Collection Of Communal Stories

[specialagentartemis]

Intelligent alien species based on bugs but specifically those moths that don’t have mouths and only live for a week after they pupate. This species’ whole conscious life is actually in the larval phase; larvae are the ones considered people, larvae are the ones with conscious and complex brains who build society, and each instar of the larva is treated as a different phase of life. Larvae become emotionally and socially and cognitively mature without ever becoming sexually mature. When they pupate, they metamorphose into something different and strange and close to mindless, with no mouth and no digestive system, whose only instincts are to mate and then quickly die. Metamorphosis is treated, functionally, like a person’s death, and the imago phase is a kind of proto-afterlife of majestic flight and the continuation of the species. Birth and death inextricably intertwined. Sex is not something people do during their lives, it’s a thing that is done as an imago after you’ve passed on from your life but before you return to the soil in death. Resultant eggs are collected by family members to raise. I think this would be fun.

[bigscaryd]

Life extension through anti-metamorphosis drugs in a struggle with "other causes" significantly impacting the overall population rate. "Conscious pupation" activists and propaganda. "pupation cocktails" that are a combo of fast-release metamorphosis hormones and time-release fertility stimulants.

Pupal murder as the highest possible crime. Myths of sapient and long-lived imago. Primarily filial relationships are with aunts and uncles in what we consider the grandparent role and cousins in the parental. Monogendered species with occult reproductive configurations (or even unknown or unset!)

[r2x2]

The Amnesty International report that JK Rowling is trying to censor through legal threats.

It can also be found on Google Drive here and on Bluesky here.

[cbarc]

Please save and share this info where possible. This report has since been removed by Amnesty International due to legal threats of libel from JK Rowling. This information is no longer easily accessible.

[beholdingslut]

this from the guy who wrote the sting pain index, a scale he constructed after letting himself be stung by insects

[beholdingslut]

“why did i start this list” pleaseeeeeee this is so funny

[caracalliope]

his descriptions were extremely on-point, and frankly inspiring when writing a hurt/comfort scene

Instagram poets could never!

[lobautumny]

For those who want it, here is the entire list:

Anyways, dude's 1,000% a huge masochist. Nobody just describes pain like this unless they're enjoying it.

[onehundredandtwentyfour]

Schmidt sting pain index - Wikipedia

[lixomania]

[meawsupport]

this is so late renaissance early mannerism. the controversial male nudity? the lighting and value on the figure of emphasis?? him bathed in light and placed ABOVE while the police are clad in dark and BELOW?? Uh HES HITTING THE CONTRAPPOSTO??

[emmarose17]

On one hand: this imagery touches on themes of freedom vs oppression and how in shedding the various layers of shame placed upon us by the regime we can transcend to a higher place above the forces that seek to hold us to unjust societal standards.

On the other hand: cheeks out at the Krispy Kreme.

[o-craven-canto]

Alternate timeline in which all Greek and Latin roots are swapped:

catastrophe -> contraverse cephalopod -> capitoped chlorophyll -> viridofolia democracy -> populimpery homicide -> anthropoctony homosexual -> equigamic kilometer -> millimensure interregnum -> mesarchy magnanimous -> megapsychic manuscript -> chirography motorcycle -> ergatorote microscope -> parvovisor oxygen -> acidofex polyamory -> multierasty television -> remotoscope universe -> monostrophe

[sufficientlylargen]

Using Latin roots for everything would be controversial, but using exclusively Greek roots would be catastrophic.

[clarenecessities]

there’s something endlessly hilarious to me about the phrase “hotly debated” in an academic context. like i just picture a bunch of nerds at podiums & one’s like “of course there was a paleolithic bear cult in Northern Eurasia” and another one just looks him in the eye and says “i’l kill you in real life, kevin”

[crockpotcauldron]

[ossacordis]

I heard a story once about two microbiologists at a conference who took it out into the parking lot to have a literal fistfight over taxonomy. 

[winchysteria]

have i told this story yet? idk but it’s good. The Orangutan Story:

my american lit professor went to this poe conference. like to be clear this is a man who has a doctorate in being a book nerd. he reads moby dick to his four-year-old son. and poe is one of the cornerstones of american literature, right, so this should be right up his alley?

wrong. apparently poe scholars are like, advanced. there is a branch of edgar allen poe scholarship that specifically looks for coded messages based on the number of words per line and letters per word poe uses. my professor, who has a phd in american literature, realizes he is totally out of his depth. but he already committed his day to this so he thinks fuck it! and goes to a panel on racism in poe’s works, because that’s relevant to his interests.

background info: edgar allen poe was a broke white alcoholic from virginia who wrote horror in the first half of the 19th century. rule 1 of Horror Academia is that horror reflects the cultural anxieties of its time (see: my other professor’s sermon abt how zombie stories are popular when people are scared of immigrants, or that purge movie that was literally abt the election). since poe’s shit is a product of 1800s white southern culture, you can safely assume it’s at least a little about race. but the racial subtext is very open to interpretation, and scholars believe all kinds of different things about what poe says about race (if he says anything), and the poe stans get extremely tense about it.

so my professor sits down to watch this panel and within like five minutes a bunch of crusty academics get super heated about poe’s theoretical racism. because it’s academia, though, this is limited to poorly concealed passive aggression and forceful tones of inside voice. one professor is like “this isn’t even about race!” and another professor is like “this proves he’s a racist!” people are interrupting each other. tensions are rising. a panelist starts saying that poe is like writing a critique of how racist society was, and the racist stuff is there to prove that racism is stupid, and that on a metaphorical level the racist philosophy always loses—

then my professor, perhaps in a bid to prove that he too is a smart literature person, loudly calls: “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ORANGUTAN?”

some more background: in poe’s well-known short story “the murder in the rue morgue,” two single ladies—a lovely old woman and her lovely daughter who takes care of her, aka super vulnerable and respectable people—are violently killed. the murderer turns out to be not a person, but an orangutan brought back by a sailor who went to like burma or something. and it’s pretty goddamn racially coded, like they reeeeally focus on all this stuff about coarse hairs and big hands and superhuman strength and chattering that sounds like people talking but isn’t actually. if that’s intentional, then he’s literally written an analogy about how black people are a threat to vulnerable white women, which is classic white supremacist shit. BUT if he really only meant for it to be an orangutan, then it’s a whole other metaphor about how colonialism pillages other countries and brings their wealth back to europe and that’s REALLY gonna bite them in the ass one day. klansman or komrade? it all hangs on this.

much later, when my professor told this story to a poe nerd friend, the guy said the orangutan thing was a one of the biggest landmines in their field. he said it was a reliable discussion ruiner that had started so many shouting matches that some conferences had an actual ban on bringing it up.

so the place goes dead fucking silent as every giant ass poe stan in the room is immediately thrust into a series of war flashbacks: the orangutan argument, violently carried out over seminar tables, in literary journals, at graduate student house parties, the spittle flying, the wine and coffee spilled, the friendships torn—the red faces and bulging veins—curses thrown and teaching posts abandoned—panels just like this one fallen into chaos—distant sirens, skies falling, the dog-eared norton critical editions slicing through the air like sabres—the textual support! o, the quotes! they gaze at this madman in numb disbelief, but he could not have known. nay, he was a literary theorist, a 17th-century man, only a visitor to their haunted land. he had never heard the whistle of the mortars overhead. he had never felt the cold earth under his cheek as he prayed for god’s deliverance. and yet he would have broken their fragile peace and brought them all back into the trenches.

my professor sits there for a second, still totally clueless. the panel moderator suddenly stands up in his tweed jacket and yells, with the raw panic of a once-broken man:

WE! DO NOT! TALK ABOUT! THE ORANGUTAN!

[forochel]

forever reblog

[iphigeniacomplex]

[girl in a low cut top voice] i just dont know what it is but everyone is being sooo nice to me today….[grows grave and guarded] they’re conspiring against my reign and they think me a fool

[occudo]

They wear suits, but they don't even know basic etiquette.

Based on @cowardsexual 's post of a very sleepy phm science team and Grace's teacher instincts

[christianstepmoms]

And I worked with a man called Squidward. And he was a Protestant man, but we were the best of friends. But by God, he was crabid as a bag of cats. He was an auld grump. And he'd be big into the flutes and the Oboes and things like that. He lived in a big stone head.

[michelleion]

you really do have to watch the video, it's everything

[drawingden]

Colour Painting Tips by slawekfedorczuk

Support the artist and get more tips by signing up for their newsletter!

[whetstonefires]

You know what I realize that people underestimate with Pride & Prejudice is the strategic importance of Jane.

Because like, I recently saw Charlotte and Elizabeth contrasted as the former being pragmatic and the latter holding out for a love match, because she's younger and prettier and thinks she can afford it, and that is very much not what's happening.

The Charlotte take is correct, but the Elizabeth is all wrong. Lizzie doesn't insist on a love match. That's serendipitous and rather unexpected. She wants, exactly as Mr. Bennet says, someone she can respect. Contempt won't do. Mr. Bennet puts it in weirdly sexist terms like he's trying to avoid acknowledging what he did to himself by marrying a self-absorbed idiot, but it's still true. That's what Elizabeth is shooting for: a marriage that won't make her unhappy.

She's grown up watching how miserable her parents make one another; she's not willing to sign up for a lifetime of being bitter and lonely in her own home.

I think she is very aware, in refusing Mr. Collins, that it's reasonably unlikely that anyone she actually respects is going to want her, with her few accomplishments and her lack of property. That she is turning down security and the chance keep the house she grew up in, and all she gets in return may be spinsterhood.

But, crucially, she has absolute faith in Jane.

The bit about teaching Jane's daughters to embroider badly? That's a joke, but it's also a serious potential life plan. Jane is the best creature in the world, and a beauty; there's no chance at all she won't get married to someone worthwhile.

(Bingley mucks this up by breaking Jane's heart, but her prospects remain reasonable if their mother would lay off!)

And if Elizabeth can't replicate that feat, then there's also no doubt in her mind that Jane will let her live in her house as a dependent as long as she likes, and never let it be made shameful or awful to be that impoverished spinster aunt. It will be okay never to be married at all, because she has her sister, whom she trusts absolutely to succeed and to protect her.

And if something eventually happens to Jane's family and they can't keep her anymore, she can throw herself upon the mercy of the Gardeners, who have money and like her very much, and are likewise good people. She has a support network--not a perfect or impregnable one, but it exists. It gives her realistic options.

Spinsterhood was a very dangerous choice; there are reasons you would go to considerable lengths not to risk it.

But Elizabeth has Jane, and her pride, and an understanding of what marrying someone who will make you miserable costs.

That's part of the thesis of the book, I would say! Recurring Austen thought. How important it is not to marry someone who will make you, specifically, unhappy.

She would rather be a dependent of people she likes and trusts than of someone she doesn't, even if the latter is formally considered more secure; she would rather live in a happy, reasonable household as an extra than be the mistress of her own home, but that home is full of Mr. Collins and her mother.

This is a calculation she's making consciously! She's not counting on a better marriage coming along. She just feels the most likely bad outcome from refusing Mr. Collins is still much better than the certain outcome of accepting him. Which is being stuck with Mr. Collins forever.

Elizabeth is also being pragmatic. Austen also endorses her choice, for the person she is and the concerns she has. She's just picking different trade-offs than Charlotte.

Elizabeth's flaw is not in her own priorities; she doesn't make a reckless choice and get lucky. But in being unable to accept that Charlotte's are different, and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Charlotte.

Because realistically, when your marriage is your whole family and career forever, and you only get to pick the ones that offer themselves to you, when you are legally bound to the status of dependent, you're always going to be making some trade-offs.

😂 Even the unrealistically ideal dream scenario of wealthy handsome clever ethical Mr. Darcy still asks you to undergo personal growth, accommodate someone else's communication style, and eat a little crow.

[kiralamouse]

I love the additional points in the tags: #charlotte is a much less sociable person than lizzie#so avoiding her husband most of the time and not seeking out his company is more viable for her!#she also has more patience for people being wrong#partly i think because she kinds checks out and lets them get on with it which lizzie isn't too great at even with her mother#people have different needs like that's a thing okay#marriage#spinsterhood#pragmatism#like if elizabeth had to listen to collins talk for a few months straight she would be nearly insane with rage#he's not just a low-quality man he's a man designed to be the worst for her specifically#also note that because jane's marriage is elizabeth's fallback plan#darcy screwed her over personally by interfering between her and bingley#she ofc does not bring this up how could she#but it's intensifying the anger during the hunsford rejection i think

I hadn’t even thought about Jane being Lizzie’s fallback as an amplification to the anger at Darcy, but yes! I’m sure that “the happiness of a most beloved sister” is indeed foremost in her concerns on that - easily the most important thing - but I bet some subconscious anxiety is aggravating Lizzie’s anger here.

[abigailnussbaum]

I feel like Austen fandom overcorrected with Charlotte some 15-20 years ago, and we're long overdue to pull back from it. Yes, Charlotte isn't being foolish or heedless in marrying Mr. Collins. She's making a calculated decision that she'd rather be the mistress of her own home (and eventually, of the estate of Longbourn) than a spinster daughter (and bear in mind, Charlotte's father's estate is substantial, and not entailed away; spinsterhood for her would be quite comfortable; the 2005 movie's "I'm a burden to my family" is pure invention).

But the book doesn't admire her for this decision. It accepts her calculation, but it - and Elizabeth - ultimately conclude that to have made that calculation says some less than complimentary things about Charlotte. As the poster above writes, Charlotte is more able to put up with being the wife of Mrs. Collins, and constantly at the beck and call of Lady Catherine and her daughter, whereas Elizabeth wouldn't last five minutes in that life. But the book is also clear on the point that this doesn't speak well of Charlotte. That this combination of self-effacement (because she's willing to kowtow to fundamentally worthless people) and arrogance (because she fundamentally doesn't care about them, and thus doesn't mind that they impose on her) is a pretty shitty way to be. If I'm not mistaken Elizabeth even observes that she and Charlotte can never be as close as they once were, now that she's gained a greater understanding of who her friend is and what she's willing to put up with for money.

[whetstonefires]

Oh see, I would have said that while it definitely shows the limitations of Charlotte's character and isn't something the narrative celebrates, this isn't one of the places the reader is meant to be in perfect accord with the protagonist.

I had a sense that Elizabeth's inability to empathize with Charlotte's decision, and sense of consequently downgrading her whole understanding of her as a person, is quite as much meant to reflect a bit poorly on her--not that it's an awful reaction, but it points up her sense of pride and tendency to pass judgment on others, that are the key weaknesses her character arc tends toward tempering over the course of the novel.

Overall good addition to post tho, ty.

[beatrice-otter]

bear in mind, Charlotte's father's estate is substantial, and not entailed away; spinsterhood for her would be quite comfortable

This is factually incorrect.

Sir William Lucas was a tradesman who made a good living and "a tolerable fortune" (not a good fortune, a tolerable fortune) and then sold everything to buy an estate and live a life of leisure when he got made a knight because he made a speech the king liked (chapter 5). Being made a knight gave him all sorts of ideas about what was suitable because (although an amiable man) he is also a huge snob. He would not have sold his business and bought an estate if he hadn't been made a knight, because he would have been much better off to continue in trade. The Lucases are not the Bingleys, they didn't quit trade because they had enough wealth to last for generations.

The Lucas family income from their estate + the money left from Sir William's business dealings is less than the Bennet family income. Exact figures are never stated, but it's implied in a lot of places throughout the story. For example, in chapter 9, Mrs. Bennet tells Mr. Bingley that Charlotte has to help with some of the cooking/food preparation in ways that the Bennet girls don't, because the Bennets have better (and probably more) servants. The Bennet girls don't have to work like the Lucas girls do, because the Bennets can afford not to. Remember what a snob Sir William is, and that he is willing to sacrifice income so that they will be "gentry" and not work. If there was any way he could afford enough servants so the girls didn't have to help in the kitchen, he would do it as a point of pride. (Note: the Bennet girls would still be doing a lot of work within the house; sewing clothes, mending things, making a lot of the nicer decorative things in the Bennet household, etc., etc. But they do NOT do any of the heavier work of cleaning, and they do NO cooking whatsoever. But the Collins girls help out in the kitchen sometimes....)

The other thing to remember, when comparing Elizabeth's situation to Charlotte's, is the Gardiners. Mr. Gardiner is in trade, which is a slight social step down from the Bennets' status as landed gentry. BUT. Mr. Gardiner makes a shit-ton of money. He has enough money to take lengthy, expensive vacations and invite Elizabeth along; and he has enough money that Mr. Bennet thinks it's believable that he paid at least five times the Bennet annual income to get Wickham to marry Lydia. Mr. Gardiner is LOADED. And we know he really loves his nieces, especially Jane and Elizabeth. He's got enough money that supporting them would be no sacrifice, and he loves them enough to do it without begrudging it. No such wealthy and compassionate relation is ever hinted at for the Lucases. For all that Mrs. Bennet wails about their fate after Mr. Bennet dies, the worst possible outcome for Elizabeth is much better than Charlotte's most likely outcome if she didn't marry Mr. Collins.

Chapter 22 gives the Lucas family reaction to Charlotte's engagement: "The whole family in short were properly overjoyed on the occasion. The younger girls formed hopes of coming out a year or two sooner than they might otherwise have done; and the boys were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte’s dying an old maid. Charlotte herself was tolerably composed. She had gained her point, and had time to consider of it. Her reflections were in general satisfactory. Mr. Collins, to be sure, was neither sensible nor agreeable: his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still he would be her husband. Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object: it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and, however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want."

Small fortune, that's how the text describes her. Which, in this case, means "still in the gentry class but without the money to back it up." She's not a revolutionary, she doesn't want to overthrow society, she doesn't want to be rich, she just wants an "honorable"/respectable place in society, and she wants to be "preserved from want." Getting married is the only way she can have a decent life, and even marrying a man she doesn't like is better than the life she will have if she doesn't marry. And look at her family reaction! They all know who Mr. Collins is, how fatuous and self-centered and boring and condescending! They know as well as Charlotte does what kind of a man he is! Not one of them gives a shit what her life with him is going to be like. Elizabeth is the only person in the entire book who is shown to care what Charlotte's feelings are, and what her life with him will be like.

And sure, Sir William's estate is not entailed! That doesn't mean he's going to divide it among his children. It barely supports one family in the appropriate style. If it's divided, it's not going to support any of them. English tradition is primogeniture (and Sir William is a very traditional man): if there are sons, the ENTIRE estate goes to the eldest son. If there's enough money, the younger sons get an education for a middle-class profession so they can support themselves and the girls get dowries. The younger siblings have to fend for themselves (with hopefully enough to launch them); only the oldest son gets the inheritance, which means that the inheritance gets preserved through the generations. But the younger siblings only get educations/dowries IF there's enough money after the eldest son is provided for ... and the Lucases barely enough for the eldest son and the family he will one day have. If Charlotte even has a dowry, it's smaller than Elizabeth's, and that's a big if.

Charlotte has no money of her own, nor any prospect of ever inheriting it. While her parents are alive, they will support her. After that, her brothers will (and possibly her sisters, if they marry well). But that doesn't mean they'll be nice about it. "Unpaid servant/nurse and the subject of scorn" was pretty typical for how spinster sisters got treated. Think Anne Elliot from Persuasion, except that Anne actually had it pretty good as spinsters went: her father and sisters despised her, but there was enough money for them all to live comfortably on (even with Sir Walter's debts), and Lady Russell and the Musgroves like and respect her. Reread that bit up there from chapter 22 about the Lucas family reaction to her engagement, and ask yourself if Charlotte's treatment as a spinster sister would be as good as Anne's was ... and Charlotte has no Lady Russell to help her.

Later, when Charlotte talks to Elizabeth about it, she says: "I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home."

Charlotte's goal, her grand ambition, is not wealth, it's not the Longbourn estate, it's a comfortable home. And she thinks that being shackled to Mr. Collins for the rest of her life is more likely to bring her that comfortable home than being a spinster living with her family.

I also think you're wrong about the book--and Elizabeth's!--ultimate conclusion on Charlotte. Elizabeth's initial reaction is very negative, yes ... but one of the book's major themes is Elizabeth learning that her initial reactions aren't always right, and that other people have different thoughts and needs and personalities than she does. The book doesn't admire Charlotte for her decisions, but it does have compassion for her situation.

That this combination of self-effacement (because she's willing to kowtow to fundamentally worthless people) and arrogance (because she fundamentally doesn't care about them, and thus doesn't mind that they impose on her) is a pretty shitty way to be.

Where are you getting the arrogance from? There's never an indication that she's arrogant or uncaring! Willing to kowtow to fundamentally worthless people, yes, but that's the social reality of her life. That was how society worked! You were supposed to dance attendance on your "betters" even if they're stupid, awful people. If you didn't suck up to them enough, there could be very real negative consequences. The book is not criticizing Charlotte, it's criticizing that aspect of society. (Which is a constant theme in Jane Austen's books, consider Sir Walter and Elizabeth's fawning over Lady Dalrymple in Persuasion.) Charlotte is in a lot more vulnerable position than Elizabeth is, financially and familialy.

If either of them are arrogant, it's Elizabeth. Elizabeth is the one who fundamentally doesn't care about Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine and thinks herself above them. Elizabeth is the one who's always mentally rolling her eyes at them and thinking about how awful they are. Charlotte shrugs and accepts them, and doesn't judge them, and urges Elizabeth to be less arrogant about them, and accepts the reality that they have power over her and her family.* She bows to the dictates she can't get out of, and arranges the household so that both she and Mr. Collins are happy. He's very happy, and she encourages him to do things he likes; the fact that those things take him away from home a lot benefits her as well, but it's not like she's hurting him or making him unhappy, she's literally encouraging him to do things he likes to do.

*Clergy, in those days, were basically appointed by the local richest person in the area. Mr. Collins is the parish priest at Hunsford because Lady Catherine personally hired him. She can't fire him! He's secure in that job for as long as he lives! She can make his life uncomfortable, but she can't get rid of him--that's why a particular parish is called "a living" for the priest in question. Clergy was also one of the most common professions for younger sons of gentry, because there were only a few respectable ones. BUT just being a clergyman didn't guarantee you an income; you needed a rich person to say "yeah, I like that guy, I want him as my priest" and give him the living. And the only people rich enough to do that that anyone in her family knows (so far as we know) is Lady Catherine. So by dancing attendance on Lady Catherine, she is also angling towards securing a decent future for one of her brothers. Clergymen didn't make a huge income, but they were comfortable if they had a parish of their own and weren't just a curate somewhere. Lady Catherine's patronage could easily be the difference between "comfort" and "poverty" for one of her brothers in the future.

If I'm not mistaken Elizabeth even observes that she and Charlotte can never be as close as they once were, now that she's gained a greater understanding of who her friend is and what she's willing to put up with for money.

It is true that Elizabeth observes that she and Charlotte can never be as close as they once were. But it's not that Elizabeth thinks Charlotte is greedy or arrogant or a bad person! It's that Elizabeth has realized they're actually a lot more different than she thought they were.

At the beginning of the book, Elizabeth's basic understanding of the world is that her perceptions of people are always right, and her understandings of situations are always correct, and that of course she knows better than everyone else. She's a sheltered 20 year old who is very intelligent, and like many smart 20 year olds hasn't really figured out that other people can see things differently, and have different needs and wants, without being bad or stupid. A lot of the book is about Elizabeth learning that. Charlotte is a good person and very intelligent, and Elizabeth likes her. Therefore, at the beginning of the book Elizabeth assumes that Charlotte must agree with Elizabeth on all fundamental matters because Elizabeth's perception of all people and situations is Right.

Prior to Charlotte's engagement, they have conversations where Charlotte quite plainly says that she disagrees with Elizabeth very fundamentally about marriage and courtship, and Elizabeth brushes it off and assumes she doesn't really mean it. After Charlotte's marriage, Elizabeth has to grapple with the fact that Charlotte was being honest with her the whole time, Elizabeth just wasn't listening because she didn't want to hear it. This doesn't mean that Charlotte is bad or greedy! It just means that she and Elizabeth are different. And Elizabeth has, up until this point, refused to see it.

One of the interesting things about the book, structurally, is that her reassessment of Charlotte--the realization that she misunderstood her friend in a lot of ways--happens at roughly the same time as her reassessment of Darcy. She has thought worse of Darcy than he deserved; she has thought she and Charlotte were more alike than they actually are. While she first realizes that she and Charlotte are different when the engagement is announced, she doesn't really get to see and understand the difference until she's staying with her for a couple of months in Hunsford. Seeing her with Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine and her own household, Elizabeth learns how Charlotte can be content with her life (even if it's not one Elizabeth could stand), and thus why she thinks the way she does. And realizes it's not wrong, just different. And then, towards the end of her stay, Darcy proposes and writes the letter and she learns she was wrong about him, too.

But while her realizing she was wrong about Charlotte leads to their relationship weakening, realizing she was wrong about Darcy leads to their relationship starting and growing to the point where they can marry. In some ways, learning to see Charlotte more accurately helps her learn to see Darcy more accurately.

[elljayvee]

I'm doing a little thinking about Mr. Collins. (Book Mr. Collins, who is a very serious young man. He's also stupid and silly, but he's not silly in a "being the class clown" kind of way, he's silly in the "being not too sharp and fussing over ridiculous nonsense" kind of way.)

Does he end up with the wife he probably dreamed of? Well, no. He'd hoped for someone prettier. But he does end up with a sensible, amiable woman who encourages him to enjoy life in ways that are suitable to his station (outdoor walks! tending his garden!) and who probably makes an excellent parson's wife, specifically. She's likely to be thrifty and careful; she knows how to manage a small household well; part of her duties are to circulate among the poor and ill of the parish bringing small comforts such as food or herbal remedies she makes herself, or books. Charlotte is a calm and steady person not given to excess at all; she has excellent manners and can comport herself as well with Lady Catherine as with anyone in the parish. She's likely to make him appear, to his parishioners, as if he himself is more steady and sensible than he is, because he'll be associated with her and her personality.

Then, after he inherits the Bennet estate, she has her own deep social connections. Her father or brother will be one of the foremost people in the area (despite his small fortune); he will have built-in acquaintances and familial connections all over the area through his wife. (For her, being able to eventually move home was probably a big bonus of marrying him; for him it's also a bonus, though. As good as if he'd married Elizabeth? Probably not. But better than any other realistic option.)

Charlotte probably would have preferred a man who was himself more sensible than Mr Collins, but she didn't do too badly for herself overall, and from the point of view of her husband, is almost everything that he could want and almost exactly the kind of person who would make a good wife for him, specifically.

[faejayy]

Yall????? omfg???? If you're a historical artist you NEED to look at what I just found because A BUNCH OF ORIGINAL SOURCES ON CLOTHING RANGING FROM MEDIEVAL TIMES TO THE 20TH CENTURY??? WITH CLEAR PHOTOS AND VERBAL EXPLANATIONS??? AND THEY'RE SORTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITHIN THE CENTURIES TOO????????

https://bloshka.info/

there's also this which also seems good but has less original sources and I haven't looked through as much :)

https://world4.eu/

[gothhabiba]

see this is exactly what I'm talking about. this labour is so incredibly invisibilised that there are real human beings, walking about amongst us, leading normal lives, etc., who earnestly believe that machines can make an item of clothing from start to finish.

[rowanrightalong]

Hey just in case someone on here doesn’t quite understand how labor intensive making a garment is, here is a list of things that (to the best of my knowledge) cannot be done by machine alone, from a costumer/tailor in training

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.

Please respect textile workers and continue the fight to eliminate the use of sweatshops and exploited labor in the fashion industry!

[uninterruptednonsense]

Reblogging with some additions from a different post o'mine:

" 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)

Don't want to believe it? I understand. Here is the wikipedia page, you can read it in your own time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_industry_in_Bangladesh#Readymade_garment_(RMG)_industry

[queeranarchism]

This isn't just true of clothes either. There's an astonishing amount of human labor behind most of our products. Even the steps that are automated are only possible because humans are constantly cleaning, maintaining, repairing, adjusting and fine tuning the machines.

I've noticed that the media that educates us often edits that out on purpose. In 'how its made' type videos, steps humans do by hand are often skipped because they don't make as smooth a video as watching machines do the parts of the production process that can be automated.

[luidilovins]

A movie idea where a kid is being raised in a cult that believes in ritual sacrifice and that their first born is destined to die and do so by forcefeeding the child a mysterious substance that begins to slowly make the kid rot from the inside out. The real horror of the story is the child fighting so hard to get much needed medical attention as they deteriorate only to be dismissed by every adult because that's their parent's constitutional right to practice their religious beliefs and they have the authority to decide that the kid deserves to die so they refuse to intervene.

[luidilovins]

The cultist parents aren't wearing bonnets and living in some secluded commune or anything, they live in an upper middle class home with a granite top kitchen island and a pool. Granted they dress a bit plainly but it's nothing out ot the ordinary. The parents are depicted as model citizens, regularly showing up to PTA and HOA meetings and throwing neighborhood bbqs. They go to their church on weekends and that's where things begin to spiral.

The kid has grown up in this "church" her whole life and she feels the full weight of betrayal and confusion come her 10th birthday when her parents reveal their firstborn's "ultimate destiny." She has to be held down kicking and screaming to be fed the substance only known as "the miracle".

Over time the kid starts showing symptoms of "the miracle" and is lying on the floor in a fetal position and begging her parents to help her while they all gather around and pray that their god kills her. Her younger siblings clap and chant and bounce around with glee, not understanding what's happening because they're young. Nobody will help her. Her death is a miracle to them but she is terrified and wants to live.

When she finally escapes the house and goes to the doctors the doctors almost immediately call the kid's parents and then gaslight her that her symptoms are "just a tummy ache" when previously the doctors and nurses showed intense concern that she's vomiting blood and black goo. They know it's bad but they don't want to deal with the lawsuit.

The film does not establish much lore about the cult or how widely known its practices are to outsiders, rather it should leave the audience disturbed and outraged asking questions like "how is everyone okay with this? Why isn't anyone helping this kid?"

[cheeseanonioncrisps]

Metahuman with super healing powers whose entire job is that once a week they go to a nearby hospital and are put into a medically induced coma for 24 hours while all their organs and blood are harvested, and kept there until they've healed up again.

They get paid a small stipend by the Heroes Council for this, and they live off that.

No crime fighting, no obvious heroics, and they only took a Super Identity because it's technically hero's council policy. Nobody's ever seen them in a cape.

Every so often the Heroes council will release an official report to the public, and there'll be another bunch of news articles wondering how some unknown super calling themselves 'Meat Factory' somehow consistently holds the record for most lives saved across the city.

[cheeseanonioncrisps]

It is essential to my vision that they are not at all sanctimonious about this.

Like, they regularly act like they're getting away with something. They joke about how they get to earn money in their sleep. They show up to their hospital visits in deliberately ridiculous disguises, on the excuse that they need to 'protect their identity'.

Part of their employment contract is that they get served the same post-operation vanilla ice cream that they normally hand out on the childrens' ward. Also a sticker. Their overnight bag is covered in stickers.

[shinyhappygoth]

Okay, Meat Factory is awesome and hilarious, but if they're being harvested for and regenerating absolutely everything, may I suggest an alternative super name: Theseus.

[amusedmuralist]

Can I further suggest since they hang out in the children's ward sometimes since they know what the ice cream is like, and they give their organs, that they start being called "Theseus nèè Meat Factory" after a nerdy 15 year old who loves myths asks them as their make a wish, which reserving that it's up to them what they want to do

[onedirectionforever]

“you support gay rights so you must be gay”

i support animal rights do i look like a fucking alpaca to you

[onedirectionforever]

turns out i am gay

[monsieurenjlolras]

holy shit how’d this alpaca learn how to type

[mywitchcultblr]

Diversity win! The alpaca is gay!

[adreamthatsworthkeeping]

[thebirdkiwi]

he was a llama

[fritextramole]

a llama?! he’s supposed to be dead!

[storybookprincess]

so back when my little brother was in high school, my mom went as a chaperone for their senior year field trip to an amusement park. which, you know, brave move to volunteer to supervise a bunch of high school seniors let loose in a wonderland of rollercoasters and sugar

my brother and his friends in this field trip group were truly great kids. but they were not above run of the mill teenage boy shenanigans. it’s the end of senior year, you and all your buddies are at the amusement park, you’re naturally going to want to act like a complete moron

there was one kid in the group who was especially prone to goofing around. committed to the bit, some may say. my mom knew that if nonsense was going to break out, he’d likely be at the center of it

so she goes up to this kid at the very start of the trip and says “hey, i’m kinda worried about this chaperoning thing. this might be a lot to ask, but can you help me keep an eye on everyone? you wouldn’t have to do anything big, just be an extra set of eyes for me.”

friends, this kid proceeded to run their field trip group like the fucking us marines. everyone is at the meet up spots at the designated time. everyone waits in line for the rides like a bunch of boy scouts. the second the horseplay gets too out of hand, this kid is getting it back under control

it’s incredible how differently people act based on the expectations you set. instead of going to this kid and saying “hey, i know you’re trouble, so i’ve got my eye on you,” my mom went “hey, i know you have influence in your peer group, so i think you can help me.”

treat someone like a problem, they’ll act like a problem. but give people a chance to help, make them feel important, and they usually rise far above the occasion. it was a stroke of genius that i’m honestly still in awe of