I've been looking over 19th century and early 20th century illustrations for Pride and Prejudice, and I can't help but notice something. The tradition that we see in almost all recent adaptations of a brunette Elizabeth and a blonde Jane is basically non-existent.
Hugh Thomson, 1894
Light haired Elizabeth, dark haired Jane.
Henry Brock, 1899
Strawberry blonde Elizabeth, brown haired Jane.
Of course he's also the illustrator who gave us the remarkable sight of a strawberry blond Darcy.
Charles Brock (Henry's brother), 1895
Light haired Elizabeth, dark haired Jane
Though to be fair, in 1907, he did a new set of watercolor illustrations which were completely different from his earlier drawings, and which give Elizabeth black hair and Jane light golden brown hair.
Arthur Wallis Mills, 1908
Both brunette, but Elizabeth's hair is a lightish golden brown, while Jane's is a rich auburn.
This rule also seems to apply to the adaptations that came before the 1995 miniseries.
The 1940 film has redhead Greer Garson as Elizabeth and dark haired Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane, for example (of course the film is in black and white, but I found a color production still of Garson)...
...and the 1980 miniseries has golden brown haired Elizabeth Garvie as her namesake and dark haired Sabina Franklyn as Jane.
Yet nowadays, if Elizabeth isn't a brunette and Jane a blonde, there are fans who cry blasphemy!
Is it all because of the 1995 miniseries? Did that series' popularity change everything?
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
When the 1995 film of Sense and Sensibility was released, were there any people ranting (in whatever capacity they could, obviously not online) about the fact that Emma Thompsonās Elinor had strawberry blonde hair?
I can just imagine some people being outraged. A reserved and stoic character canāt have any trace of red in her hair! Red, auburn, strawberry blonde, chestnut, et al, are for fiery characters only!
I was just thinking of when Greta Gerwigās Little Women came out and Eliza Scanlenās strawberry blonde Beth was revealed. I remember one Tumblr post snarling with rage over the fact that the movie made Beth a āf*cking redhead!!!ā because supposedly that color was grossly out of character for her.
Iāve been watching some videos on Jane Austen from the YouTuber āEllie Dashwood,ā and she offers an interesting viewpoint on Mary Bennet as Pride and Prejudice portrays her.
She argues that in the Bennet sisters, we see a spectrum of conservative behavior vs. liberal behavior. Now obviously, in modern times, we tend to favor liberal behavior, but in the Regency era, a total disregard for convention and decorum would mean disgrace. Yet Austen wasnāt on the side of total conservativism either.
So on the far liberal side, we have Lydia and Kitty, who disregard any sense of propriety, politeness, and conventional morality, and just do what they feel like doingā¦ especially Lydia, which nearly brings her family to ruin. Mary, by contrast, is the other extreme: a rigidly conservative girl, who tries to compensate for her plain looks by being the perfect refined young lady in every other way (studiousness, accomplishments, a lack of any āfrivolityā) and who preaches conservative morals to anyone who will listen. Our heroines Elizabeth and Jane are the happy medium, not liberal enough to be shameful, yet not conservative enough to be priggish, but just right.
In the same video, Ellie Dashwood claims that maybe this is why Fanny Price of Mansfield Park is such a divisive heroine and so widely labeled āpriggishā and āprudish.ā All the other young female characters in that book are more liberal than she is, so with her as the heroine, that book seems to present a more conservative worldview than Pride and Prejudice or Austenās other popular novels do. Maybe if there had been another female character more conservative than Fanny, then Fanny would be more widely liked by readers, because she would come across as more of a happy medium. Since I havenāt read that book, I donāt know if I agree or not, though.
This is an interesting way of looking at the Bennet sisters and especially Mary, though.
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
Do you consider Caroline being called a āpick meā 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 ānot like the other girls.ā Basically a female version of a simp. Characteristics of a pick-me girl: lets men walk all over her because of her āCaReFrEEā demeanor, only hangs out with men because theyāre āunproblematicā, 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
āEliza Bennet,ā said Miss Bingley, when the door was closed on her, āis 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.ā
āUndoubtedly,ā replied Darcy, to whom this remark was chiefly addressed, āthere is meanness in all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation. Whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable.ā
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, āFar 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.ā (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:
āMy beauty you had early withstood, and as for my mannersāmy 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?ā
āFor the liveliness of your mind I did.ā
āYou 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: sheās not congratulating herself for being different from other women who tried to flatter Darcy. Sheās being comically self-deprecating. Sheās saying, āAdmit 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.ā
Someone looked at the plot point Toy Story 5 of Bonnie being cyberbullied for still playing with toys and called it ānot like other girlsā propaganda!
They actually said this about a gender-neutral storyline, where the characters involved just happen to be female!
Itās just amazing how much conformity is being promoted now and being called progressive! A little girl character canāt even be a misfit and deal with realistic bullying and peer pressure from other little girls anymore, or they accuse the movie of being āsexistā! It seems that nowadays weāre not allowed to sympathize with any female character who doesnāt fit in ā or if we are allowed to sympathize with her, at the same time we have to view her as in need of learning to conform ā because that means we think sheās better than everyone else just for being different!
I understand the instinct to write fiction that "deconstructs" a popular fictional heroine.
When there's a heroine of a well-known story whom everyone loves and considers a role model, but she's completely different from you and you know you'll never be like her, it makes sense to want to tear her down a little bit. Especially if she has flaws that her fans tend to ignore, or if there are supporting characters or other stories' heroines whom you like just as well if not better, but whom the fandoms either ignore or bash for not being like her. So it makes sense to want to write either (a) original fiction with a heroine who's more like you, with a character similar the popular heroine portrayed as more flawed, or (b) a perspective flip of the popular story that makes a different character the protagonist and frames the original heroine in a less positive light.
But sometimes, the popular heroine's flaws are already acknowledged in the original text, maybe even to excess; just because the fandom forgets them doesn't mean we should judge her more harshly than the already judgmental original author did. And maybe more importantly, sometimes in her original story, that heroine was a misfit or an underdog; maybe she was written to deconstruct an earlier concept of who "deserves" to be a heroine.
In one of the fantasy stories I write just for fun (which I might try to publish someday), I originally had a supporting character who was modeled after Jo March in Little Women. I didn't portray her very positively, because I wanted to highlight Jo's flaws that pop culture tends to overlook and to point out that other girls like her sisters are just as worthy to be heroines. But then I had second thoughts. Pop culture may sometimes overlook Jo's flaws, but Jo's creator and real-life counterpart Louisa May Alcott certainly didn't! Alcott is sometimes very self-deprecating in her portrayal of Jo! Maybe too much so. And among the Little Women fans whose favorite March sister is Amy and who passionately defend her online (a cause I support), I see them take bad faith interpretations of Joās character that arenāt the way I read her at all, and basically shame her for being a tomboy. I finally decided that Jo has been deconstructed enough.
So I made some changes to that character in my story and decided to model her after Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice instead. Goodness knows, the Austen fandom has always idealized Elizabeth too much, and sometimes been nasty about other Austen heroines (e.g. Fanny Price) because they're not feisty or witty like she is. And since Elizabeth is much more ladylike then she's often remembered as being, deconstructing her a little wouldn't feel like tomboy-shaming. But now Iām having second thoughts about this choice too. In certain parts of the Austen fandom, it seems to be popular nowadays to accuse Elizabeth of being "mean" ā to Darcy, to her sisters, to Charlotte, or to anyone she ever has a negative opinion about ā which most of the time just isn't true. I've also been concerned about what Iāve read of Elizabethās portrayal in The Other Bennet Sister, and how it frames her as something of a privileged foil to her underdog sister Mary. Because I realized that the original Elizabeth is an underdog in her own right: not compared to Mary, but compared to Jane. Unlike her older sister, who is more traditional heroine material, sheās not a model of beauty, gentleness, sweetness, or good manners: sheās outspoken, sassy, and cynical, rich people talk behind her back about her unfashionable manners, she has actual flaws and character development, and even her own love interest finds her looks only ātolerableā at first. Part of Austenās whole point in creating her might have been to make a heroine out of a girl who wouldnāt normally be one.
For a similar reason, I have misgivings about people who want to deconstruct Emma because of how āunlikableā Emma is: for example, Andrew Daviesā planned sequel with Jane Fairfax as the heroine, which he wants to do because, in his opinion, āJane Fairfax is the real heroine of Emma.ā Some Austen fans argue that this is missing the whole point, because Jane Fairfax is the girl who traditionally would be the heroine. What makes the novel unique is that a character like Emma would typically be the "mean girl," foil to the heroine, Ć la Caroline Bingley or Mary Crawford, but instead she is the heroine, and is made likable despite her flaws and allowed to grow and change.
Writing new heroines who break the mold of what heroine "should" be? Fantastic! Let's keep that time-honored tradition going strong! But tearing down the heroines of previous generations, whose flaws are already laid bare in the original text and whose "failure" to fit the mold of an "ideal" heroine was part of the whole point of their creation? I'm now having second thoughts about that.
Some pointless theorizing about the "Toy Story" timeline
In Toy Story 3, early on, Andy is said to be seventeen years old. But he's about to go away to college, which normally happens at age eighteen. Explanation?
Well, Andy is a smart boy, so in theory, he could have skipped a grade. Or he might be just about to turn eighteen.
But how likely is the latter? Andy has a summer birthday. The original Toy Story takes place in the summer: we know this because (a) the toys are surprised to see Sid home early from summer camp, and (b) Andy, Sid, and Hannah are all out of school. And the plot's inciting incident is Andy's birthday party, where he receives Buzz Lightyear as a present.
Here's my theory:
Some college semesters start in August instead of September. Maybe Andy's college is one of them.
I'll imagine that Andy's birthday is also in August, which is when the original Toy Story takes place. So Andy's eighteenth birthday will take place during his first or second week of college.
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
Not for the first time I've seen the sentiment of "Leia has so much irrational anger! Leia is so angry for no reason! Leia is angry for fun! Leia is angry because Anakin was angry! Leia is for the girlies with a deep unexplained anger!"
This is a rather big literacy problem. You're talking about Leia. The person who lived nineteen years under a galactic dictatorship. The princess who used her privilege to learn about how it affected others and fight against it. The nineteen year old girl whose ship was captured, all her crew murdered, was tortured, and then saw her planet, her family get blown up before being sent to wait for her execution. The person who was in charge of sending soldiers to their deaths. The woman who saw her friend and partner be tortured, frozen in carbonite and sent to die. Who was put in chains and sexually harassed. Who then learned that the monster who hurt her so badly was her biological father. That Leia.
You think that Leia's anger is irrational? unexplained? biological? misunderstood?
I know I spend more time than most thinking about Leia and have rewatched the OT a bunch of times, but I'm begging you... this is basic media engagement. What are you not seeing?
Furthermore, what does it say about you if you think this is irrational? What does it say about your own "unexplained" anger? Why are you invalidating yourself instead of looking?
Thanks for answering my question about the Disney movie. Now I'm a curious about something else: could you please elaborate on why you think the 1999 German stage musical fixed the movie's inconsistencies, while the 2014 American version only made them worse?
In the animated film, the gargoyles often disrupt the story and make the tone a bit inconsistent.
in der glockner, the gargoyles are less disruptive and more helpful to Quasimodo. Plus they look cool.
In the 2014 musical, there are about 30 gargoyles, which take the form of the on-stage choir. These extras constantly narrate what the audience can already see. The excess narration also destroys the role of Clopin. He is the narrator ... sometimes? Usually it's statue number three or what have you.
I find them to be far more distracted than the 3 gargoyles of the original film.
It's one of the many decisions that turned a great show into a crummy one, but it also helped make Disney's hunchback a success for high school and community theater productions-- there are parts for everyone.
"It's okay to cry. Itās important to show your feelings and let them out. Real weakness is being too afraid of looking weak to let other people see you cry.ā
The way adults actually deal with tears:
*try to hold them back as much as possible and only shed them in private
*apologize when they canāt help but cry in front of other people
*look away when someone is crying in public, because that's the "polite" thing to do, to "save them from embarrassment"
*wear dark glasses to funerals to hide their tears
*praise other people to the skies for their "strength" and "dignity" when they face a horrible loss or trauma without crying
*"Crying doesn't solve anything!"
*"You're upsetting me and making everything worse!"
*"You need to learn self-control!"
*"Be a man!" (to males)/"Be a grownup!" or "Show some dignity!" (to females)
Things You Only Notice When You Watch Beauty and the Beast for the Hundredth Time
1. Everything going on in the stained glass window.
Your eye is naturally pulled to the prince in the middle, but there is a lot happening in the window. Who are those two dogs, why are they wearing studded collars, and why are they the only ones looking directly at the prince?
2. The hungry cat.Ā
There is a cat dangling off of the fish the woman on the left is trying to get for a cheaper price. He must be very hungry.
3. Belleās dried flowers.
Belle is drying flowers by hanging them from her ceiling. Now that we know this, we somehow love her even more (something we did not think was possible).
4. Beast definitely did not decorate this room.
The fireplace is framed with gold hearts, thereās a floral pattern on the chair, a portrait of a woman in pink, and a still life with flowers. Is this Mrs. Pottsās doing?
5. Thatās āGirl with a Pearl Earringā behind Cogsworth!
How have we never noticed this famous (Baroque) Vermeer before??
6. Speaking of which, this painting to the left of Lumiere also looks familiarā¦Ā
Yup. Itās āThe Laughing Cavalierā by Frans Hals!
7. Belle and Beastās dinner menu.
Is it just us or does it look like this meal is entirely comprised of cake, pie, and jelly?
8. Gaston seems to have a devil horse.Ā
Letās consider what weāre seeing here: Gastonās horse has red pupils and its nostrils are filled with flames. Devil horse is the only logically conclusion.
9. There is a man stuck the stone pillar on the right side of the doorway.
How did he get up there? We know the enchanted objects wreaked some serious havoc, but what happened??
10. Ā Thereās a golden swan to the very left of this frame.
Was this one of the enchanted objects we never saw? Why havenāt we seen it in the ballroom before? Was it a wedding gift?
"When you've made a mistake or hurt someone's feelings, the magic words are 'I'm sorry.' That makes it all better. If you say it and mean it, then you'll be forgiven. Those words make your mistakes disappear."
The way people actually respond to "I'm sorry":
*"I don't care!"
*"Well, you should be!"
*"Sorry isn't good enough!"
*"Yeah?! Well next time, don't screw up!"
*"I don't want you to be sorry, I want you not to do what you did!"
*sing-song mocking "I'm sorryā¦ I'm sorryā¦"
*completely ignore that you said anything and just go on ranting about how you screwed up
*Or, if you're lucky, "We'll talk about this later. I'm too angry right now. I need to cool down."
So much for the magic words that make all your mistakes disappear!
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.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
Iād like to talk about something thatās has been bothering me since the movies came out. Throughout the 20+ years of this fandom existing there has been more or less a kind of unspoken tolerance between sapphic fans that loved the story being centered around two gay/bi women and the neurodivergent and disabled community that found a deep connection to the story as they saw themselves represented in Elphaba, or the supporting characters struggles. Because the story at the end of the day is not just āabout the girls stupidā its a story about struggles of being othered and the toll it takes on someone that just canāt beā¦normal. Neurodivergence, depression, and disabilities both congenital and later acquired are thematically represented in their character arcs.
For many who her story resonates with, Elphaba losing, isnāt a study of how radicalism accomplishes nothing and she should have followed Glinda if she wanted to change things, its a completely relatable outcome to someone that has been there, who has the stakes set up so thoroughly against them just because of who they are and its something they canāt change, so they have to work 10x harder to prove themselves capable, and still lose in the end. For me as a early diagnosed ADHD-inattentive/OCD comorbid I feel for her struggles where you give 100% of yourself to something you believe in only to f*ck it up in planning or execution to where it spirals in the most self sabotaging way.
And before you go āoh girl your projecting onto Elphaba, you āoutcast rebel weird girlā lets look at some of her qualities and why sheās so relatable to the neurodivergent community: Elphabaās overly sincere, incredibly empathetic, irritatingly inflexible, and (more-so in the musical) emotionally volatile and can be seen as lacking emotional regulation, she also misses social cues, big onesā¦.
These are qualities that have resonated with fans for decades before the movie was a thing, and since it came out we have lost something tragic in the fandom. The theater gays and the outcast weirdos who have loved this story since they were children were suddenly drowned out by some of the new fans that were either fans of Ariana, pink aesthetics, edgy bully gays here for Yuri and nothing else, or identified with popular influencer vibe Glinda radiates effortlessly, none of which is very compatible with the original community, and any push back resulted in social media dog-piling, reddit downvoting, and often popular backhanded think pieces that try to bury anyone that clashes with their own interpretation.
So anywayās this was meant to be intro to a series of posts of how disabilities tie into the arcs of the characters. Followup will consist of less rant about fandom drama, I promise.
The Norwegian branch of my mom's family is allegedly descended from Erik the Red and Leif Erikson. The Irish-American branch of her family included Billy the Kid.
To clarify: in North Dakota in the 1940s, a man descended from Leif Erikson married a woman descended from a cousin of Billy the Kid, and they became my grandparents.
