#it'll be better from now on :) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

beanghostprincess · 1 year ago

Text

Sanji and Usopp during The Sabaody Incident™ won't leave my mind.

Usopp standing in front of Sanji protectively because he is wounded and he can't fight, so Usopp will do it for him ("I'll do what you can't do").

There is just something about Sanji's expression when he realizes he might actually lose Usopp. This is my interpretation, at least. He is literally frightened.

Usopp helping Sanji stand up to run away. This is crucial for something I want to point out later: Sanji needs help to stand up. (Also, Brook disappears trying to protect them both and saying he will do anything to save them even if it costs him his life. I am feeling sick).

Sanji being self-sacrificing and blaming himself for not being able to protect them/act sooner is not new. But he does manage to gain the strength to fight when Usopp is the only one left with him and the possibility of losing him is even more real now.

The thing that I love the most about this is not Sanji sacrificing himself for Usopp, because he does that. He is like that. But Usopp not running away or moving in the slightest because he refuses to leave Sanji on his own.

Something I'd like to point out too is that Sanji actually touches Kuma before Usopp disappears. He tries to fight and protect him and Kuma could've easily sent Sanji to Momoiro Island right away, and yet Sanji was just sent flying far from the scene and forced to see Usopp disappear in front of him.

And I am not saying that "not being able to protect both Brook and Usopp (especially Usopp) is needed for Sanji to realize he has to become stronger and find more reasons to go back with the crew" but not being able to protect both Brook and Usopp (especially Usopp) is needed for Sanji to realize he has to become stronger and find more reasons to go back with the crew.

Not to mention that we can't deny (right after Water 7/Enies Lobby) that Usopp is one of Sanji's strongest bonds within the crew. This specific scene focusing on them both is more than enough to prove it.

Sanji seeing Usopp disappear in front of his eyes without being able to do anything to save him.

Remember what I said about Sanji needing help to stand up seconds ago? Well. This is him the moment Usopp disappears. What adrenaline and the power of love do to a mf.

They are so "I can lose everything, but not you. Oh God, not you" shaped.

#sorry for bringing up sabaody i am sure nobody wants to think about it #but they mean the world to me and there is SO MUCH to unpack #we don't talk enough about this i think ?????#sanji spending two whole years having nightmares about not being able to save usopp. about seeing usopp disappearing in front of him #he still has them btw #sanji having to sleep with usopp post-ts because he is afraid of waking up and seeing he is gone #also i am having thoughts about brook protecting them and #and brook saying he will do anything to save them #because sanji has only heard that from zeff so......... so just thinking. i have thoughts. i told you brook is one of sanji's father figure #back to sanuso- thinking about how this whole scene despite having brook too is mainly focused on both sanji and usopp #thinking abt how the others disappear mostly focusing only on luffy's reactions but this emphasizes a lot sanji's attempts to save usopp #why would you give them a whole scene i am throwing up #sorry still thinking abt sanji apologizing to usopp for not being able to protect him or #or having nightmares he definitely has nightmares about it #and usopp just. staying with him and making him see that he is alright now. and letting him cry.#early post-ts kills me #still angry we don't have almost post-ts sanuso #i might start crying thinking abt them so it'll be better if just shut up and post this #one piece #black leg sanji #usopp #sanuso #sabaody

343 notes · View notes

bennetsbonnet · 2 months ago

Text

In preparation for shortly going to see a talk about Jane Austen by historian Lucy Worsley, I finally finished her book Jane Austen at Home (it had been sitting on my shelf for months, I'm a terrible procrastinator).

Overall, I did enjoy the book. I thought that looking at Jane Austen through the lens of the various places she called home over the years and how they shaped her writing was definitely an interesting approach. Though I can't say I learned anything of significance that I didn't already know about her life, it's well-written and researched and I would recommend it if you are not so knowledgeable about her life and wish to discover more.

But I recommend it more for the historical context than the literary analysis as, although it was evident that she is hugely passionate about Jane Austen, her novels and her life, unfortunately, there was a moment where Worsley slipped into that frustratingly all too common trope found in biographies of Jane Austen. Where authors are desperate to prove that AcTuALLy, they, and they alone, truly understand her novels and everyone else has been reading them wrong all along!

I have no idea why so many of those who write about Austen have a tendency to slip into this, is it born out of sheer desperation to prove that they're actually The Biggest Janeite and that the other countless readers who have enjoyed her novels, over the course of more than two centuries, are actually idiots?

Chapter 25 of Jane Austen at Home concluded with the argument that, because the novels tend not to dwell on the so-called "most romantic" scenes (such as where the hero and heroine finally get engaged) taken in combination with the fact that Jane Austen often wrote letters with double meanings (often sarcastic remarks about relatives/friends) that contained passages that would not be picked up on by inattentive listeners upon a first reading aloud, but that later those who were closest to her (such as her sister, Cassandra) would understand, means that, if you want to, you can find evidence that Jane Austen didn't write happy endings for her heroines, actually, and was secretly undermining the institution of marriage!!

Personally, I think that Austen wanted her readers to use their imaginations and had laid the foundations well enough already in the hundreds of pages prior to these moments to convince the audience that, actually, marriage to their respective heroes was a good and positive step for all of the heroines who we've already grown so fond of.

It was a pretty egregious passage on the whole, but perhaps the worst part, to me, was the quotes selected from Pride and Prejudice.

Brace yourselves...

People who see some merit in this argument perhaps don't believe in love and marriage and happy endings more generally, for in Jane Austen's work you find, above all, what you seek. It holds as many different meanings as there are readers. So what is it that these sceptical readers might spot? Lizzy Bennet only marries Mr Darcy with 'uncomfortable feelings' about their differing rank, which 'took from the season of courtship much of its pleasure'.

I audibly gasped. The sentence itself is a little confusing, as I'm still not sure who allegedly has those uncomfortable feelings? Regardless of whether the argument is for Elizabeth or Mr Darcy, I certainly did not recall either of them expressing such sentiments at the end of the story.

So, naturally I went to the novel and this is the passage, right at the end of Chapter 61 which Worsley very selectively quoted from:

Mrs. Phillips’s vulgarity was another, and perhaps a greater, tax on [Darcy's] forbearance; and though Mrs. Phillips, as well as her sister, stood in too much awe of him to speak with the familiarity which Bingley’s good humour encouraged, yet, whenever she did speak, she must be vulgar. Nor was her respect for him, though it made her more quiet, at all likely to make her more elegant. Elizabeth did all she could to shield him from the frequent notice of either, and was ever anxious to keep him to herself, and to those of her family with whom he might converse without mortification; and though the uncomfortable feelings arising from all this took from the season of courtship much of its pleasure, it added to the hope of the future; and she looked forward with delight to the time when they should be removed from society so little pleasing to either, to all the comfort and elegance of their family party at Pemberley.

The meaning of this passage is to illustrate that, despite a much-reformed Darcy trying his best, even still, there was only so much he could (understandably) take in Meryton before his patience was exhausted due to the vulgarity of Elizabeth's relations. Though he wasn't rude anymore and made an effort with them, he still wasn't exactly comfortable in the company of the Bennets and their relations. Elizabeth understood this, and did everything she could to keep him happy as she accepted that her family could be A Lot too and she knew that he was trying his best to be civil in company with them.

I mean, that's not subtext, it's RIGHT THERE. We are told that the society of Meryton is 'so little pleasing to either,' that both Darcy and Elizabeth cannot wait to retreat to Pemberley. See, they both feel the same. This is no longer a case of Mr Darcy being a snob and Elizabeth feeling desperate to rush him off before he realises 'their differing rank,' as Worsley puts it, will prevent a happy marriage and is tempted to call off the wedding entirely. No, both went into the marriage with their eyes wide open.

Plus, both Darcy and Elizabeth have already overcome 'their differing rank.' It's such a ludicrous argument. Is Worsley seriously contending that the woman who boldly said to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, in the face of overwhelming snobbery and personal attacks,

'in marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal,'

would retain any 'uncomfortable feelings' about her upcoming union to a man of Mr Darcy's standing? The woman who views herself as his equal? I don't buy it.

Likewise, Darcy does get along with some of Elizabeth's relations. It's shown that he does find Mr and Mrs Gardiner in particular to be good company. That is the last line of the entire novel. And let's not insult Elizabeth Bennet's intelligence! She would not have accepted him if she truly believed Darcy was still a snob who thought himself so much her superior.

Anyway, if this argument wasn't already weak enough, due to Worsley's selectiveness when quoting from the novel (conveniently she leaves out the end of the 'season of courtship' quote; that, while it may have lacked some pleasure, 'it added to the hope of the future' i.e. that though being in company with her relatives during her courtship wasn't always pleasant, Elizabeth had seen enough of Darcy's altered manners to know that she'd be happy with him) and the fact that when she does quote from the novel, she uses them completely out of context in a weak attempt to back up her points, it is the conclusion is perhaps most unconvincing of all:

But if you follow me this far in the idea that Jane was undermining the very moment where you'd expect marriage to be most praised, there could be an explanation. The same applies to her novels. At first reading, these are stories about love and marriage and the conventional heterosexual happily-ever-after. Only at the second does a sneaky doubt perhaps creep in to suggest that maybe marriage is not the best thing that could ever happen to these women.

What?! Seriously, if you have a 'sneaky doubt' that any of the heroines and heroes would not lead happy lives together, you need to reread the novels! All six are dedicated to showing us why these two people are compatible with each other, and truly love and respect each other in ways that go deeper than any superficial attraction.

More to the point with Pride and Prejudice, I think that any remaining unmarried sisters, upon Mr Bennet's demise, who ended up as spinsters entirely dependant on other men, would maybe have been 'not the best thing that could ever happen' to the Bennet sisters, to say the least.

So, not only is this passage astonishingly poor literary analysis, it's also baffling that an experienced historian would make such an argument... given the historical context of how vital it was for women to marry for financial considerations just as much as romantic reasons.

Ultimately, and although this quote which I'm about to use can be used in the worst context sometimes, especially from thoroughly pretentious individuals, it's still worth concluding with. Jane Austen wrote in a letter to her sister Cassandra, shortly after the publication of Pride and Prejudice:

There are a few Typical errors – & a 'said he' or a 'said she' would sometimes make the Dialogue more immediately clear – but 'I do not write for such dull elves As have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves.' [The 'dull elves' quote is not originally from Austen, rather she quotes from Marmion by Sir Walter Scott]

Which to me, shows that Jane Austen clearly believed that she did not need to spell everything out for her audience. That we are capable of filling in the gaps for ourselves and that we can understand, thanks to the context of all that has preceded it, that although we do not get to see really anything of the Darcys married life, that they certainly would have been very happy together.

And, most importantly, we can easily understand that Elizabeth did get her happily-ever-after at Pemberley with Mr Darcy. There is no secret other interpretation that needs to be made which claims otherwise.

#jane austen #jane austen at home #pride and prejudice #cassandra austen #elizabeth bennet #mr darcy #fitzwilliam darcy #my analysis #lucy worsley #there was also a heinous quote about mansfield park and emma which completely misunderstood those novels too #but when i say writing this took my last braincell for the week i TRUUUULY mean it. don't have the capacity to scrutinise that too rn #i am so disappointed in this section ugh. other than this awful argument it was genuinely enjoyable #the ending even made me a bit emotional #but i just expected better #why do all austen scholars do this. you are not going to uncover anything new i promise and that's fine #it doesn't mean you're a failure #but if there was some new way of reading the novels it would have been done by now #cora reads #also from a HISTORIAN??/ pretty basic to know not to quote things out of context and not cherry pick sources to back your points up #the other minor gripe was that she kept referring to elizabeth throughout the whole text as 'lizzy bennet'#which... with interpretations like that.. sorry ms worsley you're not close enough to use her nickname #source: me #but also she's either just lizzy or eliza or elizabeth but she's ALWAYS elizabeth bennet.. . ... lizzy bennet looks so wrong to my eyes lo #anyway still excited for the talk. it'll be nice to be surrounded by fellow jane austen enthusiasts irl instead of on a screen lol

23 notes · View notes