Suspicious Egg Diaries

Cutting - in my opinion, the most labor intensive part of the process. The amount of time/effort needed varies depending on the pattern and if seam allowance is included or marked separately, but no matter what this process can not be done by machine. Each and every panel and piece of fabric that goes into a garment must be cut by hand by a person.

Pinning/clipping - pinning (or clipping) is the stage at which you align the pieces you are going to be stitching together and hold them together with — you guessed it! — either pins or clips. This can not be done by machine.

Stitching - the actual sewing. This can be done by a sewing machine, but that machine still needs to be operated by a human being.

Ironing/pressing - two words that mean the same thing. The iron itself is a machine, but once again, it needs to be operated by a human being.

Finishing - depending on the technique you use, there are certain finishing techniques that can only be done by hand. But, let’s assume we’re talking about fast fashion, which is usually just finished with a simple overlock/serger. Once again: these machines need to be operated by people.

These are just the basic steps to making a garment, and don’t include textile arts that I am not as knowledgeable about, such as weaving, knitting, and crochet. Also, it is important to note that there are a lot of things that can only be done by hand, such as certain stitches and decorative techniques.

Also, the machinery being operated in textile factories is not equivalent to a domestic sewing machine. We’re talking about one of these guys:

See that gray cylinder under the table, behind the knee pedal? That’s the motor. These machines can sew through your fingers bones and all and not even stop. The people in these factories and sweatshops are operating heavy machinery, and are subject to all the risk that comes with that in addition to all of the work I mentioned above.

" I'm taking a sewing class and I asked my teacher about how much machines can actually do. She said that while a lot of actual fabric we use in our projects is machine-woven, and sometimes there are machines for particular knitting patterns or for the same small thing over and over and over (i.e. socks), the overwhelming majority of pieces of clothing are in fact just sewn together by humans. Usually women. Underpaid and overlooked. Thousands and thousands of them, working 12 hours a day or more in huge warehouse-factories. You're probably wearing something one of those women created right now.

Most of the students (including me) were horrified. We had *no* idea. We figured that, given that we have supercomputers and massive industrial systems for almost every type of product you can buy, surely we would have figured out a better way? Surely there are machines that can put a t-shirt together by now?

She said, no, that's why fast fashion is really so bad. It's not simply about the quality of the product, it's about the human cost.

When you buy a cheap tee that says "Made in Bangladesh", this is where your clothing came from (and these are from one of the nicer factories):

(By Fahad Faisal. CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89582692)

Sarah Gonzalez from the NPR Smart Money podcast did a deep dive last year (which you can find here: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/11/1255526971/garment-workers-clothing-made-in-usa) and visits how garment workers in the US are also being exploited. Poor working conditions and wages paid by the piece. Amongst other things

One of the examples they use is a $60 sports bra with no cups or liner or special embellishments. Very simple. Which takes no less than 13 people to make. And the industry expert they had said that of that $60, labor MIGHT MIGHT account for $4.

I understand that Mary is somewhat of a blank slate (given how little she is in the original novel) and thus that ability to be able to project onto her would be appealing for an author because she is the most infrequently mentioned Bennet sister. But equally, she is seldom in the story because she is not particularly relevant to the plot; it's not an oversight on Austen's part. Her character is clearly defined and we have a good sense of who Mary is (selfish and sanctimonious, rather than neglected and overlooked) even if there are not entire chapters dedicated to her.

There's a reason we have so many scenes of Austen heroines and other respectable ladies demurring when first asked to play on the piano until the host/hostess insists some more. It isn't modesty, it's morality, and it's why Mary not waiting to be asked to play and not being aware of when she's performed an excessive amount is judged so harshly.

I don't personally agree with a lot of regency lady behavioural standards, but to contemporary readers Mary is attention seeking and vain, not demonstrating any modesty or that demure behaviour which spoke of a woman having good principles. In that way she's way more like Kitty and Lydia then modern audiences can easily see, though their exhibiting takes very different avenues. But it was still an indicator of improper principles.

It's why she's included in the 'that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly betrayed by [your mother], by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father' (ch35) line that Darcy writes to Elizabeth. She isn't just awkward, unlikeable, or not well rounded - she was often completely lacking propriety. Elizabeth names this judgement on her family a 'mortifying, yet merited reproach ... The justice of the charge struck her too forcibly for denial' (ch36). She doesn't make an excuse for Mary, but includes her equally in the condemnation against the behaviour of Mrs Bennet, Kitty, and Lydia.

Here's the definition of the word propriety, as I believe Austen used it in this context, from the Oxford English Dictionary: 'Conformity to accepted standards of behaviour or morals, esp. with regard to good manners or polite usage; seemliness, decorousness, decency; (observance of) convention.' That is what contemporary audiences, and the sensible characters within Pride and Prejudice itself, thought Mary was lacking. She has a problem with morals, good manners, and decorum. Not awkwardness or being unlikeable, nor shyness or trouble socialising (and in fact, I'd argue that Mary's behaviour is the opposite of shy). Though she's such a minor character it isn't as important a change, many modern interpretations of Mary are very similar to the 'Darcy isn't a snob, he's just socially awkward!' thinking which ignores the book canon.

I'm also a proponent of the idea that, where Kitty and Lydia demonstrate the flaws of seeking experiences and no reflection, Mary demonstrates the flaws of seeking only reflections and disdaining a lot of real world experiences. A situation rectified somewhat at the ending of the book, as with her sisters gone, 'Mary was obliged to mix more with the world, but she could still moralize over every morning visit' (ch61). Hopefully this situation also made her more self-aware, and less inclined to put herself forward indelicately when she didn't feel the need to compete for recognition.

It's so understandable that modern readers project social awkwardness and shy bookish-ness onto Mary, because social standards of behaviour have altered so much in 200+ years and she's a minor character, but Austen did actually write her as confident and forward to the point of vanity and disregarding morals. I have yet to see any novel that focuses on Mary recognise that, and work within that framework for her character arc. And, because it's missed, so too is the nuance of why she's disparaged by the narrator and not praised or particularly liked by Elizabeth and Jane.

This has a flow-on effect of authors needing to find some justification for why Mary is so overlooked, which, since they don't recognise Mary's own flaws, generally means they need to invent or exaggerate flaws in other characters. Which is why you get characters suddenly focusing on likeability, or looks, or social prowess, to a degree that they never did in canon, if at all. I enjoy reimaginings, but you have to be really careful and knowledgeable when making beloved characters shallower or meaner in a way they weren't in canon in order to white-wash a minor character for it to work well, and I'm not convinced they've done that in this instance.

I know I've been very harsh on Mary's character here, so I should add the disclaimer that I actually adore Mary, as I do Kitty and Lydia (yes, even Lydia). They're teenagers whose education (and emotional well being, in the case of at least Mary and Kitty) has been neglected and thrown out into society at a young age to figure it out for themselves, so I'm not at all surprised they've misstepped and gone too far in seeking external validation. Mary sure as hell didn't get enough of it growing up. But Mary isn't judged by the world because she doesn't fit the pretty, sociable, likeable mold her other sisters do, she's judged because of her own actions and the values that demonstrates to respectable society.

What book is it, and where does the dragon go?

Ah, Susan is the only one who realizes what Dr. Jekyll-and-Mr. Hyde is - but tragically no one believes her!

Also, with Jane - if the zoo lost a dragon, is their world one that just has dragons? That would be amazing. Jane would have a little kitchen dragon - he's the size of the Peters and lights her fires for her.

There's some people in the comments saying "fandoms have always been like this" and others saying "No, it's worse than it was." And both are to some extent right. Fans (or at least a small percentage of fans, and the larger a fanbase gets the larger a group this will describe) have always been Like That; but they did not always have the level of access to creators and actors that they have now.

The notion that a performer needs to be constantly available to public scrutiny, that their personal information should by default be available to any rando with google, is pretty new. It used to be that actors would only be expected to engage with the public on limited, specific, and controlled occasions, usually with security provided. Now they're being asked to rawdog exposure to the mob 24/7 on their own.

(Also, production companies have always always always been exploitative cowards, just to get that straight; reading the biographies of literally any actress from golden Hollywood years makes that clear. It's just, again, more public now.)