#Fanfiction — AO3 — fanfiction.net — My AO3 Site Skin — #Opowiadanie — #Poezja
#Miraculous Ladybug — Season 1 — Season 2 — Season 3 — Season 4 — Season 5 — ML Funny — ML Movie
#Harry Potter Books — Snape Meta Master Post — Autistic Characters in HP — #Ron Weasley Defence Squad — #Hermione Granger Critical — #Pro Percy Weasley — #Draco Malfoy — #Harry Potter — #Albus Dumbledore — #Voldemort — #Hogwarts Legacy
#Star Trek — Data Meta Master Post
#Star Wars — TROS - Alternative Story
#MCU — Loki Meta Master Post
Other — #ATLA — #Encanto — #Frozen— #The Lord of the Rings — #The Rings of Power — #House MD — #Jane Austen — #Catholic Church — My Digital Minimalism Journey — #Nad Niemnem — #Astrid Lindgren
In Pro Snape fandom, I've often read that he's disliked because he's not a perfect victim. I thought it made sense until I got into fandoms with perfect victims – Adrien Agreste from Miraculous Ladybug and Fanny Price from Mansfield Park. They try hard to fulfil their abusers' demands, they're kind, yet they're called weak and passive. According to people who dislike them, they are to blame for the abuse they experience, because it would end if only they stood up for themselves (even though in their case, even mild opposition leads to punishment – being sent away or imprisoned).
Many people simply dislike victims. Perhaps it's easier to blame victims regardless of their perfection or imperfection – in order to believe that it would never happen to them: they would stand up for themselves and never lash out; they would never become victims...
I think there is something going on with Adrien behind the scenes. Sometimes it's only vaguely hinted (like him getting up instead of simply standing after being brought back from the trophy, his lack of reaction other than constant smile during Amelie's interview, him standing on top of the stairs during Marinette and Nathalie's quarrel) and sometimes it's a bomb – dropped and never mentioned again, like Chat Noir destroying the statue of Gabriel. I don't know how much he knows or suspects, but something seems different to me.
💬 11 🔁 21 ❤️ 89 · ADRIEN KNOWS MORE THAN WE THINK?!
Adrien's "Clue Collection" To Figure Things Out On His Own from Every Episode of S6,
another character analysis no one asked for but i will give it anyway
The reason i HATE the idea of an Adrienette break-up/Ladybug vs Chat Noir bullshit is because THAT'S what Marinette wants. She wants an easy way out of her problem. Giving away her miraculous, breaking -up with Adrien, putting all the pressure on Alya: it's all her running away from what she made wrong.
The whole lesson about Marinette's lie is to live with the consequences of her actions. Of having to work out a solution when you are given a second chance to fix things.
Adrien has learnt that though. After murdering someone (which is WAY worse than a lie) and trying to give up his miraculous multiple times for petty reasons, he understands that him being Chat Noir is more than just "i will destroy this for LB to fix". He doesn't want to feel as useless as he felt during the fight against Monarch
Now Marinette is dealing with that. Because she can't just destroy what she did, nor fix it. Her breaking up with Adrien just takes away the reason why she feels guilty. Her giving away her miraculous takes away the responsibility of having fucked up and dealing with a new villain.
Doom thinking and waiting for the worst to happen instead for trying to work for a better outcome is what we should not be doing.
Being a villain is easy, is petty. Being a better person is where the work is at
I think that many people who find Mary Bennet relatable, imagine her to be like Fanny Price. Mary is a pretentious, not very bright show-off. It is Fanny who is a neglected, abused, intelligent introvert.
Normal fanfiction: Mr Smith was a 25-year-old gentleman with a large estate.
My stories: To find out the character's age, you need to solve a maths problem.
For example, in Portsmouth, to find out Mr Campbell's age, you need to:
wait till Chapter 7;
find out that Mr Campbell is six years older than Miss Campbell ("Fanny knew very well that it would not be the first time it had ever happened and the situation was familiar: a six years older cousin...");
find out that Miss Campbell is the same age as William ("I remember him talking about the assembly, when he and I were nineteen years old...");
remember that William is a year older than Fanny;
and then and only then you may find out that Mr Campbell is seven years older than Fanny!
In The Ribbon, in the first chapter you may learn that John has served four years in the militia:
“I am glad to hear this.” Mr Darcy smiled. “In a few days you could be a proud ensign or… Please tell me, Mr Pratt, how long have you served in the militia?”
“Four years.”
But then you need to wait till Chapter 4 to learn that he was 18 years old when he joined the militia:
When he had joined the militia at the age of eighteen...
Przez wiele lat sądziłam, że Borejkowie mają być typowymi inteligentami i dziwiła mnie nieco zmiana w ich przedstawieniu w ostatnich powieściach Jeżycjady. Ostatnio coś mi kliknęło i zrozumiałam, skąd to się bierze — że to było tam od początku. I wszystko nabrało sensu.
Inteligencja to nieco ulotna grupa skupiona na wykształceniu i wartościach: lekarze, prawnicy, pracownicy naukowi, często zaangażowani w działalność charytatywną, religijną, patriotyczną. Przez dziesięciolecia nie byli wielką elitą, bo najpierw mieli nad sobą szlachtę, która nawet trochę zubożała mogła błyszczeć swoim pochodzeniem, a potem byli ograniczeni wymuszoną komunistyczną równością. W wolnej Polsce spora część takich inteligentów nabrała wiatru w żagle i wybiła się zarówno finansowo, jak i prestiżowo. W zapomnienie poszła postać lekarza niosącego pomoc i kaganek oświaty prostym mieszkańcom wsi mimo braku profitów i wygody; taki lekarz w wolnej Polsce zaczął kupować auto z salonu, budować willę, jeździć na zagraniczne wakacje i dorabiać w Luxmedzie, co brzmi znacznie mniej nobliwie, nawet jeśli wspierał z przekonaniem dzieła charytatywne.
Inteligencja, w związku ze swoją ulotnością, nie była bądź nie jest (czy inteligencja jako taka jeszcze istnieje?) grupą jednorodną. Byli tam zawsze ludzie, dla których wykształcenie było przede wszystkim drogą do lepszego, wygodniejszego życia — ot, taka bardziej klasyczna klasa średnia, co nie znaczy, że niezwracająca uwagi na wartości. Byli tam też ludzie, których sensem życia była praca organiczna, użyteczność własna, do czego wykształcenie było bardziej narzędziem — których pewnie najbardziej kojarzymy z etosem inteligenckim, z działaczami społecznymi, z tym lekarzem na wsi, z nauczycielką-siłaczką. Ośmielę się przypuścić, że była to w istocie podgrupa najmniejsza. Była też jeszcze jedna podgrupa — szlachty wysadzonej z siodła, szukającej sobie miejsca w nowym świecie, gdzie ziemskich majątków już nie ma, a pochodzenie i herb nie grają większej roli. Spora część wpadała do pierwszych dwóch podgrup, ale nie Borejkowie.
Czy zamiłowanie Ignacego Borejki do filologii klasycznej to wzniosłe zainteresowanie inteligenta? Jeśli tak, to dlaczego tak gładko przeszło w pater familias i czarną polewkę? Dlaczego jeszcze w tym wszystkim Mickiewicz jest aż tak ważny? Bo w istocie Ignacy nie jest wzorem inteligenta bujającego w obłokach, ale dziedzica szlachty wysadzonej z siodła. Nie ma już wielkiego rodu Borejków, nie ma dworku; jest Ignacy i Roosevelta 5. Borejkowie są jak polscy czy włoscy Amerykanie, którzy kultywują zwyczaje swoich przodków, które jednak w oderwaniu od ojczyzny stają się jakąś karykaturą czy potworniakiem* dawnej kultury, z Busią, goblakami, pulpetami w spaghetti i "W imię Ojca" funkcjonującym bardziej jak jakieś magiczne błogosławieństwo niż najzwyczajniejszy element religii znany właściwie w każdym języku, a jednocześnie wierzą, że są lepsi i czystsi kulturowo niż ci, którzy dostosowali się do zmieniających się okoliczności.
*Gwoli wyjaśnienia: nie mam nic do polskich czy włoskich Amerykanów, a już na pewno nic do pulpetów w spaghetti; chodzi mi tylko o pewne zjawisko i rzadziej występujące specyficzne nastawienie.
Borejkowie nie rzucają cytatami klasycznymi (i Mickiewiczem) i nie mieszkają na kupie, bo są takimi klasycznie wykształconymi inteligentami, dla których wielką wartością jest rodzina. Ich cytaty to ich Busia i pulpety w spaghetti — nowy kod kulturowy, który ma być wyrazem kultury ich przodków. Łacina łączy ich z Sarmatami, z ich znajomością łaciny, odniesieniami do mitów greckich i rzymskich, mitycznym starożytnym pochodzeniem. W czasach dawnej szlachty łacina jednak miała zupełnie inną pozycję jako język, do pewnego stopnia lingua franca i używana regularnie w kościołach, natomiast w czasach Borejków jest już tylko pokryta pokładami (miłego) kurzu. Stąd też Mickiewicz i polonistyka — też łączą ich z kulturą przodków.
Rude włosy i wysokie czoło Ignacego to nie tylko jego cechy fizyczne; to wyraz jego szlachetnego pochodzenia, rzadkiego, wybitnego, które przekazuje w darze swoim dzieciom; bo to nie ich wykształcenie i wartości są miarą ich człowieczeństwa, ale pochodzenie również (czy może przede wszystkim). Borejkowie mieszkają wszyscy razem w małym mieszkaniu jak niegdyś ich przodkowie we dworku, jak Benedykt Korczyński z siostrą Martą i Orzelskimi — ale jest to również zwyczaj, który został przez Borejków przeniesiony z przeszłości bez żadnego względu na okoliczności; rodzina ma się trzymać blisko, mimo że już nie ma przestrzeni i bogactwa. Posiadłość Pulpecji to ojczyzna odzyskana, ojczyzna — czyli dwór, wiejski oczywiście, bo Borejkowie nigdy prawdziwie nie odnaleźli się na miejskim wygnaniu.
Rudy Józinek to dziedzic z przyszłym wąsem i byłą szabelką. Gizela to prosta chłopka i robotnica, mamka i niańka, która wychowała panienkę Melanię, która nie utrzymuje z nią potem bliskich kontaktów z uwagi na swą pozycję jako żona szlachetnego Borejki; Mila też nie szuka swoich rodziców, bo to, co znajdzie, może jej przynieść tylko rozczarowanie, bo nie będą tak szlachetni, jak powinni. Róża, bez wyższego wykształcenia, matka dzieciom, przypomina Helenę Kurcewiczównę według Fryderyka, bo jest szlachetną panną na wydaniu i nie musi być ambitna ani wykształcona. Natalia bierze nawet ślub w kontusiku; jej luby, choć pochodzenie ma słabe, jest jednak rudy i ma wąsy prawdziwego mężczyzny. Kreska, dzięki szlachetnemu pokrewieństwu z Dmuchawcem, wybiera Kmicica lat 80. niczym nowa Oleńka, odtrącając prostego Lelujkę. Naszpan polonista to Mickiewiczowski syn posiadacza ziemskiego.
Borejkowie nigdy, od samego początku, nie utrzymywali z nikim bliskich przyjaźni. Inni pracownicy naukowi byli zbyt ambitni, inżynierowie zbyt praktyczni. O jakiejkolwiek działalności społecznej nie słyszymy, poza Eksperymentalnym Sygnałem Dobra i krótko wspomnianym epizodem antykomunistycznej działalności Ignacego, o czym trudno nawet powiedzieć coś konkretnego. Borejkowie siedzą w swojej bańce, kultywując swoje karykaturalne zwyczaje szlachetnych przodków, próbując zakładać kostium inteligenta, który jednak nie bardzo pasuje, bo jest miejscami zbyt duży swoimi wymaganiami i zbyt mały na ich wielkie ego. Józek, brat Ignacego, idzie z nurtem czasu i staje się zwyczajny, boleśnie zwyczajny i nijaki, niegodny miana Borejki, ot, zwykły mieszczuch. W czasach PRL jeszcze w miarę łatwo było Borejkom bratać się z inteligencją, ale gdy nastała wolna Polska, a inteligencja skorzystała z okazji i rozpłynęła się w klasie średniej, Borejkowie zostali znów z tyłu, tuląc do siebie ten niepasujący kostium inteligenta, a jednocześnie korzystając z obrotności nieszlachetnych, prostych członków rodziny, głównie Floriana i Patrycji. Im dalej czas płynie — coraz bardziej z tyłu, coraz bardziej nieprzystający do otaczającego ich świata, a jednocześnie coraz bardziej butni i pewni siebie, wracając do nowego dworku, tak bardzo im się wszak należącego niczym ich własna ojczyzna; reszty ojczyzny nie potrzebują.
I find discussions about Austen heroes' virginity somewhat funny.
Firstly, some people seem not to understand that most doesn't mean all. Sure, in Georgian and Regency Eras (any era, I guess) most men engaged in premarital sex, but it doesn't mean that there was not a single male virgin in whole England.
Secondly, even today, when premarital sex is widely accepted in so called western societies, there are still some male virgins. And I don't mean incels, I mean virgins by choice. In Georgian and Regency Eras, religion was much more widespread and while of course most people treated it preformatively, there were still some people - just like today - who were truly religious. For them, premarital sex meant eternity in hell.
Thirdly, it was a world withouth antibiotics and birth control. Sex meant babies. Of course, many men didn't care much about their children, even their "legal" children, but still, some did. Also, sex with a promiscuous woman meant a high chance of (untreatable) STDs - which meant pain and terrible death.
(People keep writing about "descreet" widows and mistresses, and it sounds like something Mary Crawford would say xD)
Yes, that world - especially London - was full of Henry Crawfords and Willoughbys who slept with harrassed maids, visited brothels and kept mistresses (and contracted syphilis, and gave it to their wives and children, and died terrible deaths later), but there were some - even though few - men who stayed virgins. There were practical reasons to do so.
I doubt every male character written by Jane Austen, except for the rakes, is a virgin, but it's definitely possible for some.
Edmund Bertram - even though he's very flawed, he's truly religious and responsible.
Mr Darcy - he's responsible, strict and moral.
Edward Ferrars - the only Austen man who seems to feel a true calling to become a clergymen; he's responsible and dutiful. However, I think he could've made out with Lucy to some extent, but I doubt they had sex.
Mr Bingley - while I think it's less likely that he's a virgin, I think he and Darcy could bond over not being as promiscuous as the rest of society.
Mr Collins - he's stupid and ridiculous, but I think he's somewhat honest in his beliefs. (I've read that he's a virgin because he's too ridiculous... No, he could definitely go to a brothel despite his ridiculousness. You don't need any charm to pay for sex.)
Sexually experienced
Captain Wentworth - he felt no inconstancy of mind, but when he felt "weak and resentful", perhaps he tried to forget Anne in brothels? Even just a few times.
Colonel Brandon - same as Wentworth, but about Eliza.
Mr Tilney - I think he could've had a few sexual encounters during his time at university.
Tom Bertram - gambling, alcohol, why not women? Unless he's gay.
I have no idea
Mr Knightley - he's responsible and kind, he stays in his country estate, but he's also older and not interested in marriage until Emma. So I don't know.
I find discussions about Austen heroes' virginity somewhat funny.
Firstly, some people seem not to understand that most doesn't mean all. Sure, in Georgian and Regency Eras (any era, I guess) most men engaged in premarital sex, but it doesn't mean that there was not a single male virgin in whole England.
Secondly, even today, when premarital sex is widely accepted in so called western societies, there are still some male virgins. And I don't mean incels, I mean virgins by choice. In Georgian and Regency Eras, religion was much more widespread and while of course most people treated it performatively, there were still some people - just like today - who were truly religious. For them, premarital sex meant eternity in hell.
Thirdly, it was a world without antibiotics and birth control. Sex meant babies. Of course, many men didn't care much about their children, even their "legal" children, but still, some did. Also, sex with a promiscuous woman meant a high chance of (untreatable) STDs - which meant pain and terrible death.
(People keep writing about "descreet" widows and mistresses, and it sounds like something Mary Crawford would say xD)
Yes, that world - especially London - was full of Henry Crawfords and Willoughbys who slept with harrassed maids, visited brothels and kept mistresses (and contracted syphilis, and gave it to their wives and children, and died terrible deaths later), but there were some - even though few - men who stayed virgins. There were practical reasons to do so.
I doubt every male character written by Jane Austen, except for the rakes, is a virgin, but it's definitely possible for some.
Mrs Bennet's problem isn't her middle class background. In the very same novel we have ridiculous Lady Catherine and perfectly kind and polite Gardiners who are literally in trade. Mrs Bennet could be a daughter of a wealthy landed gentleman and still be terribly stupid.
Darcy was a snob, not a rake.
No one calls Miss Bingley "Caro" in the novel.
Henry Crawford is not handsome.
The Prices have two servants (Rebecca and Sally).
Mr Price is a lieutenant of the marines, not the navy.
He's not physically abusive.
It was the Admiralty that decided who got promoted in the navy.
William Price does have a friend, who is a surgeon; but he's often replaced by a captain, because it's more prestigious, I guess.
Speaking of William, when someone writes about "William Darcy", I always think at first it's an Elizabeth Bennet/William Price fic.
While I believe Fanny Price can get over Edmund, she needs time and a reason. She won't suddenly forget him when someone else is nice to her.
A "compromise."
I just wish we had more stories where the ultimate happiness doesn't mean marrying up; more stories about the heroine herself, about equal partnerships, about the couple building their home together instead of the hero giving it to the heroine; more stories that aren't more regressive than the novels written 200 years ago.
I think one of the biggest reasons why many people dislike Mansfield Park is that they expect a romance while it is not. None of Jane Austen's novels is just a romance, but Mansfield Park's romantic subplot is especially less enjoyable, compared to other books.
So Edmund? He's not that important. Fanny and Sir Thomas (as much as I despise him) are the main characters. Edmund is just a means to an end, which is Fanny becoming truly the daughter of Sir Thomas.
The 2005 P&P thing in my ROP post’s tags got me thinking for some reason about how much it has impacted the concept of Austen’s P&P and what the dynamics and plot (and lines) of the novel are, despite it simultaneously being pretty well known that it’s not as ostensibly faithful as the 1980 and 1995 adaptations.
So, despite my defensiveness, I do understand that one of the realities of big adaptations is that they influence the discourse around both the adaptation itself and the original material, and I actually agree that “you can always read your copy of the book” or whatever does not negate this. My issue is when people are wildly hypocritical about it rather than arguing that there’s no interrelationship or that adaptations’ representations and interpretations of their sources can’t profoundly influence widespread perception of those sources.
OTOH, it’s not always perfectly straightforward, either.
#yeah people do not like to grapple with the fact that 1995 added stuff and influences takes on the novel#I do find it funny how much tumblr loves 2005 in comparison to how people reacted back then#different generations I suppose (via @chocolatepot)
Yuppp. It’s one thing to be a fan of the 1995 (I’m not, but I can understand why people might be!). But a lot of its fans are extremely dismissive of all criticism and at the same time, seem genuinely not to realize how much their sense of what the book is and what fidelity even looks like has been impacted by inventions, context shifts, changes, and other adaptational choices from the 1995 production.
These are not all intrinsically bad, but when those things become this heavy filter for understanding what’s in the original novel, of course no other adaptation is going to seem to be engaging with “canon” on a comparable level and fandom ends up with a lot of extremely noticeable double standards for different adaptations.
I often see P&P 2005 on Tumblr and Reddit, but it's usually edits, photos, fanart, quotes, mood boards and memes. I don't recall anyone using scenes from the film as a proof in discussions, but I regularly see this kind of thing regarding P&P 1995, which is not as faithful as many people believe.
I've seen many people claim that Lydia is basically Mrs Bennet 2.0, but I don't fully agree. Of course, they have very similar personalities – they're silly, stupid, vulgar, loud, they talk about marriage all the time. But only one of Lydia's parents married someone based on their looks/charm, without thinking of the future, assuming without hysterical reactions that everything would work out somehow in the end – and that wasn't her mother.
I've seen several posts calling fans who write fanfiction as fanfiction writers / authors, as if they some special people who produce the stories for the sake of writing, and a fan can ask for a certain style, length, pairing and whatnot, and tell them constructive criticism.
Some are like that, but generally I don't agree with such approach. I sometimes write fanfiction, but I'm no writer. I do it only because I'm just a fan of some characters who wants to solve some preoccupying thoughts about them.
So I don't expect the "writers" to write something you want. If I want something, you can only expect to write it myself - however imperfect it might be.
While P&P is probably the most "bright and sparkling" JA's novels, I've always found Lydia's fate horrible. While writing "Mansfield Park" fic, I felt inadvertently pushed towards P&P (it's everywhere when you try to read something about JA) and at some point I started coming up with a story about Lydia.
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Summary: "…Pray make my excuses to Pratt for not keeping my engagement, and dancing with him to-night. Tell him I hope he will excuse me when he knows all, and tell him I will dance with him at the next ball we meet with great pleasure…" (P&P, Ch. 47.) Wickham runs away with Lydia's money, never to be seen again. Fortunately, another officer happens to be in London.
Relationships: Lydia Bennet/Mr. Pratt (Pride and Prejudice), Lydia Bennet & Original Female Character
Tags: Rare Pairing, Coming of Age, Fix-It, Alternate Universe - Canon Divergence, Opposites Attract, Marriage of Convenience, Happy Ending
In progress.
Cover art: William Turner, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, watercolour on paper, 1823.
