Sometimes I come across arguments in comment sections and find myself agreeing with both sides of the argument lmaoo. Like, yes, both of y'all have valid points here, take my like. And then I give a like to both comments.

No title available
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
styofa doing anything

shark vs the universe

No title available
One Nice Bug Per Day
trying on a metaphor

祝日 / Permanent Vacation

Janaina Medeiros
sheepfilms

titsay
Today's Document
Sade Olutola
Cosimo Galluzzi

Product Placement
$LAYYYTER
KIROKAZE

JVL

@theartofmadeline
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
seen from Canada

seen from Czechia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from Spain
@inmyownfictionalworld
Sometimes I come across arguments in comment sections and find myself agreeing with both sides of the argument lmaoo. Like, yes, both of y'all have valid points here, take my like. And then I give a like to both comments.
something i hadn't considered much before but is highlighted very explicitly in this interesting article "the character of hector in the iliad" by s. farron is that there is a real gulf between how the narrator/other characters talk about hector and hector's actual accomplishments and martial ability in the iliad. the article points out that although many characters refer to hector as this great, terrifying warrior who can only be fended off by achilles, the actual narrative demonstrates repeatedly that hector's real strengths lie in his deep, sympathetic relationships with his family and city, and that his prowess on the battlefield is not actually very impressive compared to other trojan leaders like sarpedon. hector shows remarkable bravery several times and is genuinely very invested in protecting his home, but he never defeats a single achaean king, gets scolded multiple times by his brothers and allies for holding back or being cowardly, and the one time he does kill someone important, patroclus, all of the glory he might've won from the act is negated by how much apollo and euphorbus have to cripple patroclus before hector can finish him off. hector is brilliant and strong when leading the trojans against the achaeans as a whole, and he kills many individual, nameless achaeans, but he is not equal in martial skill to any singular greek leader, despite how much the characters in the iliad hype him up.
farron argues essentially that hector - and everyone else - has extremely high expectations of him as the crown prince of troy, expectations which he never quite lives up to and which really serve to highlight that he defends his city out of necessity, because he values peace, family, and loyalty more than glory or notoriety. the moments where he does bluster about honor or scold other characters for cowardice clash with his actions, incidents where he balks with fear or avoids direct confrontation with the achaean kings or straight up flees from achilles. it makes him read as someone who is desperately trying to be the hero troy needs him to be, because he knows what will happen if he isn't, to the point of overextending himself beyond his own realistic capabilities. it really emphasizes the tragedy of his fate and how futile it all was in the end.
i mostly agree with farron's assessment, and i also want to elaborate that i think another character in the iliad also suffers this disconnect between how others describe him and how he actually, demonstrably behaves, and that is paris. many characters have nasty things to say about paris, most prominently hector himself, and they basically amount to three general charges: he's a coward, his only redeeming quality is his attractiveness, and he's impulsively self-serving. hector and diomedes both directly call him a coward for, respectively, being reluctant to fight (3.54-56) and being an archer (11.505-510), but quite literally the only times we see paris shying away from battle are when 1) he first gets nervous seeing menelaus coming out to answer his challenge, and 2) when he doesn't immediately return after aphrodite spirits him away. in both instances, he eventually gets over himself and returns to the battlefield, where he doesn't make any further attempts to avoid the war. he proves repeatedly that he's not just a pretty face: he's a skilled combatant, an effective leader, and a persuasive speaker, and it's rather telling that every time he makes a grand speech, he always either convinces the other person (13.1020) or they simply don't argue back (6.460). and while it is very true that he is impulsively self-serving re: helen and aphrodite, he also repeatedly avenges his dead friends, protects fellow trojans, and fights on the front lines even in episodes where hector himself is conspicuously absent. hector does acknowledge at one point, "no one of any sense would ever disparage your performance in a battle. you are a brave man" (6.712), and in my opinion it means something that he uses his dying breath to name paris as his avenger, clearly indicating that paris is a formidable opponent even though hector has been very frustrated with what he perceives as paris' glaring lack of patriotic courage.
which i really think is the core of it - it's not that paris lacks martial skill or willpower, it's that paris doesn't seem to feel the same crushing weight of expectation and obligation that hector does. he's not the crown prince, he doesn't embody the city's hopes in the same way and he isn't responsible for carrying the morale of the whole army on his back. he's also not insecure - he knows exactly what his own flaws & virtues are and he doesn't let anyone disparage him unjustly. he accepts criticism when it's warranted but also doesn't hesitate to deny it when it isn't:
"Hector, it is quite reasonable for you to scold me in this way... But do not blame me for the lovely gifts of golden Aphrodite. Glorious gifts that come from gods, that they themselves have given, must not be thrown away—although no human chooses them willingly." (3.75-85)
"Soon he found, towards the left side of the painful battle, Paris... coaxing his comrades to the fight. And Hector stood near and spoke to him with words of shame. 'Pathetic Paris! Womanizer! Cheat! ... Troy is totally destroyed from top to bottom! Now certainly your death is guaranteed!' And godlike Paris answered, 'You are wrong to blame me, Hector. Sometimes in the past perhaps I tended to hold back from war. But I was certainly not born a coward. Our mother gave me birth to be a hero, and since the time you roused our men to fight beside these ships, we have remained right here, engaged in constant conflict with the Greeks.'" (13.1013-1028)
meanwhile, hector is constantly torn between the person he is vs the person troy needs him to be, the domestic father and husband vs the man-slaughtering legend, and in the end he doesn't get to fully satisfy either role. achilles hunts him down and kills him like a dog. in a lot of ways, i think hector and paris both become symbolic figures in the eyes of the achaeans and the trojans (as well as in the eyes of a lot of readers of the iliad), in ways that contradict their actual personalities and behaviors. hector gets cast as a terrifying, powerful, indomitable warrior-prince when he really shines most in relation to his family and the gentle affection he holds for them; paris gets cast as a selfish coward who's responsible for bringing ruin to troy and then trying to dodge responsibility, when he actually spends most of the iliad wounding serious achaean players, lifting trojan spirits with his rhetorical skills, and very gracefully accepting the scorn that everyone heaps on him because he knows he fucked up and does not try to pretend otherwise.
anyway, it's mildly frustrating to me that both hector and paris get flattened into these uninteresting archetypes when what the text actually tells us about them is so much more nuanced and complicated
“paris might be a bad person, but so is everyone else in the iliad, the amount of hate compared to some other characters he gets is unreasonable” i say into the mic. the crowd boos. i walk off in shame. but then suddenly: “she’s not wrong” a voice says “i’d even say he’s fabulous and deserves no hate at all” i look up and there he is. paris of troy himself.
I agree and disagree with one of the commentators that said how Paris had a sheltered upbringing, displayed ignorance, thought himself to be untouchable. Paris didn’t actually have a sheltered upbringing. He had an isolated one. He wasn’t raised in the palace at all because of the prophecy surrounding him, he was exposed as an infant to the elements and ended up being raised by a shepherd on Mount Ida. Paris essentially grew up socially and culturally isolated from Troy’s royal world, even though he wasn’t completely alone. He lived among the “common folk”, not nobles and had no training in politics, warfare or court life for that matter (this is where the ignorance comes into play). When he finally entered Priam’s home later, he wasn’t prepared for the responsibilities or expectations of a prince, which explains a lot of his naive confidence and impressions. However, he did make the conscious choice to pursue the hand of a married woman (which the situation with Helen’s marriage and the lead up to it is quite complicated in itself to began with. Paris presence just contributed to the fire), when he was initially sent to Sparta on a diplomatic mission to improve their countries relations. Aphrodite’s role in Paris and Helen’s first meeting wasn’t about forcing his hand or taking away his free will (despite the prior golden apple contest and her “promising” Helen as this gift). She was more of a presence that highlighted and intensified the natural attraction and desire that sparked between them. Her influence set the mood but the decision that followed were ultimately made by Paris and Helen themselves.
Paris definitely isn’t the only one at fault here but he did have a major role that set off a devastating domino effect. His choices didn’t happen in a vacuum, the situation around Helen was already politically charged and multiple forces were at play. However, his decision to act on that attraction, especially while on a diplomatic mission became a tipping point that pushed everything into motion (maybe accelerated things as well).
Yea no I'm unhappy either way. I just need s bullet lmao
Crazy how what ppl back then viewed as “sacking” or “plundering” is now recognized as colonialism and genocide.
Honestly every time I see the Greeks portrayed as feeling bad for all the war crimes they’ve done in Troy it reminds me of this:
Thinking about Katniss’s therapist from the end of Mockingjay tonight.
Thinking about how when I was a kid and I read those books, to me the therapist seemed like either a punchline — about how ineffective therapy is for someone as uncommunicative as Katniss, how little talking to one would change about her profound trauma and grief, or about how shitty mental health care would be in Panem — or an example of people around Katniss being negligent with her well-being.
But then I think back on it, and like…I actually think napping though their appointments, not forcing Katniss to engage, was the best thing that therapist could’ve done for her.
Katniss did not have a choice about going to those sessions. After Prim died and Katniss was burned and mute and grieving beyond what words could describe, Katniss was forced to see a therapist by the new regime.
And even if Coin didn’t personally order that the Mockingjay receive counseling, as a way to find out if Katniss still had the presence of mind to oppose her…I have no doubt she and dozens of others would’ve had access to anything and everything Katniss said during those mandated therapy sessions.
I’m not gonna pretend Katniss did not profoundly fucking need some professional help after all she went through. But when she’s receiving professional counseling at the end of Mockingjay, it’s a total farce — Katniss’s well-being is not the point, not in the least because she still has received no catharsis, no certainty that the horrors of war are over.
Not forcing Katniss to say anything, especially anything incriminating, was probably the kindest thing that therapist could’ve done. He let her heal and piece herself back together mentally, in a place where Katniss felt safe.
When she’s sent bad to 12 Katniss says her therapist testified on her behalf during her trial. That he told the court she was mentally unwell and couldn’t be held accountable for killing Coin. She presents it as though it was some kind of grand deception, a sneaky trick to keep her out of jail.
But I think that therapist just saw a traumatized 17-year-old girl for what she was, and helped as best he was able.
I actually really love Dr Aurelius. I think he saw she was grieving her sister and let her do that. That's normal, to grieve a loved one. I also thinking him napping is kind of funny, and also an interesting way to gain her trust since she doesn't usually like new people. He is supposedly the "star" of her defense team and keeps her out of jail, which meant he did have clinical notes and diagnoses, he just never brought it up with Katniss. Basically, he was monitoring her--making sure she isn't suicidal--but not pushing.
And at the end there is that part where Peeta says Dr Aurelius can't keep pretending to be treating you. I think that indicates he feels now is the time to take a more active role. (And that she will need more help now that she has more energy and starts caring about her hair because Peeta is there.)
@maximumdamage and @heavensbeehall what I like about Dr. Aurelius is that I suspect Suzanne Collins got his name from Marcus Aurelius who was one of the creators of the philosophy of stoicism. (He wrote Meditations, a famous book on the topic.) I'm no expert on that philosophy but I know that it teaches detachment as part of its practice, and uses the example of an archer having no true control over where an arrow will land once he/she shoots it.
This is metaphor for Katniss and how her actions ultimate brought about the overthrow of the government. Stoicism would teach Katniss to detach from the result of her actions and stop blaming herself for everything that's happened in Panem, something I think Katniss sorely needs at the end of Mockingjay.
Yes, I think that is part of it. I've read Meditations now and a book about Meditations because it's not well-organized, imo. (For the fic. Deep sigh.) I'm no expert. I think some of the philosophy is similar to Collins, yes. But the "some things are neither good nor bad but just are" elements don't really track, because I do think Collins thinks some things are objectively bad.
I also think she loves books. The Plant Book and the Memory Book are our main characters' links to the past and Plutarch has a library and that is how he knows everything. And Marcus Aurelius is the only Roman Emperor who might be BETTER known for his writing than for being Roman Emperor? So I think, in naming him "Dr Aurelius" she is saying this is someone to be trusted, unlike Coriolanus who was a general or those characters named after other Roman Emperors? "This Roman good."
I'm not well-versed enough in philosophy and political science to say where Marcus Aurelius would stand on the nature of man debate in TBOSAS. Coriolanus thinks man is bad and needs to be controlled. Lucy Gray represents a pleasant state of nature. I believe Marcus Aurelius thought man was inherently logical which is something I doubt more and more each year I am alive. But it's probably a good quality to have in a medical doctor?
Thinking about Katniss’s therapist from the end of Mockingjay tonight.
Thinking about how when I was a kid and I read those books, to me the therapist seemed like either a punchline — about how ineffective therapy is for someone as uncommunicative as Katniss, how little talking to one would change about her profound trauma and grief, or about how shitty mental health care would be in Panem — or an example of people around Katniss being negligent with her well-being.
But then I think back on it, and like…I actually think napping though their appointments, not forcing Katniss to engage, was the best thing that therapist could’ve done for her.
Katniss did not have a choice about going to those sessions. After Prim died and Katniss was burned and mute and grieving beyond what words could describe, Katniss was forced to see a therapist by the new regime.
And even if Coin didn’t personally order that the Mockingjay receive counseling, as a way to find out if Katniss still had the presence of mind to oppose her…I have no doubt she and dozens of others would’ve had access to anything and everything Katniss said during those mandated therapy sessions.
I’m not gonna pretend Katniss did not profoundly fucking need some professional help after all she went through. But when she’s receiving professional counseling at the end of Mockingjay, it’s a total farce — Katniss’s well-being is not the point, not in the least because she still has received no catharsis, no certainty that the horrors of war are over.
Not forcing Katniss to say anything, especially anything incriminating, was probably the kindest thing that therapist could’ve done. He let her heal and piece herself back together mentally, in a place where Katniss felt safe.
When she’s sent bad to 12 Katniss says her therapist testified on her behalf during her trial. That he told the court she was mentally unwell and couldn’t be held accountable for killing Coin. She presents it as though it was some kind of grand deception, a sneaky trick to keep her out of jail.
But I think that therapist just saw a traumatized 17-year-old girl for what she was, and helped as best he was able.
Let's actually look at Doctor Aurelius and everything we know about him.
"Finally, Dr. Aurelius, a head doctor, comes up with a theory that I've become a mental, rather than physical, Avox. That my silence is has been brought on by emotional trauma. Although he's presented with a hundred proposed remedies, he tells them to leave me alone.". -pg350 Mockingjay
He pinpoints the problem, she's mute because of trauma. What does he do? Tells them to leave her alone. Why? To me it seems like they want a quick fix, a spray or something to get her talking right now. That's just not gonna work, she needs actual help not a bandage so he says leave her be. What next?
"Dr. Aurelius shows up sometimes. I like him because he doesn't say stupid things like how I'm totally safe, or that he knows I can't see it but I'll be happy again one day,or even that things will be better in Panem now. He just asks if I feel like talking, and when I don't answer, he falls asleep in his chair." -pg 352 Mockingjay.
Yeah she does think he's doing but getting a free nap but he is building some trust in Katniss. She says she likes him, and if she likes he she might actually want help from him. He comes in, asks her if she wants to talk, then if she doesn't he doesn't force her. It's said throughout the book that Katniss cannot be forced to do things, she's stubborn and I have no doubts that Dr Aurelius was told that so he's not forcing her. Next time we see him
"Although most of the credit for my exoneration must be given to Dr. Aurelius, who apparently earned his naps by presenting me as a hopeless, shell-shocked lunatic. One condition for my release is that I'll continue under his care, although it will have to be by phone because he'd never live in a forsaken place like 12, and I'm confined there until further notice.". -pg 378 Mockingjay.
Katniss gives him the credit for her exoneration. She says he paints her as a shell-shocked lunatic but that's not exactly a lie is it? just a stretched truth in Katniss's favor. She IS Shell-Shocked (PTSD) and traumatized. But here he's vouching for her this shows Dr Aurelius does somewhat care about Katniss. I also want to point out we never actually hear quotes from the hearing it's possible that this is what Katniss thinks he means but it's not actually what he means. Did he actually call Katniss hopeless and lunatic? We don't know. Did he call d12 a forsaken place? We don't know. He could have not wanted to move to 12 cus he'd have to leave all his patients. I honestly don't think Katniss's words cant be trusted all the time, no hate to her but the next page she says she can't tell if Sae is being neighborly or if she's getting paid to take care of her. Like Katniss has been traumatized since she was a teen, it's not her fault but she is really bad at knowing if people actually care about her.
Next time we hear of Dr Aurelius is from Peeta
"Dr Aurelius wouldn't let me leave the Capital until yesterday," Peeta says. "By the way, he said to tell you he can't keep pretending he's treating you for forever. You have to pick up the phone" -pg 382 Mockingjay.
Giving out an olive branch, all Katniss has to do is take it and she did cus the final time we hear of Dr Aurelius is-
"Slowly, with many lost days, I come back to life. I try to follow Dr Aurelius's advice, just go through the motions, amazed when one finally has meaning again. I tell him my idea about the book, and a large box of parchment sheets arrives on the next train from the Capital." -pg387 Mockingjay
Where Katnis is following Dr Aurelius's advice. I think he got here because he took the time to build her trust and let her come to him. He's giving her space to heal her own way and sending her what she needs. in this case the book supplies. Obviously we're not seeing her Therapy appointments and we don't see him again but to me he doesn't seem that horrible. Therapy isn't a one size fits all thing and Katniss (and Peeta) seem to have actually been helped by Dr Aurelius, seeing as they feel safe enough to have kids and find a new normal in the epilogue. So Idk if he's a horrible therapist, he seems fine.
Two statements about characters can and should co-exist: Pride and Prejudice edition
Mr Bennet has a close relationship with Elizabeth and provides amusing observations on the folly of human nature BUT he is a terrible husband and father who consistently neglects the women who rely on him for absolutely everything; Elizabeth and Jane turned out so well in spite of him, not because of him.
Mrs Bennet's behaviour is understandable given the era in which she lived and the subsequent pressure she was under to get her daughters married well, which wasn't entirely for vanity reasons given that Longbourn was entailed BUT she was still fundamentally vain, ridiculous and rude; such pressure, even combined with an absent husband, still does not make her behaviour justifiable, nor her a sympathetic character, as she enabled Lydia (whose subsequent elopement with Wickham almost ruined the family) for far too long.
Mr Collins is unfairly portrayed as a middle-aged sycophant in most adaptations, rather than the young clergyman who sucks up to his patroness in pursuit of a more lucrative living that he was BUT he is still a ridiculous character who you are not meant to feel sympathy for when Elizabeth rejects him; he is rude, hypocritical and thinks of himself far too highly considering how vapid he actually is.
Caroline Bingley is often too harshly judged as a 'pick-me,' even though her relentless pursuit of Darcy is understandable given his wealth & status and how important it was for women to make a good marriage BUT she was still rude, vain and treated Jane terribly; plus she was a hypocritical snob, given the manner in which she looked down upon the Bennet family's relations despite the Bingleys' own background in trade.
Elizabeth is incredibly witty, courageous and endearing and instantly likeable which makes Darcy's slight of her at the Meryton assembly all the more of an affront to us as readers BUT, while it explains her dislike of him, she is no means perfect herself; she had far too much misplaced pride in her ability to successfully read others' characters and consequently ignored positive accounts of Darcy in favour of believing the deceitful Wickham, given her prejudice against the former.
Mr Darcy was harshly judged by Elizabeth, even though there are many more sympathetic elements to his character than immediately meet the eye BUT he was not shy or innocent; he was always a haughty rich man who had never been told no, thought far too highly of himself and, ultimately, thoroughly deserved to be rebuked and subsequently made to reform his character.
Yess this exactly. All of them are DISTINCT characters.
Something I just caught on my last re-listen to Pride and Prejudice: in Mrs. Gardiner’s letter, it’s brought up that Mr. Darcy deliberately avoids Mr. Bennet while in London.
“… Mr. Darcy’s next step was to make your uncle acquainted with it, and he first called in Gracechurch-street the evening before I came home. But Mr. Gardiner could not be seen, and Mr. Darcy found, on farther inquiry, that your father was still with him, but would quit town the next morning. He did not judge your father to be a person whom he could so properly consult as your uncle, and therefore readily postponed seeing him, till after the departure of the former.” (Chapter 52, emphasis mine)
This is not remarked on further in the text; Darcy doesn’t bring it up later and Elizabeth is more concerned with his rescuing Lydia than the fact that her father could have been spared a few days’ grief. This decision by Darcy, which I think must be the side effect of Austen’s careful timing of events (Austen gives so little detail in general in P&P that the constant notation of the passage of time is quite noticeable to me), is a rather dramatic demonstration of Darcy’s relationship with Elizabeth’s family, made more significant by the fact that Elizabeth is not directly witnessing it, but it’s left almost entirely unaddressed within text, left to the reader to figure out what it means. But I don’t know what it means! Here’s my propositions for why Darcy does this, in no particular order:
A) Darcy does not think Mr. Bennet is the proper person to consult because of the delicacy of the situation. He assumes that Mr. Bennet, due to fatherly affection for Lydia, would not be able to calmly and rationally deal with Wickham, but that Mr. Gardiner, as an uncle, would.
B) The same as above, but instead of fatherly affection, he thinks Mr. Bennet might act rashly or inappropriately as an aspect of his character. This is an assessment of Mr. Bennet’s character, but does not necessarily mean that Darcy thinks poorly of him.
C) Darcy does not think Mr. Bennet is the proper person to consult because they need to discuss money. He assumes that Mr. Bennet’s finances and/or attitudes surrounding money would hinder either Lydia’s settlement or the settling of Wickham’s debts and the purchase of his commission.
D) Darcy has had limited contact with Mr. Bennet and is simply uncomfortable with discussing things with him because they are only nominally acquainted; by contrast, he has had several conversations with Mr. Gardiner and likes him. The issue is him simply not knowing Mr. Bennet, rather than him knowing him well enough to think badly of him.
E) Darcy waits until Mr. Bennet has gone home out of a sense of protecting him/the need for him at Longbourn/not wishing to delay his journey.
F) Darcy already intends to hide everything from Elizabeth and believes that this will be impossible if he involves Mr. Bennet/he trusts Mr. Gardiner’s discretion.
G) Somehow, all of this relates to the fact that it’s Mr. Gardiner’s house. And this overrides the fact that this is Mr. Bennet’s daughter????
H) Darcy thinks of Mr. Gardiner as his friend and as a useful relative of Elizabeth, but Mr. Bennet he holds in less esteem. Both a bias for Mr. Gardiner AND one against Mr. Bennet.
I) He doesn’t want to have to explain himself to Mr. Bennet. He knows his actions will prompt speculation, knows that Mr. Gardiner already suspects something re: feelings for Lizzie so that ship has sailed, and he doesn’t need Elizabeth’s DAD poking his nose in!! Because he’d sniff him out.
WHY DID DARCY AVOID MR BENNET IN LONDON?
A) Mr. Bennet is a dad
B) Mr. Bennet’s character -> mishandling
C) Money problems
D) I am shy.
E) Just get this guy home
F) MUST HIDE FROM E
G) Casa Gardiner
H) I DO like Mr. G and DONT like Mr. B
I) HIDE CRUSH
Something else…
I am very interested to know what people think!
I suspect that there’s a combination of a lot of different factors here, but I just checked my annotated edition, and David M Shapard suggests that Darcy might think that Mr. Bennet would object to Darcy’s interfering in the affair.
I also think there might be a number of factors, but I was thinking about a variation on the reason cited above (that Mr. Bennet would object) -
Before Darcy's part in arranging for Wickham and Lydia to marry comes to light, Mr. Bennet assumes Mr. Gardiner has made it happen by paying Wickham's debts:
"But there are two things that I want very much to know:—one is, how much money your uncle has laid down to bring it about; and the other, how I am ever to pay him.” “Money! my uncle!” cried Jane, “what do you mean, sir?” “I mean that no man in his proper senses would marry Lydia on so slight a temptation as one hundred a year during my life, and fifty after I am gone.” “That is very true,” said Elizabeth; “though it had not occurred to me before. His debts to be discharged, and something still to remain! Oh, it must be my uncle’s doings! Generous, good man, I am afraid he has distressed himself. A small sum could not do all this.” “No,” said her father. “Wickham’s a fool if he takes her with a farthing less than ten thousand pounds: I should be sorry to think so ill of him, in the very beginning of our relationship.” “Ten thousand pounds! Heaven forbid! How is half such a sum to be repaid?”
Mr. Bennet, Elizabeth, and Jane all discuss this debt they presume they owe Mr. Gardiner quite a bit, and they're all distressed by it. Mr. Bennet is said later to be "determined, if possible, to find out the extent of [Mr. Gardiner's] assistance, and to discharge the obligation as soon as he could." And that's when the assistance is coming from a relative. It's still considered a heavy, maybe even shameful, obligation.
I think Mr. Darcy might rightly assume that if Mr. Bennet knew Darcy was intending to pay off Wickham's debts, that would put him in a real bind as far as pride and family honour were concerned. Mr. Bennet's twisted up in enough knots about accepting help from his brother-in-law. If it came from Darcy - a near-stranger - he would probably be in agony about it, and at worst might feel obligated to refuse such a huge gift. Mr. Gardiner, on the other hand: I don't think it's so much that he would feel less awkward (although he probably would, since he knew Darcy better and suspected Darcy was doing this for Elizabeth), but more that it wouldn't be Mr. Gardiner's place to step in and stop someone saving his niece, the way it would be considered Mr. Bennet's decision to make about his daughter.
Of course, once Darcy proposes (successfully, this time), he becomes the rich future in-law being generous to his future bride's family, so the optics are different and it's all okay. :)
Yeah I second this
‘remus lupin quote of the day’
day eight:
times are sad my friend
Young Sirius.
day fourteen of ‘remus lupin quote of the day’
today’s quote:
a healthy dose of sad
Losing your spark & having to find yourself all over again is so hard
I feel like throwing up reading this 🤧😞
I’ve learned that it’s much easier to be happy when your hair is pretty.
tagging is so embarrassing fr
Re reading the original hunger games is so funny bcus katniss can literally read haymitch's mind like what. I'm dying of thirst but haymitch hasn't sent me water, that must mean that there's some nearby!! And one kiss is one pot of broth!! Like she even acknowledges that it's strange when she's like oh to peeta this would just be a pot of broth. Haymitch will give her one look and katniss knows immediately what he means and she's right every time
Meanwhile peeta is like your dress really suits you and you look nice :) and katniss is like he's trying to kill me