Spidermonkey

(this novel was first published in 1848, so i will not be tagging for spoilers. i think 178 years is plenty of time to either read it or get a sparknotes summary.)

i am not ok, but in the absolute best way. i was honestly delighted by how quickly and easily i fell in love with the story, especially because i was not expecting to. it's been awhile since i couldn't put a book down, and i had to force myself to go to bed last night because i was literally falling asleep sitting up as i was trying to read, and unwilling to capitulate. i had to know what happened next!

one of the aspects of this story i love best is that although the cruelty of huntingdon is shocking and horrible, even if you realise it's coming, it is, compared to a lot of other gothic fiction, a mundane horror. people like arthur huntingdon existed then, and they certainly exist today. the danger brontë describes is still (unfortunately) too important not to discuss. i was sitting there in utter terror, screaming in my head OMG NO SHE THINKS SHE CAN FIX HIM and if i'd had a physical book, i would have been clutching the edges so hard my fingertips would have been white.

it's interesting to me how brontë drew both the characters of helen and huntingdon, because each in their own way is an extreme that i don't think is very common—though definitely not impossible—and both are because so many people of the period required helen to be nearly a living saint and huntingdon to essentially be the devil himself for people to sympathise with her. and i'm willing to bet even then, there were those who still thought she should have stayed. they were wrong, helen should have stabbed him in the eye, but i guess not everyone is circumspect enough to see that.

and gilbert. oh, gilbert. one of his greatest strengths is that, in all honesty, he's just some guy. he's a member of the gentry, yes, but not an especially high-born one, he doesn't have any illustrious connections, his dad didn't seem to have a deleterious effect on his principles, he participates in the labour of his farm. he even seems to have developed the foundation of some of these principles despite his mother catering to him all the time. that's what's so fabulous about him, though, is because brontë goes to great lengths to show that it doesn't take an especially great man to be kind and gentlemanly and good to women.

i do have a mini-rant about how people talk about gilbert, which i'm not going to indulge in much of here, but i'm deeply sick of how it seems like anyone who wants to defend him has to talk about how, yes, he's flawed. of course he is! that's a human being! anne brontë wouldn't be even half the writer she is if she didn't make him have some flaws, because ordinary people usually have a host of them! i'm not even talking about his hitting his friend lawrence with the whip, because 1) that was completely provoked, and 2) i actually thought it was wonderful that he didn't immediately come out of it with good grace and an acute sense that he'd done wrong. i loved that it took him a little bit to admit that to himself, because that's people. anyway.

"People back then always married young it's natural!!!" Every single 1800s guide I've ever met casually mentions that, of course, you really shouldn't get married before you're at least 20, and waiting until 25 is usually better.

Or, like. Okay here's a long segment:

Just firmly going "it is crazy sexist to blame The Wife for overspending when thirty seconds of asking questions will immediately establish that her husband was outright lying to her about how much money they had. Talk to your wife like a normal person."

Or--okay, here. A section on being honest and not writing love letters in secret, because that's usually a good sign that there's something untoward going on....

....except that he then immediately acknowledges that sometimes, the reason you're hiding this from your parents is that your parents suck. That there are parents who frankly have not earned the right to approve or disapprove of your partner.

"Men and women being friends with each other is literally normal. Don't be a controlling freak."

"If you have to abuse a child to keep order in your classroom then you're a bad teacher."

and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE

ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)

PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS

"ELIZABETH" YOU CRY, "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT'S MONDAY"

Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.

Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

Part of the reason we don't see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!

In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of... well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren't as common in Europe.

WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.

CANDLES.

Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.

Humans LOVE bright colors, it's NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.

(If ever you have the opportunity to visit the Stencil House at the Shelburne Museum in Vermont (pictured above at 3, 4, and 5), I highly recommend.)

And that's before you get into American painted murals:

Happy Ides of March, folks!

YES THANK YOU