sophierathmannwrites

[mistressaccost]

so jane austen was inspired by much ado when writing pride and prejudice and of course she’s brilliant and i love her version of the plot and her very original characters. i mean it’s almost unrecognizable because it’s so original. which is why i love her. she took inspiration from the bare bone plot of much ado with the two couples, and then rooted all their problems in her own time period. it would have been so modern and fresh to read it right when it was published!!

but anyway what i’m trying to say is that i would love to live in a universe where i could see jane and bingley play pranks on lizzie and darcy in a hero and claudio type style. it’s just comedy gold.

[hamletthedane]

Sorry for the rant OP, but this is one of my FAVORITE lit crit topics:

I have written on here many times how much I LOVE that Pride and Prejudice is an adaptation of Much Ado in a kind of stretchy, fanfic-AU sort of way. Austen definitely used the same characters and their dynamics with one another, but she actively adapted the story by giving them all interesting, English Regency versions of their Renaissance Tuscany/London challenges.

My favorite thing is that you see similarities in a) the scandal of an affair with the heroine’s unwed family member, and b) the willingness of the heroine’s “bitter rival” (Benedick/Darcy) to go far beyond what’s expected of him to save her family’s reputation, even when it might hurt his own

In her adaptation, Austen proposes that even if Beatrice/Elizabeth’s family member DID have an extramarital affair, Benedick/Darcy would still be morally obliged to help the family. This differs from Shakespeare, where Benedick believes that Hero is innocent. Sex scandals are therefore key elements in both plots, but Austen really pushes the original narrative to explore what the characters would do if the family member wasn’t innocent and the sex scandal was real. Would Benedick still have the same sense of duty to remedy the situation at great inconvenience/loss to himself? Would that duty be based in his love for Beatrice, or in his sense of ethics? Would Beatrice and Benedick have even fallen in love without their family’s interference?

So like, not only is P&P a wonderful (and very funny) adaptation of Much Ado, it’s also a refreshing, explicit exploration of the themes and issues Shakespeare clearly wanted to introduce to his 16th century audience. P&P doesn’t get to the violent, verbal extremes of “eat his heart in a marketplace” and “kill Claudio,” but it does push the character of Benedick to much more agency and responsibility as a privileged person in relation to Beatrice’s own (lack of) power. And to me, that makes it an exceptionally challenging and effective Regency adaptation of Much Ado.

(But ignore my meta-izing. Let’s talk about what’s really important: Austen preserving the comedy GOLD of suggesting that Benedick/Darcy is painfully in love with Beatrice/Lizzy from the very beginning, and also fucking furious with himself about it)

[bethanydelleman]

Obviously it's not one to one, but if we consider the Hero/Claudio storyline, Austen split it into two couples and made it way more realistic (in my opinion)

Jane and Bingley represent the Hero/Claudio "love at first sight" and "separated by machinations" sections, but come to a much more satisfying conclusion because Bingley's folly is based on modesty. He never turns on Jane, as Claudio does, instead he leaves her, but out of a belief that she doesn't love him and therefore wouldn't be harmed by it. Their happy ending is happy to (most) of the audience.

The defence of honour plot, Claudio doing wrong by Hero leading to her social doom and her being defended by Benedick, is all transferred to the trickster, Wickham (Don John?) and his victim Lydia (the other half of Hero). The solution still is marriage, but we are not left with this ambiguous nagging wonder if it's ever possible for Hero/Claudio to be happy, we know Wickham/Lydia is a bad marriage, but that Elizabeth & Jane will help their sister and she'll be okay.

I think if Much Ado About Nothing does have a flaw, it's that Claudio doesn't have his heart eaten in the marketplace. That flaw exists in Pride & Prejudice too, to be honest, but Claudio as Wickham doesn't get what he wanted. He has his ambitions of a wealthy match ruined by Darcy. For me, the ending isn't as uncomfortable, because no one is trying to pretend it's a happy one.

[prokopetz]

Level 1: The author's unintended implication.

Level 2: The author's unexamined assumption.

Level 3: The author's ill-informed opinion.

Level 4: The author's misleading conclusion.

Level 5: The author's mendacious justification.

Level 6: The author's We Don't Talk About That.

[ticklefighthockey]

when thinking about character motivations i really like the idea that characters should be trapped in a false life. like when the story starts they should be living in ways that are profoundly inauthentic to their true desires and that internal strife is what propels them forward, in ways that are often self-destructive at first but (in stories with a happy ending) bend towards healing. shane's surface-level false life is obviously that he's gay and closeted, but more deeply i think it's that he lets himself be managed and pressured into things he doesn't want to do (like the brand deals) instead of being honest with himself: the public image chafes, it isn't him, it isn't how he wants to live his life. he tries to live the false life -- be straight, be the perfect kid, be the model minority, be the highly visible public face of the league, etc. -- but his journey is all about asking himself the question rose asks him: did it stop being fun? and then of course the implicit question underneath that: is this really the life you, shane hollander, want to be living? and everything changes for shane when he starts answering that question honestly. whereas ilya's is something like this: he doesn't want to be hated, he wants to be loved. i wish he could know me, or - i don't know. i don't know. ilya believes with total conviction that he can't have what he needs, but he still has those needs, and so he tries to get them met in other ways. if you're having meaningless sex with people they're still touching you. if you're pissing someone off they're still reacting to you. if they hate you everywhere at least they know your name. and HIS journey is all about like. idk. submitting to the unbelievably excruciating ordeal of being known, but also submitting to the even more excruciating ordeal of admitting that he wants to be loved. which i personally think is the even greater torment!! don't LOOK at me while i'm experiencing an emotional need!

[mohabbaat]

i would get reincarnated as a rich nepo baby and produce your biopic with your doppelganger just to make sure that your murderer is punished all while singing a banger song about your life but you aren't nerdy enough to understand

[firlexgremlin]

i am not articulate enough to make this sound coherent rn. but the cycle of familial violence portrayed in gdt's frankenstein, set against the backdrop of the cycle of violence in society with the constant references to the wars. the creature finding beauty and connection in nature, feeding the deer until it is shot dead. his speech about the wolves and the sheep, how they don't hate each other, it's just in their nature to kill and be killed.

it seems like these cycles will never end but they can. you can turn your ship around. you can forgive your father. you can walk into the snow and feel the sun upon your face. you can, you can, you can.

[mcpayne]

"Del Toro sees Victor as "an arrogant, abusive father" and the monster as a "tragic child." "Our Victor is a selfish child," says del Toro, "who was hurt himself and therefore thinks the world owes him everything. He is trying to measure up to 'Daddy' ... Victor is like some tech bros— oblivious to consequence-consumed by a vision in the abstract. And, like all tyrants, he believes himself a victim." [Frankenstein: Written and Directed by Guillermo del Toro]

[wulfhalls]

del toros victor funniest guy of all time. tries to steal his brothers bride to be who looks like his mother who died in childbirth of said brother in an attempt to take something from his brother the same way his brother took something from him (their mother) but he can't hack it so he creates life immediately treats it like his father whom he hated treated him in turn leading to the death of both his brother and his bride. and himself. and several hundred innocent bystanders. wants to fuck his mother. turns into his father. recreates himself. forces his other self to live in perpetuaty. dies. 👍

[phantom-threaded]

Guillermo del Toro on the Creature

[petrolipelo]

"Our identity is formed by misinformation."

[mcpayne]

Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein is about forgiving the person who brought you into this world without your permission when you do not want to be alive, and about forgiving yourself for being alive and accepting your life free of guilt and that is genuinely the most beautiful, validating thing I have ever seen in a film.

[medusas-daughter]

The Creature calling itself Viktor and following Viktor around is so much more tragic when you know how babies develop and how newborns don't yet realise they and their mothers are two separate people. And one of the first things babies realise about themselves is that they're a whole separate person. And one of the first things they do when they start developing as a person is find out they have hands and play with them and with textures and start exploring. And when they want to start talking, they put their hands and fingers on their parents lips and throats to figure out how that sound is coming out of there and then they start imitating. Guillermo Del Toro nailed every single step of human development in such a beautiful celebration of life.

And Viktor abused the crap out of the poor creature for not being smart enough when it was only following natural developmental milestones. Because, like most men, like his own father, he wanted to create life but he wasn't interested in raising it beyond that and instead wanted it to be born a doctor ready to show the world how smart Viktor is for creating a carbon copy of his brain except in a stronger immortal body. Elizabeth gave him five minutes of love and let him explore how sounds come out of her mouth and he started talking.

Idk why some people are complaining about the movie being different from the book when the essence is literally the same, Viktor created life as if it were a godly feat and not something women have been doing since the dawn of humanity, and then he abandoned that life as deadbeat dads do. And that abandonment is what created a monster out of an innocent souls who could have become a beautiful being had it been nurtured. That's literally what Mary Shelley wrote. She would have been proud of this story. On top of being an incredibly gorgeous visual story, the narrative is very loyal to the point Shelley wanted to make.

[sphyrne]

Each of these men took the King's shilling and swore an oath to defend the King's Peace. An oath, in fact, to the King.

They will see where their duty lies. Tell them there is always an easy way, if you know where to look.

[jojaydoodles]

Posted ages ago on my ko-fi, but what the hell. I don't have time to draw new art TT_TT

It's difficult to draw someone who looks like everyone else and anyone at the same time. I imagine if beige was a person, they would have to look like Moist von Lipwig. I was going for the sort of coloring that would make it difficult to recall / describe the exact color of hair, eyes and skin. Which is, mostly, just brown-ish with a vague hint of Jerry from HR.

Just another face in the crowd. Wearing the very black, golem-made suit.

You'll remember the words, the golden hat and the swagger - but not the person.

The Man You Can Trust ™ and his Honest Handshake.

[jojaydoodles]

I've been spending some quality time on the Discworld lately. And upon re-reading some of the books about The Watch, I had to draw me some Lady Ramkin. No offence to the official illustrators, they're great artists and all, but I could never see what I see when I read when I look at any of the artwork out there. So I made my own.

1. Sybil Ramkin wearing a black dress & black wig, and some family diamonds, looking like the night sky. And winking at Vimes.

2. "It's my bloody dragon!"

3. Almost certain that there won't be any scale growth. Almost.

[jojaydoodles]

Many people love this version of Sybil, it seems, so I made a small set of stickers: here

[jojaydoodles]

Upholding the Laws And Regulations because you deeply hate crime (unlike Sir Samuel Vimes, who only feels personally offended by crime, because it dares happening in his city)

You look into Carrot's face for clues and only get a blank expression of polite innocence in return. You'll never know if he's that simple and literal, or maybe he means the exact opposite of what he just said. You'll never know for sure.

Just your friendly local giant cop, who inexplicably knows the names of all your third cousins and their pets.

---- ko-fi // redbubble

[jojaydoodles]

need I say anything?

------- ko-fi // redbubble

[jojaydoodles]

Oh hello, here's another addition to my Discworld Characters As I See Them When I Read The Novels series. It's been a while since the last one.

I always related to Angua's hair problems. Not just to the fact that her hair is big and unruly, but also that it makes her feel hairy, masculine and unatractive. As a woman suffering from Hyperandrogenism, with hair growing from sides of my face and my neck all the way to my back, hey - I really feel you, girl!

None of the official depictions and very little of fanart out there is hairy enough for my liking, lol.

I'm terrible at drawing animals, but I needed to do the wolf-shape Angua, too! The way I picture her wolf self still resemble her facial features and vice versa.

--- follow & support me on ko-fi maybe? plz. P.S. Commissions are open (for now)

[star-anise]

Feminist fantasy is funny sometimes in how much it wants to shit on femininity for no goddamned reason. Like the whole “skirts are tools of the patriarchy made to cripple women into immobility, breeches are much better” thing.

(Let’s get it straight: Most societies over history have defaulted to skirts for everyone because you don’t have to take anything off to relieve yourself, you just have to squat down or lift your skirts and go. The main advantage of bifurcated garments is they make it easier to ride horses. But Western men wear pants so women wearing pants has become ~the universal symbol of gender equality~)

The book I’m reading literally just had its medievalesque heroine declare that peasant women wear breeches to work in the field because “You can’t swing a scythe in a skirt!”

Hm yes story checks out

peasant women definitely never did farm labour in skirts

skirts definitely mean you’re weak and fragile and can’t accomplish anything

skirts are definitely bad and will keep you from truly living life

no skirts for anyone, that’s definitely the moral of the story here

[beatrice-otter]

Now, a skirt that’s too long will be harder to work in–skirts brushing the floor may look elegant, but is also a tripping hazard–but that is not a problem with skirts in general, it’s a problem with that particular skirt not being suited to being worked in. Skirts are very practical. You can hike them up if you’re hot or need more freedom to maneuver (this is called “girding your loins”). If you need to carry something, you can lift up your hem and make a pouch just like the person in yellow in the bottom picture above. If you need to handle something hot, a skirt generally has enough material you can hold it out from your body to use as a hot pad. (Tight skirts were only used by people who didn’t need to work/move until the invention of elastic fabric.)

[star-anise]

Long skirts were markers of class almost as much as gender. Both men and women in the European middle ages wore extravagantly long garments to indicate both “I’m so rich I can afford THIS MUCH fabric” and “I don’t walk in the mud, I pay servants to do that for me.”

Skirt hiking: Definitely a Thing. (Janet’s tied her kirtle green/above the knee and not below…)

[plavoptice]

Love this post, and want to add: another example of the “empowerment means shitting on feminity” is the bizarro way that this genre attacks basic survival skills like cooking and sewing as pointless, inferior or mutually exclusive with masculine pursuits (like your lady knight should probably know how to cook for herself and sew her own wounds and patch her clothes while she’s on her quest through the North to rescue her boyfriend, or this happy couple is in for a world of hurt!)

Or to quote one of my all favorite posts, “fuck women’s contribution to our survival.”

[whatevercomestomymind]

Historically, skirts have been the garment of choice for almost every culture, gender and class. Breeches, or pants, were created specifically for riding horses.

[roach-works]

also men tend to wear shorter skirts than women just because they don’t get as cold. in every climate, women tend to wear more clothes than men, even when men aren’t enforcing any kind of modesty. kilts, togas, tunics, sarongs, kimonos. women get colder more easily, women wear longer garments and more layers.

anecdotally, after three years on T, i run a lot hotter than i used to, and i’ve heard from other trans people that they’ve made similar adjustments. trans women have to get used to sweater weather requiring extra sweaters, and trans men are surprised to suddenly be cruising through the snow in gym shorts. hormones seem to play a big role in temperature regulation.

so like, your dashing heroine can wear breeches if she really wants to. but make sure she has a good coat.