have deep bonds with their parents despite 6 hours of school and after school activities. Or not, if their parents suck. But parents will suck under any model of parenting.
I think Austen was just interested in how parents can prepare their children for life or drag them down. She avoids the popular orphan trope and instead focuses on the ways parents can affect their children while alive. If her heroines are half-orphans, she always kills the more competent parent... You know I don't think the relationships are really that "distant" at all. Mrs. Bennet is right there, muddling in her daughter's lives. Fanny Price is over-parented. The Dashwood girls are close with their mother... Anne was close to her mother and is very close to a mother figure in Lady Russell. Emma has a close female mother figure as well.
Anyway, I guess my general answer is no, I don't agree. Doesn't seem like a coherent theory to me.
It's so funny to me how people mock Caroline Bingley's social position while forgetting that if Caroline is so lowly and tainted by trade, her brother Charles would be too. If Caroline was unworthy of marrying Darcy (she isn't) than Darcy would not be staying at Charles's rented estate. "But friendship!" Please read Emma. Mr. Knightley might esteem Robert Martin, but he would never dine with him. He would never marry Robert Martin's sister. When Harriet marries Robert Martin, Emma and Harriet's friendship dies and becomes a relationship of distant respect.
In the upper classes of the Regency era, your friends were people you could theoretically marry. You visited people you could marry. Darcy wants his sister to marry Charles and that means it's possible for him to marry Caroline. You cannot have Darcy and Bingley as close friends unless they were close enough in social status for their families to intermarry. Caroline can't be disgusting trade trash if Charles is a particular friend. You cannot have it both ways.
Yes! But even if it was the Bingley's father, we know Mrs. Jenning's husband in Sense & Sensibility was in trade and his daughters married a baronet and a wealthy gentleman. They did the same thing as Caroline Bingley, went to a nice school and jumped into the gentry with large dowries.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Do you consider Caroline being called a “pick me” in modern terms reductive/inaccurate
No. I shall explain. Also, ug this term is horrible but this does actually come up a lot so I'll get into it.
Here is the top definition of a "pick me" girl from Urban Dictionary:
A pick-me girl is a girl who seeks male validation by indirectly or directly insinuating that she is “not like the other girls.” Basically a female version of a simp. Characteristics of a pick-me girl: lets men walk all over her because of her “CaReFrEE” demeanor, only hangs out with men because they’re “unproblematic”, exerts qualities/characteristics of her male counterparts that were not initially present to be more likable and relatable to them, etc.
Firstly, Caroline attempts to accuse Elizabeth of being a "pick me" girl
“Eliza Bennet,” said Miss Bingley, when the door was closed on her, “is one of those young ladies who seek to recommend themselves to the other sex by undervaluing their own; and with many men, I daresay, it succeeds; but, in my opinion, it is a paltry device, a very mean art.”
“Undoubtedly,” replied Darcy, to whom this remark was chiefly addressed, “there is meanness in all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation. Whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable.”
But back to Caroline. I don't think Caroline fits the modern definition because she does not set herself apart by claiming to be different from other women, her argument seems to be more that she's An Ideal Woman. Her criticism of Elizabeth's muddy walk is, "I, a proper woman, would never do that (neither would your well-mannered sister)." She tries to demonstrate that she's more elegant than Elizabeth by walking around the room together. We know that she has a fancy education and many accomplishments. We never see her play herself off as a tomboy or engage in male activities.
Mary Bennet is probably the strongest candidate for a "pick me" girl:
To this, Mary very gravely replied, “Far be it from me, my dear sister, to depreciate such pleasures. They would doubtless be congenial with the generality of female minds. But I confess they would have no charms for me. I should infinitely prefer a book.” (emphasis author's)
but she also doesn't have that aspect that engages in male pursuits.
Some people accuse Elizabeth Bennet of being a "pick me" girl because of this quote:
“My beauty you had early withstood, and as for my manners—my behaviour to you was at least always bordering on the uncivil, and I never spoke to you without rather wishing to give you pain than not. Now, be sincere; did you admire me for my impertinence?”
“For the liveliness of your mind I did.”
“You may as well call it impertinence at once. It was very little less. The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking, and looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused and interested you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable you would have hated me for it: but in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart you thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you.
However, Elizabeth was not trying to attract Darcy at all, she was borderline rude and acted unlike other girls because she genuinely disliked him. This was not a tactic.
Therefore, Pride & Prejudice contains zero "pick me" girls!
Another thing about the Elizabeth quote mentioned here: she’s not congratulating herself for being different from other women who tried to flatter Darcy. She’s being comically self-deprecating. She’s saying, “Admit it, Darcy: I was rude. You only liked it because you were sick of other women trying to suck up to you. If you were a lesser man, you would have hated me for it.”
personally I DONT think Jane Austen intended for Mr. Bennet to be paying Mrs. Bennet a genuine compliment when he said she was as beautiful as any of their daughters. He seems kind of incapable of paying his wife a real compliment.
BUT
I still think we should have MILF Mrs. Bennet. I think everyone should be like “damn” when they see her and then she opens her mouth and they’re like “oh”. I want them to go through the same process Mr. Bennet did, in a much shorter time frame.
I think Mr. Bennet is saying that Mrs. Bennet is still beautiful, but for him that wouldn't be a compliment. In his perspective, her beauty ruined his life. So it's probably like he's saying, "Mr. Bingley better watch out, your beauty STILL might tempt him into the worst marriage ever unfortunately."
and totally yes to the second statement. But I want her to also have a very sexy voice, that you quickly realize is spouting nonsense.
Yes to all of this! In some future adaptation, let’s have a youngish Mrs. Bennet (because honestly, if she married as young as Elizabeth does, she would be 44 or 45, and if she married as young as Lydia does, she would be just 39 or 40!), who may be slightly overweight (from giving birth five times), but otherwise is still stunning, so we see where Mr. Bennet’s mistake came from.
For that matter, give us a Mr. Bennet no older than 50, to reinforce that he married his wife out of blind youthful infatuation, and make him good-looking too, to reinforce that it was mutual. (Although of course the future Mrs. Bennet also had the motive of social climbing.)
personally I DONT think Jane Austen intended for Mr. Bennet to be paying Mrs. Bennet a genuine compliment when he said she was as beautiful as any of their daughters. He seems kind of incapable of paying his wife a real compliment.
BUT
I still think we should have MILF Mrs. Bennet. I think everyone should be like “damn” when they see her and then she opens her mouth and they’re like “oh”. I want them to go through the same process Mr. Bennet did, in a much shorter time frame.
I think Mr. Bennet is saying that Mrs. Bennet is still beautiful, but for him that wouldn't be a compliment. In his perspective, her beauty ruined his life. So it's probably like he's saying, "Mr. Bingley better watch out, your beauty STILL might tempt him into the worst marriage ever unfortunately."
and totally yes to the second statement. But I want her to also have a very sexy voice, that you quickly realize is spouting nonsense.
I know that during the regency era, propriety required a waiting period to get engaged/married when one was in mourning for a deceased husband or wife (a year, I think?), but was a waiting period also expected when the deceased was a parent or sibling? Did the circumstances matter? What if a parent or sibling died shortly before a wedding when the banns had already been read? Or after the engagement announcement but before the banns had been read? 
In short, yes, a morning period followed the death of a parent, sibling, national figure, or distant relation.
In Jane Austen's novels, we see that in Sense & Sensibility, the Dashwoods have a six month time jump between when their father dies and the story begins. This is likely to account for the mourning period, where the family was mostly at home together and not engaging much socially. When they move to Barton Cottage, it seems that going out and dancing is now fine.
In Persuasion, Elizabeth Elliot wears ribbons of mourning for Mr. Elliot's wife, despite them only being distant cousins. Mr. Elliot himself is wearing morning when Anne meets him in Lyme and in Bath (Both master and man being in mourning)
“My dear Mrs Smith, Mr Elliot’s wife has not been dead much above half a year. He ought not to be supposed to be paying his addresses to any one.”
Here is what I think about your more specific questions, if a woman's guardian died right before her wedding, it might just go ahead so that she could be under the protection of her husband, especially if her next nearest relations were a long way off. If a man's parent died, there would be less reason to move ahead and they may wait. Honouring your mother and father is an important Biblical commandment and most people during the Regency were Christians, so this isn't just a social custom, it was also a religious one.
So I think there would be no hard and fast rule, it probably depended on the exact circumstances surrounding the death and marriage. If the marriage was something the parent wanted to see before they died for example.
Anyway, here is a good summary of mourning periods, though it doesn't fully answer your questions:
Mourning customs in the Regency Era were less rigid than in Victorian England. The excessively strict mourning rules we often encounter in h
It's so funny to me how people mock Caroline Bingley's social position while forgetting that if Caroline is so lowly and tainted by trade, her brother Charles would be too. If Caroline was unworthy of marrying Darcy (she isn't) than Darcy would not be staying at Charles's rented estate. "But friendship!" Please read Emma. Mr. Knightley might esteem Robert Martin, but he would never dine with him. He would never marry Robert Martin's sister. When Harriet marries Robert Martin, Emma and Harriet's friendship dies and becomes a relationship of distant respect.
In the upper classes of the Regency era, your friends were people you could theoretically marry. You visited people you could marry. Darcy wants his sister to marry Charles and that means it's possible for him to marry Caroline. You cannot have Darcy and Bingley as close friends unless they were close enough in social status for their families to intermarry. Caroline can't be disgusting trade trash if Charles is a particular friend. You cannot have it both ways.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I am incredibly hesitant to recommend any unfinished series to anyone, especially as I have never seen you discuss webcomics, but I want to put Miss Pendleton on your radar. It's a very sweet period romdram set in the Regency about a woman named Laura Pendleton who, due to the circumstances of her birth, struggles to find her place in the upperclass. She makes her way for a while by matchmaking, and in this way befriends Ian Dalton, a somewhat reclusive and, of course, vastly wealthy gentleman whose friend is interested in someone she knows.
Typically historically-inspired manhwas go off the deep end in regards to plot for the sake of drama, but the author and the artist of this series both clearly seem to love the source inspiration, and as far as I can tell stay as accurate as they can to the ideas, visuals, and trials for a woman of that era. It's also just incredibly pretty. I would love to know what you think of it, if you do read it.
I have discussed webcomics/manhwas! I do read them. It's only 30 chapters so I will give it a read, but... I'm going to tear apart the historical accuracy so um, don't look below if you don't want to read that
I read the first 3 chapters and the style is very... eclectic? Miss Pendleton's hair is worn low and in a snood/decorative hairnet, which is more 1860 than Regency, even this example I could find of a beaded hairnet in the early 1800s is worn high, not on the neck:
1860s hair is more similar:
Some of the silhouettes give me vibes of the early 1900s, which is similar to the Regency silhouette to be fair but there are differences. This, the outdoors wear is so 1910 and not 1810:
Women wore high necked pelisses, not what looks like almost a male cravat and a low collar. That is 1900s, not 1800s.
Where did the empire waist even go??? This is very very 1900s
The men aren't wearing their coats, they love to show baggy sleeves in manhwas I've noticed... oh good, there is a coat.
Miss Pendleton cannot be a chaperone! She's unmarried! I mean I think an unmarried sister could chaperone informally for her sister or something (Jane Fairfax did for her friend), but formally? Every chaperone I've ever seen is a married woman or widowed.
Also, this:
Sorry, self-made men were not in vogue for the upper classes. Old money was where it's at (yes, I located the webnovel for this quote, it's 140 chapters + extras! I wonder if all of that will be made into a manhwa). So this is not the most eligible bachelor. He had to work for that, ew.
Anyway, I'll still see how it goes. I don't really mind the mixing of historical fashions in manhwas because they always look pretty so whatever.
Edit: A TYPEWRITER! Not until the 1860s. When is this set?
Also, 25 is not the age of spinsterhood, more like 35. In Regency England at least.
Sappy do you remember what the bad take about Frankenstein and Mary Shelley was please spill
found the post. to be fair to them. not the most egregious thing said on this post, but they did endorse the rest of it so.
ignoring "horny frat boys" being an insane way to describe percy, byron, and polidori, not to mention poor fucking claire lmao. theres a pervasive issue of people really wanting mary shelley's life and career to be a story of a woman being greatly underestimated and silenced by her (male) peers but persevering nonetheless and this idea is generally pushed in popular culture and by some ill informed biographers to the point that it is just no longer reflective of her actual experiences. i think people forget a lot that mary shelley existed in radical circles that, while not devoid of misogyny, had moved past the idea that women shouldn't have opinions and be writing and have lives outside of their relationships with men and who certainly were not discouraging her from pursuing a career in writing. she was deeply admired for being the daughter of wollstonecraft and godwin and then as a writer in her own right, and i think its sad that this idea that she was discouraged from pursuing writing by the men in her life, especially by her husband, is so pervasive because one of the most interesting things about her social group to me is the creative relationships built among them. people joke a lot that percy shelley is just remembered as the wife of the author of frankenstien as a diss on him but everything he is on record saying about her work implies that he would be fucking honored. they had a deep creative partnership and mutual admiration for one another's work that was much stronger than even their romantic relationship and its deeply frustrating how that is often disregarded and put down because people are so fixated on this stereotype of how they think 19th century women should exist that they dont let themselves engage with what her life was actually like.
also i dont even fucking like polidori but why are we acting like he didn't as part of this competition LITERALLY invent the modern vampire. like hello.
this post has been popping up in my notes again and yet still nobody seems to have noticed that i accidentally referred to percy shelley as mary shelley’s wife
