victorian-persuasions

[victorian-persuasions]

writing off jane austen's works as "fluffy romance novels" in a clearly derogatory condescending way is maybe the reddest flag imaginable (also... being condescending about the romance genre in general, but that's a separate post altogether)

the most embarrassing thing a man can do is try to diminish the cultural, moral, and artistic significance of Jane Austen via the sophistry of an insecure ego

[victorian-persuasions]

It's always corporate infrastructure Over the structure of your face

[victorian-persuasions]

to clarify i am reblogging this as a johnny flynn appreciation post

ANYA TAYLOR-JOY and JOHNNY FLYNN | Emma (2020)

[victorian-persuasions]

my half baked and VERY unserious, non intellectual take on caroline bingley is that she would be a sort of proto-"pick me" girl except.. she's Not Good At It. execution wise.

the core of the "pick me" archetype (as it originated in grey's anatomy NOT criticizing any woman for having male friends/typically masculine hobbies) is women modifying their presentation/putting on a very rehearsed image to impress a man. caroline... attempts this?? maybe?? but her *wonderfully* judgmental nature just keeps winning over her drive to impress darcy. which maybe makes her not a "pick me" at all, but in fact, just a judgy girl who judges for her own pleasure and not to put other woman down to make herself more appealing to men. maybe. idk. also should be noted that it absolutely doesn't work on darcy At All and really only affects his very, very bad first proposal to lizzy ("against my better judgment" anyone?)

(it's just more evidence that jane austen is unbelievably good at characterization)

Sometimes I just need to remember how much I love Darcy and Caroline Bingley's relationship. Like they're kind of friends and their conversations are so interesting but she wants to marry him and then he marries a woman Caroline despises and whom they used to criticize together but after this she's "Well it's life I'll pretend it's ok just because I still want to visit your amazing house"

[victorian-persuasions]

Violet Beauregarde should‘ve won Wonka’s chocolate factory

Have I watched the movie in the last decade or more? No. Do I have iron clad evidence to support my argument? Yes.

1. She’s the most knowledgeable about candy. She’s committed to it, and knows her stuff. When Wonka holds up a little yellow piece across the room, she recognizes it immediately. She was able to switch to candy bars for the sake of the contest, so we know she has personal discipline and is goal oriented. Also, two major projects play directly into her strong suits: the 3-course-meal gum that Wonka failed to make safe (gum) and the neverending gobstopper (longevity).

2. She’s the most fit to run a business. Violet is competitive, determined, hard working, and willing to take risks. Her father is a small town car salesman and politician, so she could easily pick up knowledge and support from him. (Veruca’s dad is also a business man, and in a compatible market (nuts), but it’s made very clear that Veruca has no respect or knowledge of business practices or hard work.)

3. She’s the most sympathetic to the Oompa Loompas. She critiques Veruca when Veruca demands to buy one. More importantly, Wonka has been testing the 3-course-meal gum that ‘always goes wrong’ on Oompa Loompas while he presumably just watches. Violet is ready to put herself on the front line, instead of treating the Oompa Loompas as disposable, and would therefore be a better boss.

4. Her personality ‘flaw’ is the most fitting for the company. In the moralizing Oompa Loompa song, they just say ‘gum is pretty cool, but it’s not socially acceptable to chew it all day‘. The thing is, we already know that she can stop if she wants, because she already did that to win the golden ticket. And yeah, she is defensive about the perceived impoliteness of her hobby (like when her mother tries to shame her about her habit during a televised interview) but the obsession with candy and neglect of social norms is EXACTLY what Wonka is all about. This is on brand.

5. Her misstep in the factory is reasonable. Wonka shows everyone a candy he’s very proud of. Violet is like “oh sick, that’s gum, my special interest.” Wonka then pulls a “WRONG! It’s amazing gum!” In the very moments before she takes the gum Wonka has mislead her just to belittle her. So when he’s like “I wouldn’t do that” why should she give a shit what he has to say? She’s not like Charlie over here who’s all “Sure Gramps, let’s stay behind while the tour leaves and secretly drink this thing that has been explicitly stated to fill you with gas and is too powerful for safe consumption, oh and also I just saw what happened to Violet so I actually KNOW what this stuff can be capable of” Also, Violet is not selfish about her experience, she tells everyone what she’s tasting and feeling, and everyone is eager to hear it. Taking a personal risk to share knowledge with everyone. Violet is Prometheus: fact.

So Augustus contaminates the chocolate river. Charlie sneaks around and contaminates the vent walls. Veruca destroys and disrupts the workspace. Mike knows exactly what will happen to him and transports/shrinks himself deliberately. Violet had no idea what the gum could potentially do to her, and caused no harm to anyone or anything but herself.

Lastly: Can you imagine Charlie filling Wonka’s shoes? That passive, naive boy? Violet is already basically Wonka. She’s passionate, sarcastic, candy-obsessed, free thinking, and a total firecracker. She’s even better than Wonka, because she doesn’t endanger others.

Violet should’ve been picked to inherit the chocolate factory.

[victorian-persuasions]

and that's why the de selby opening kills me. what a beautiful reclamation of a language, a culture, a history

When Hozier said "even when you're not aiming to tell a story, you're telling a story" and when he said "the relationship that a person has with the work is down to them, and also what it helps them through ultimately is still work that they've done" and when he said "to open the set with a few words of Irish and hear a crowd singing that back, on the other side of the planet, singing words in a language that was, for a time, illegal in my own country...that is a special thing" and when he said "history is being told in the very way we construct sentences"

[victorian-persuasions]

valjean: come to that, can you be sure that i am not your man?

the dubious inspector javert:

[victorian-persuasions]

every year around christmas, without fail, i start acting like a door-knocking missionary but about christina rossetti. three notes of "in the bleak midwinter" play on the radio & i'm immediately like "let me talk to you about my lord and savior christina." ten minutes later i've explained all the weird over the top symbolism in goblin market to someone who didn't ask, etc

[victorian-persuasions]

dorothea brooke and will ladislaw are one of the best-matched couples in literature for precisely this reason. despite the many differences between george eliot and jane austen when it comes to characterization and the interpersonal dynamics of characters (and the fact that the two women are often unfairly compared for no other reason than they are women authors of the 19th century) i cannot think of any literature that i've read that has depicted such balanced, believable, beautiful romance as middlemarch does except austen's novels. there is something so immortal about dorothea - a young woman, desperate to influence social change, entirely misled in how to do so - finding love with someone who treats her as an equal, recognizes the value of her intellect and drive, and brings art and beauty into her life just as she brings her gifts into his.

In defence of Will Ladislaw

George Eliot's characterisation of Will Ladislaw is one of the few aspects of Middlemarch that is not universally praised, with no less a person than Henry James commenting in 1873 that he lacked “sharpness of outline and depth of color”, making him the novel’s “only eminent failure.” And while Will's character is certainly not as clearly defined as some of the other characters in the novel, I believe that this was absolutely intentional on Eliot's part. Middlemarch is full to the brim of characters who believe they know exactly what they want—not least among them, our two protagonists, Dorothea Brooke and Tertius Lydgate, whose ardent ambitions and inflexible attitudes lead them into catastrophic errors of judgement and unhappy marriages.

By contrast, Will's lack of strongly defined goals and his changeability are almost his defining character traits. He's aimless and pliable, prone to rapid mood swings and drastic career changes, with even his physical features seeming to "chang[e] their form; his jaw looked sometimes large and sometimes small; and the little ripple in his nose was a preparation for metamorphosis. When he turned his head quickly his hair seemed to shake out light."

Will’s inscrutability is closely tied to his ambiguous status within the rigid class structure and xenophobic society of Victorian England, with his Polish ancestry and “rebellious blood on both sides” making him a target for suspicion. He is repeatedly aligned (and aligns himself) with oppressed, marginalised, and outcast populations—Jewish people, artists, and the poor.

He serves as a narrative foil for characters like Lydgate and Edward Casaubon, who prioritise specialist expertise above all and are consequently incapable of broad knowledge synthesis. He critiques Casaubon's life's work as being "thrown away, as so much English scholarship is, for want of knowing what is being done by the rest of the world." By contrast, Will serves as Eliot's defence of the value of a liberal education. One of the first things that we learn about him is that he declines to choose a vocation, and instead seeks to travel widely, experiencing diverse cultures and ways of life. He has broad tastes and interests, trying his hand at poetry and painting before eventually pursuing a career in politics.

He also functions as a narrative foil for Dorothea. Will is initially apathetic to politics, whereas Dorothea initially professes herself to be disinterested in art and beauty. This is perfectly encapsulated in their exchange in Rome, when Dorothea declares, "I should like to make life beautiful—I mean everybody's life. And then all this immense expense of art, that seems somehow to lie outside life and make it no better for the world, pains one", to which Will replies, "You might say the same of landscape, of poetry, of all refinement [...] The best piety is to enjoy—when you can [...] I suspect that you have some false belief in the virtues of misery, and want to make your life a martyrdom.”

By the end of the novel, Dorothea unlearns some of her puritanical suspicion of sensual pleasure, whereas Will becomes more serious, compassionate, and politically engaged, dedicating his life to the accomplishment of humane political reforms. They are both flawed individuals, who ultimately become more well rounded through their relationship with each other. Admittedly, Dorothea's influence on Will is more significant than his on her—and once again, I believe that this was intentional on Eliot's part.

In my opinion, the negative response to Will Ladislaw at the time of Middlemarch's publication (and in the centuries since) was and is profoundly informed by gendered expectations of masculine dominance in romantic relationships. Will's marriage to Dorothea has often been described as disappointing, with many readers and critics viewing the ambitious Lydgate as the embodiment of the ideal husband that Dorothea outlines at the beginning of the novel—a talented man engaged in important work for the betterment of humanity, to whom she can devote herself.

However, one of the central themes of the novel is that people are often mistaken in their beliefs about what they want, and Dorothea's marriage to Edward Casaubon certainly demonstrates that she would not in fact be happy living her life in submission to a man who does not respect her opinions. I firmly believe that Lydgate's misogynistic attitudes and expectations would have made it impossible for him to be happy in a marriage of equals with a woman like Dorothea. He is explicitly drawn to Rosamond Vincy because she has "just the kind of intelligence one would desire in a woman—polished, refined, docile."

By contrast, George Eliot made a deliberate choice to pair Dorothea with a man who is not ashamed to be influenced by her, and indeed looks up to her as his moral superior. Through Dorothea's influence, Will discovers his life's work. In turn, by marrying Will, Dorothea is able to pursue her true passion. As a result of their influence on each other, these come to mean the same thing—reform. Thus, George Eliot grants Dorothea Brooke a subversively feminist, politically progressive, and profoundly cathartic ending: a life of companionate marriage, sensual pleasure, and meaningful work, in which Dorothea can devote herself (within the limited means available to her as a woman in the 19th century) to the achievement of just and compassionate reforms that "make life beautiful" for everybody—herself included.

[victorian-persuasions]

i finally finished middlemarch this summer after first watching the bbc adaptation years ago. after having read the novel i feel like it's very important that dorothea is so young. like, she's high-minded and independently willed but also very naive. in some ways, she's very aware of her naivety, which is what draws her to casaubon in the first place. her naivety, however, is also what fools her into believing the match is good- she cannot see that he doesn't actually want her to be an active figure in his work, just a pretty woman to praise him.

the adaptation has bothered me since i began reading because while juliet aubrey is talented, i think she was too old for the role. dorothea is supposed to be 19, and aubrey was 28. she reads as upwards of 30 to me. This really hit me when i was watching the adaptation with my dad, and after seeing her be completely submissive to casaubon, he seemed shocked that a woman her age would act that way. i think the adaptation loses a lot because it's hard to understand why a 30 year old woman with that much will is so malleable to a man like that. This is obviously not to say that a relationship like that isn't possible, but the book really hammers home dorothea's naivety that comes from her age and her circumstances. the scene where she's in rome and casaubon has left her to fend for herself is so powerful because it's the first time we see that he is not going to be the guide she thought he was, and she has no frame of reference to understand the new culture she's in. her profound alienation feels very 19 and a little dumb to me, and i think that's incredible.

i don't know why they went with the casting choice they did, because all the other characters to me are cast so well. perhaps they decided to prioritize dorothea's high-mindedness over everything else, but i feel that what's crucial to her character is the juxtaposition of her morals and her naivety.

[victorian-persuasions]

If Jane Bennet was the narrator of Pride and Prejudice, we'd have a new type of unreliable narrator that I can't personally think of any examples of in literature (though they are common in real life) where the person is too nice to describe immoral and/or foolish characters and their motives accurately.

[victorian-persuasions]

jane austen's ability to portray female characters occupying a wide range of roles in society, falling into a variety of stereotypes or patterns, yet give each one a depth that makes them jump off the page... is genuinely so impressive to me. as a student i was reminded sometimes not to dwell on relatability when discussing historical literature but like. anne elliot? relatable. DEEPLY relatable, in a remarkable way. this woman has put aside her own wants and needs and interests, been silenced so frequently that she learned to silence herself - but then, partially because of maturity and partially because of specific circumstances - she learns to say no, to admit to herself what she wants, to defy social convention in little ways in order to stay true to herself. so many women today are boxed in by social and familial responsibilities, raised to put everyone else before themselves. and it's why i keep coming back to persuasion, and to austen, knowing that she saw and understood and chose to give us a novel where the eternal caretaker protagonist rejects being resigned to the future that her father, sister, etc. imagine for her, and reclaims her own life and her own story. austen didn't just write real, whole women, she wrote universal women.

[victorian-persuasions]

no other decade did lace and embroidery trim quite like the 1890s 🩷

Day Dress

early 1890s

Canadian Museum of History

[victorian-persuasions]

the only appeal of this movie for me personally was how pretty everyone was. imagine, if you will, the exact same cast but with a bbc style, book accurate, well written script

tb to this absolutely amazing review

[victorian-persuasions]

literally any 19th/early 20th century dress with white embroidery on white cotton has my heart forever. as a society we need to bring these back immediately

Cotton dress with cotton embroidery, American (?), ca 1800

From the Philadelphia Museum of Art

[victorian-persuasions]

this is why rivals to lovers is one of my all time favorite tropes; they start from a place of mutual understanding or shared interest but a major disagreement keeps them from seeing each other as they are until they're forced to spend more time together and grow to realize that they judged each other too quickly and........ this was affirmed by the masterpiece that was bridgerton season 2

I'm actually a huge fan of enemies to lovers because I do think it's hot but to be clear "enemies to I think you're attractive and that's overcoming my hatred of you" sucks ASS the trope is about growing RESPECT and GENUINE AFFECTION the POINT is that they always found each other attractive but it doesn't MATTER until they also have a solid relationship built on trust respect and friendship!!!!! Do you understand my vision!!!!

[victorian-persuasions]

this was my Exact reaction to season 2 the first time i watched it, absolutely no warning then just full on ✨yearning✨

Hey was anyone gonna warn me that Call the Midwife has Jane Austen levels of quiet yearning between a widowed doctor and a nun and that now when they're just on the verge of telling each other how they feel the nun got sick??? How am I supposed to cope with this??? 😭😭😭