Witch Way is Left

the reviews are in... glad everyone's enjoying song of the worm

Cook, Eliza (1818 - 1889)

◡ – ◡ / ◡ – ◡ / ◡ – ◡ / ◡ – The Prince and / the peasant, / the despot / and slave; ◡ – ◡ / ◡ – ◡ / ◡ – ◡ / ◡ – All, all must / bow down to / the worm and / the grave.

Metrical form: amphibrachic tetrameter catalectic. Or I guess acephalous anapestic tetrameter, especially because some lines of the poem have another unstressed syllable at the beginning, making them anapestic tetrameter.

Rhyme scheme: rhyming couplets

AO3 BADGES, GET YOUR A03 BADGES HERE

made by a human, no ai, featuring silly gradients and arbitrary color choices.

EDIT: i added the tutorial for how to add the individual badges under the cut :)

@oldguardians making this answer a separate post because it’s kind of interesting*!

‘‘I cannot bear to hear that mentioned. Pray do not talk of that odious man. I do think it is the hardest thing in the world, that your estate should be entailed away from your own children; and I am sure if I had been you, I should have tried long ago to do something or other about it.’’

Jane and Elizabeth attempted to explain to her the nature of an entail. They had often attempted it before, but it was a subject on which Mrs. Bennet was beyond the reach of reason; and she continued to rail bitterly against the cruelty of settling an estate away from a family of ve daughters, in favour of a man whom nobody cared anything about.”

(In the interest of not getting bogged down in legal minutiae, I’ll keep this pretty general. Please note that I am vastly oversimplifying some legal concepts here for the sake of explaining the issue clearly. If you’re an attorney/barrister/whatever, don’t @ me - I KNOW it’s all much more nuanced than this.)

Pride & Prejudice is set somewhere around 1811. In the novel, the Bennets’ ownership interest in the family estate is famously said to be “entailed” away from the Bennet girls in favor of their cousin, Mr. Collins. This is specifically explained to be because Mr. Bennet has no sons, and thus his estate reverts back to his closest male relative.

In the real world, entailment could (and usually did) work that way. But there is an enormous, glaring issue: English entailments have long been very VERY easy to defeat** through a remedy called Common Recovery. If Longbourn was truly entailed away from the female descendants, as the novel indicates, Mr. Bennet could have hired an attorney (his brother-in-law?) to start the Common Recovery process at any time. Within a few months, the court would render a judgment giving Mr. Bennet the property outright and free from any entailment, allowing him to leave the property to his daughters upon his death*** and make them independently wealthy women. And this wasn’t just a possibility - it was a very common legal mechanism that would have been almost expected of a gentleman interested in preserving his family’s comfort. There are hundreds of cases in the English Chancery records (featuring many families that were much less wealthy than the Bennets!) invoking this very remedy whenever fathers failed to produce sons.

So entailment makes no sense - it had basically no power over landowners by the Regency Period.

Let’s talk alternatives. In 1811, the primary way of keeping property in the male line was through another estate planning technique called strict settlement. To GREATLY simplify a complicated form of ownership, strict settlement had the present possessor of property always hold a life estate interest (they own it only until their death), with their male primogeniture descendants holding a remainder fee tail interest (read: eventual outright ownership upon their father’s death). Each generation of life estate owner would then force their young male descendants (the fee tail owner) upon their coming of age to give the young descendant’s unknown future male sons the remainder interest, retaining a life estate for themselves (which they would receive upon their father’s death). Thus the ownership system perpetuates down a male line of descendants, each generation demanding the same restrictive ownership system of their own children.

If you followed that - and I don’t blame you if you didn’t, as this is all very deliberately obtuse - you might think “wait okay. That kind of sounds like the Bennets’ situation. Austen called it an entailment but maybe it was actually a strict settlement!” Several academics have tried to argue that, but it also fails for several reasons:

(1) With the Bennets’ seemingly comfortable current income, strict settlement would have provided for significant lifetime income + dowries for Mr. Bennet’s female descendants. But in P&P, it’s made very clear that the girls’ only possible inheritance is a tiny amount from their mother’s side and nothing from their father’s. If they do not marry, they will be destitute. That is extremely unlikely and would be very shameful in strict settlement ownership..

(2) It would have been inconceivable for Mr. Bennet’s father to have forced him to benefit a cousin over his own descendants, even if they were women. One of the fundamental points of strict settlement was to avoid this outcome (aka to avoid the entailment system). People did NOT want a distant male cousin to inherit property simply because there wasn’t a primogeniture male descendant - they knew that if anything, their own female descendants could always produce a male heir in their marriages. Plus, Mr. Bennet’s and Mr. Collin’s fathers apparently hated each other (ref Mr. Collins’ initial letter) - why would Mr. Bennet’s father force his son to benefit the son of a man he himself hates?

(3) For many many other reasons, a strict settlement does not match how the family talks about/treats the estate in the novel. There’s literally a whole law review article on this topic (cited below), and I’ll defer to that for a full discussion.

So we’re left with two possibilities: the land is entailed, and for some reason Mr. Bennet isn’t willing to pay a small amount in attorney’s fees to undo the entailment for the enormous benefit of his daughters (extremely unlikely, robs the story of all its tension), or the land is subject to a bizarre + shameful strict settlement that goes directly against everything that would have been normal at the time, and none of the characters know that (makes no sense in the story).

And then, of course, there’s the truth: the “entailment” is simply a narrative device that does not reflect actual law or historical transfer of property at death, which is perfectly fine. Jane Austen was not writing a law textbook or even a legal drama. And her underlying point remains clear: Regency-era women were often in economically precarious positions and forced to marry to maintain their social and economic standings.

((If you do want a version in your head that works under the law, maybe we imagine that Mr. Collin’s father actually owned the home but was in debt to Mr. Bennet so he gave him some kind of strange lifelong leasehold interest with income from the property included. And then we ignore the passage saying Mr. Bennet having a son would have “avoided” the home passing to Mr. Collins + pretend that the family lied to everybody about the home being entailed to save face))

For additional reading, I highly recommend A FUNHOUSE MIRROR OF LAW: THE ENTAILMENT IN JANE AUSTEN’S PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Peter A. Appel (linked). His analysis reflects my own reading of Regency inheritance law, and I think his conclusions are generally sound. There is significant other scholarship on this subject, but I find Appel’s work the most persuasive.

—-

* At least to me, who admittedly studies this for a living

** For fun War of the Roses reasons!

We know he is not cruel, and there is substantial textual evidence that he is not completely negligent either. Upon Lydia's "elopement", Mr. Bennett immediately leaves to deal with the problem and is shown to be highly conscientious of the economics and social politics of the situation. He also is implied to have discussed quite frankly with Elizabeth the economics of saving for their allowances and dowries, suggesting that these issues are at least on his radar and he’s looked at how to remedy them.

In doing this kind of litcrit, you have to look a bit closer and more critically than accepting the trope. Yes, he is somewhat absent from his family, but he is never written to be a cruel man. And in the full context of probate law at that time, you will see that a failure to provide in this way would likely have been considered cruel and wholly unacceptable for a genteel father of five daughters. And there is no textual evidence for Mr. Bennett acting that way.

There's so much I love about it (it's actually one of the most beautifully made TOS episodes IMO, everyone looks spectacular, flawless comedic beats and genuine pathos, the culture clashes are pretty much immaculate, etc). But my favorite scene is always going to be the one where Kirk is captured by insecure macho assholes from the US military of the literal 60s and talks circles around them with a bit of genuine fear (he does understand the danger he's in), but mostly a mixture of telling the truth in the most annoying way possible and pushing their buttons by dialing up his standard campy theatricality to comfortable effeminacy. Their bluster vs his sultry assurance is good as written but utterly delightful onscreen.

Also, one nerdy detail: the military assholes try to intimidate Kirk by listing off all the crimes he's committed, and Kirk basically responds by morphing even more fully into Cher Horowitz mode than usual and being all "sabotage? who, me??? O_O" about it with this obviously faux confusion/dismay that's just mocking them and not even trying to hide it.

But it's funnier because— okay, it's actually a quick small thing and I'm fully explaining the joke here, but:

Jim Kirk every time he opens his mouth except when having a lot of fun with actively bad US accents:

but sometimes it drops little things like this:

which. a) that's absolutely wild and TIL material. what the fuck. (wikipedia says versions of the treamill for power actually predate corporal punishment, but yes, in the 1800s prisoners were forced to use them as punishment. altho i would quibble at the word "torture." the point was more "indentured survitude" or "slavery," as the treadmill still like. did stuff. it wasn't JUST for the sake of pain, just free unethical labor. as opposed to something like solitary confinement, something designed just for torture reasons.)

a health policy paper has been published saying the name is officially updated to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS)

polyendocrine= multiple endocrine factors

metabolic = affecting/affected by metabolism

ovarian = from the ovaries

essentially, instead of using the symptomatic term (many people with PMOS do not develop cysts) the new term widens the diagnostic area and makes it easier to diagnose, treat, and do research on people with PMOS (even atypical types, such as no cysts).

it may seem like a waste of time to change a name instead of focusing on research, but for a lot of medical professionals a name can be associated with a hard set collection of symptoms, so the name needs to change to acknowledge that the disorder is not well understood and has a broader, subtler, and often missed set of symptoms. for example ADD is considered an antiquated/unused term, and now comes under the ADHD umbrella. in healthcare names and terminology changes all the time, and this is a positive change. your local healthcare professional may not know about this unless theyre really up on the news though!

in case you want to read about the name change process that was published in the Lancet (one of the most impactful and well respected medical journals):

you've let in the vampire thank you. also most of this comes from leslie feinberg's transgender warriors which has a whole chapter on jeanne d'arc & which everyone should read imo!

so when i say "trans history" i do not mean that "trans" is a Real Thing that exists. we made up being "trans" and we cannot say that anyone in history is Objectively Trans, like its a fact we can prove. but we can say that people in history shared common experiences with trans and genderqueer people of today, and by linking them to our modern construct of transness we get a fuller picture of the human experience with gender diversity. also, and i cannot emphasize this enough: women afab can be trans. men amab can be trans.

but also, jeanne d'arc isn't just trans history because she crossdressed. the story often gets framed as her wearing men's clothes to fight in war, but its deeper than that! both from a secular trans sense and from a religious standpoint (which makes her an important figure for trans christians). & this gets compounded with the impetus in art to make sure jeanne d'arc looks appropriately feminine. which can be compared to the ways that, before fe/male impersonation had a queer connotation, male impersonators had to make sure that, even in drag, they always looked visibly cisfeminine.

on one level, regardless of gender, jeanne d'arc was oppressed by transphobia. she was the target of blatanly transphobic attacks for her gender expression. she was called a hommasse, a slur for masculine women, her crossdressing "contrary to Divine laws" and "abominable before God". while she was also a military threat, her trial was about her crossdressing- that was the crime that she was charged with after they failed to find evidence she was a pagan.

specifically, her claim that her wearing men's clothing and cutting her hair was a God-given command. and yes, part of that command was also going to war, but it does not seem like it was just "you have to wear men's clothing so you can fight." To Jeanne, crossdressing was its own command. She said she would rather die than stop, unless God told her to, and that "were [she] still so dressed and with the king and those of his party, it would be one of the greatest blessings for the kingdom of France."

Its claimed that she repented at first and was sentenced to life in prison as long as she started wearing women's clothing again, and that she later "relapsed" and started wearing men's clothing. some TERFs have argued that she had to wear men's clothing to avoid getting raped- but she was well known to be assigned female. The clothes she wore would not matter, given that she was famous enough that actual monarchs wanted her dead. And Jeanne said that she chose to start wearing men's clothing again which was compared to "a dog returning to its own vomit." And it was this that allowed them to burn her alive as punishment.

So on a second level, this is a lot more complicated than a normal cis woman wearing men's clothes to a specific end. Jeanne viewed her masculine gender expression as vital to her soul. It was used as the justification for killing her, so she quite literally chose to die rather than present as cisfeminine.

And on a third level, she didn't refuse to present cisfeminine to make a bold statement about the right of women to wear pants or go to war. She did it because it was God's command. And if Catholic canon matters to you at all, she is a canonized saint. The Church has given her a big ol blue checkmark in the sky. If Jeanne believed that crossdressing was its own command, and not just a means to an end, then she believed that genderqueerness is a holy command given by God. Which opens up a wonderful new trans-centric theology! It creates space within Catholicism (and anyone else who cares about Catholic saints) to view transness as a special role which comes from Divine blessing. And frankly, this cultural impact alone makes her part of trans history the same way plenty of cishet women are part of gay history because of their cultural impact on gay people.

Pay attention to what's on the first page of their website.

Are you immediately welcomed as a writer?

That's not always a good sign.

It might be that the press is new and still building its list of authors, so it has more to say about submissions than about the books it's published. That's not awful, but not awesome either (you may prefer to wait and let them make their beginner's mistakes on someone else's book. If the publisher finds its footing, you can always submit to them in a year or two!). Or maybe they just recently opened a new call to submissions and have that prominently announced. That's fine, but also look at when and where they post about new book releases.

A publisher should have a website that appeals to readers - with descriptions of the kinds of books they do or will publish, and ways for readers to connect like a newsletter signup option and social media links. If they have already published books: how easily can readers buy them? What do the covers look like? Do the book descriptions have any obvious typos? Do multiple books or pages on the website have errors?

No matter how proud a publisher is of how they serve authors, the main job of a publisher is to get books into reader's hands. That shouldn't be an afterthought on the website. If it takes you a few clicks to find submission guidelines, that may be a good sign. If, along the way, you spot several books to add to your to-read list, that's a great sign.

If the website seems to be downright screaming "Please let us publish you!" watch out for a catch. They might not be a vanity press, but they could be. Search "[Publisher name] scam" or "[Publisher name] legitimate" or "[Publisher name] vanity" and see what comes up. Or the business might be completely legit, just with a poorly organized website. Suggesting they're not great at selling books. Still not a good sign.

Always check the Amazon listing (and other listings) of the books from a publisher you're considering. What do the reviews say? What are the sales ranks like? What formats are the books offered in, and at what price point? Do you like the covers? Do you like how the sample is formatted, and can you spot any errors in the editing or formatting?