#also in my personal opinion it is the best subversion of pride and prejudice i have ever seen and i could write an essay about that

[neroushalvaus]

No wait let me talk some more about Bridget Jones and how despite all of it's faults I think it's a positive movie for women in general and fat women in particular

So yeah, Renée Zellweger is not fat. While I think we should not forget that she was still body-shamed in media for the slight weight she put on for the movies, she was never fat or even "chubby". It is obviously a problem that in the first two movies she is constantly treated as fat when she never was. But even thought I do not like it, that is how it is. And in the Bridget Jones cinematic universe, Bridget Jones is seen as fat. As someone who is not desirable, who is embarrassing to date and who should constantly feel ridiculous for daring to exist in the world.

And you know, when you grow up fat, you learn that you need to compensate for the crime of being too big. Especially when you are seen as a woman. You need to be smart as a whip, and funny and entertaining to be around, and talented in so many ways, and you may never be clumsy because when a fat girl falls down, the first reaction is not "are you okay", it's laughter. And you may not have standards. If a guy likes you, consider yourself lucky. You can't be too loud or annoying because you already take up too much space. When it comes to looks, you must excel at femininity. You must wear make-up and have a beautiful face and lovely eyes and you have to wear clothes that compliment your body, that draw the attention to your breasts and hips. You must always be ready to be sexualized because that is the closest thing you can get to having your body accepted.

And then there is Bridget Jones. She drinks too much, she smokes too much, she talks too much and I love her with every fiber of my being. Look at how they dress her in the first two movies. Look how they style her hair. The clothes are often ill-fitting, the hair is messy and flat. When she goes to parties, she tries so hard to look good but never looks like a typical romcom lead. She is reaching towards femininity and falling face first into mud. She is crass and has a weird sense of humour and she always says the wrong thing in every situation.

But she is sincere. She is loved by her friends, she is desired by several men (and one woman) and she is allowed to have standards. The first movie's plotline with Daniel Cleaver is so good in this regard. Daniel sends Bridget sexual texts, sleeps with her, never says he loves her and then he cheats on her. Do we laugh at how silly Bridget was to get her hopes up when she thought this guy played by Hugh Grant could like her when he never said he did and obviously only wanted sex? No. We focus on how hurt Bridget is. And I love the scene where Bridget is with her friends and Mark Darcy when Cleaver comes to apologize. He comes through her door and seems surprised she's not alone, waiting for him. It is her birthday. Of course she is with her friends. Who you would know exist if you cared about her life at all, Daniel. And you know, then he apologizes and doesn't wait for Bridget's response, he just assumes she takes him back. Because how could she possibly do better? And after Daniel and Mark have their legendary fight for Bridget's affections and Bridget tells Mark to piss off, Daniel just assumes this means Bridget has chosen him. Because a woman like Bridget needs to have someone to make her feel less like a waste of space, right? Which makes it delicious when Bridget counters Daniel's pathetic little love confession "If I can't make it with you then I can't make it with anyone" with "That's not a good enough offer for me". She is still looking for something more extraordinary than that.

And she gets it!! I can not stress this enough! She is seen as a fat woman who isn't brilliantly smart, isn't polite or suave, is clumsy and crass and socially awkward, and can't cook anything but blue soup and marmalade and is a hot mess express in general, and the archetypical romantic hero, literal Mr Darcy falls in love with her just as she is. Bridget never needs to become smarter or less awkward or less clumsy, she is loved and treasured just as she is. That is why I have loved her for twenty years.

[oumaheroes]

hii its bougie <3 if you're still taking hc requests, i was wondering if you'd have thoughts on something that's been on my mind for a while. i was interested in the nuance to english culture due to regional differences. eg.,dinner being called "tea" in the north of england, rugby being more popular in the south, the difference in how scones with jam and cream are enjoyed in Devon and Cornwall?? or how certain english accents are perceived as... "less attractive" i guess (the black country accents are unpopular apparently?) -- you'd probably know more about these particularities than me ;u;

i was wondering how these cultural differences might map onto hws England's character, and how they might influence his attitudes and behaviours. because there's such a clearly defined stereotype of the english that i think shape people's expectations of what the english are like, i usually think that Arthur usually consciously acts according to what counts as positive interpretations of himself. however, i love nuanced and somewhat subversive interpretations of his character, and am very curious if you might have any ideas on how these kind of internal regional differences might shape him.

--------------------

Bougieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee <3

I’m not gonna lie this sent me down a RABBIT HOLE of thoughts, so hang on tight cos we're gonna get messy.

Accents:

Let’s start with my personal favourite, so excuse me whilst I geek out for a second. I’ve gone into this area already in this headcanon, but I personally see England being a very proud little dragon regarding English accents, those both native and non-native to the British Isles. Focusing just on accents within England for this post, the way Arthur himself sees them, (regarding class and general preference), comes a lot down to how I see him feeling about language and the unification of England in general.

England is a tiny country. It’s really teeny, compared to some, and yet holds an incredible number of regional accents and dialects (from digging about the internet for a good source, I keep finding numbers ranging from 37 to 43). There are a number of reasons for this, but the one that I love the most is that accents are influenced by the previous/ influential other languages spoken in a given area. Accents on the East of England are more influenced by Viking invaders, both phonologically and via the dialectal words used, and accents/ dialects in the West are more influenced by Welsh, for example.

Accents and dialects tell the history of a place, all who ever came there and influenced it to some degree. The map of English accents is a patchwork quilt of old cultures and people now lost to time, but their ways of speaking have been preserved in the modern tongue. The old English kingdoms might now be mere counties- Kent, Essex, Sussex, East Anglia, etc- they may not have their own influence or language these days as they used to, but their old ways have been imprinted on their people of today whether they know it or not and they carry pieces of the past in their words and how they speak them. Older speakers of the Northern English dialects liek the Yorkshire dialect still use ‘thou/thee’ where this has fallen out in other areas, the Midlands and parts of the South-East still keep the ‘-n’ ending for possessive pronouns (‘yourn’ instead of ‘yours’, ‘ourn’ instead of ‘ours’), and there’s even some linguistic research into how Brittonic, the ancestor of Modern Welsh, influenced English structure and phonology (for references, see notes at the end).

Back to England the person (to contain myself slightly), his regional accents are a story of himself, his history being kept alive in all of its variety every day. He doesn’t hold a classist view of a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ accent because he knows why they’re all there- what languages and people influenced them and how these events affected him- the older generations now lost and forgotten being kept alive in the smallest of phonemes.

Every dialect, every accent, and every language tells the story of a people, from the smallest phonological marker right up to a language as a whole and England takes comfort and pride in his dialects and accents’ longevity and variety. He is as much of the North as he is the South, as much of the East as the West and a patchwork man born of patchwork cultures it makes no sense for him to favour one particular accent over another.

That being said, he is aware that there is a common cultural stance on accents as well as an opinion regarding ‘ugly’ ones, ‘common’ ones, and ‘classy’ ones, but he himself doesn’t partake in these ideas. I like to think that a nation takes on the speech of the people and the area they’re in, matching the person they speak to or the area they visit to relate to their people. So, for me a Chav Arthur exists as much as a Brummie one does, or a Scouser, or a Geordie, or a Cockney. They’re all English, and thus they’re all a part of him.

Class

I have to include this one, if only to touch on it lightly regarding accents and dialects. Class does influence which words you speak, arguably just as much as which accent (this is known as a sociolect). Although I said that England adopts the accent of whatever area he’s in, or whomever he’s talking to if they’re English, the class people are will also affect which words he choses to use.

Here’s a short example from here:

'It is pudding for the upper class. Dessert is sometimes used by upper middles, but afters and sweets very clearly put you below stairs.'

Have some more!

Upper class: Spectacles, Lavatory or loo, Die, Napkin, Sofa

Middle class: Glasses, Toilet , Pass on, Serviette, Settee or couch

(Working class is a mix but harder to find sources for).

This is where England treads a fine line. It could be that he again adopts more of a class lexicon regarding who he is speaking to, matching his people word for word. However, England is not unaware of the affects of class, regardless of how he himself feels, and also although class snobbery and divide frustrate him, he cannot deny using this understanding to benefit himself, which also conforms to how his own people behave. (I myself have, many times, diluted and filtered my speech to be seen as ‘better’).

Want to be seen as more reliable and powerful? Want to be taken more seriously? RP and Estuary English (a lot more so these days), hold undeniable sway and England is not above adopting a manner of speaking to come across ‘better’ or more polite, or a more ‘common’ accent to fit in with the working classes. I think of England as leaning more towards a working-class mindset- he’s very hands on, very up for and used to manual labour and this particular English class has always made up the bulk of his population. It makes no sense for a nation, who represents all of their people, to have a snide view or a preference for a particular group and England as a person I see is someone who does not enjoy the foppery and false airs of aristocracy.

That being said, England is an intelligent man. He knows how to work a room and use a crowd to his advantage, knows what must be done and what he needs to do to achieve a goal and if this entails courting the upper classes for a time then he will do so. He’s adepts at switching himself like a chameleon, blending his behaviours, accent, and dialect to match who he’s talking to to achieve a goal or to fit in with someone’s perception of him, or to gain influence or prestige. He also doesn’t hate his upper classes- they are of him too, and the middle and working class have their own prejudices and ideas against the others. But he doesn’t adopt a stereotypical distain of lower classes because to him, it really doesn’t make much sense.

Abroad, this need to cultivate a particular perception defiantly comes under greater pressure. RP and Estuary English are more well know, more heard and taught, and more recognisably ‘British’, and so these are what he uses when speaking English to other nations or foreigners, either wanting to uphold an image of himself (more so in the Victorian/ Edwardian period than nowadays) or just for the ease of being understood.

Regional Differences

Okay, this one is a lot more fun. Does England put in his milk first or last when making tea? Does he put jam first, or clotted cream when having a scone? Does he have chips with gravy, or curry sauce? Does he have dinner at 6, or 9? To marmite, or not to marmite.

Ah, that is the question, and England does not know the answer. Does he do what he does because that’s what he likes, or because that’s what his people do? He didn’t grow up with these habits, after all, they’re all relatively recent in his lifetime, and so these habits are defiantly things he cultures for a particular audience.

I’m not really sure if the above preferences are class based, (well, milk first when making tea is argued to be, but I can't find any sources I'd consider entirely credible. I put the ones I did find in the notes below, in case any one's interested), so it’s hard to get a sense of which one to use. Overall, it doesn’t matter which you do and neither is right or wrong, but the English feel strongly about them, one way or another, and often Arthur the man isn’t sure at all which one he himself actually thinks is better.

Food in another sense though is something he can be surer of. A Cornish pastie not from Cornwall is not worth eating, nor is a Bakewell tart outside of Bakewell. England can be very particular about this sort of thing and enjoys maintaining and supporting the ‘original’ flavour or recipe of a thing where he can, considering this to be the ‘best’. Sally Lunn Buns from Bath, Gypsy tarts from Kent, Eccles Cakes from Eccles.

England wants to preserve his food and culture and has what could be considered a snobbish view on the ‘best’ way of creating or eating his national foods. Some things he is more lenient with: he will eat cheddar cheese, whether or not it is from Cheddar, same from Cumberland sausages not from Cumbria. But he certainly has a preference and he is not afraid to voice this when asked for his opinion.

Okay, we're done

Phew! This had me digging out my old linguistic student brain. To anyone who has made it this far down, gosh golly miss molly thank you for reading! I hope you enjoyed the ride, and especially @prickyy who was kind enough to want to hear my opinions about all of this <3

----------------------------------------

Notes:

Brittonic influence on English:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittonicisms_in_English

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=http://journals.mountaintopuniversity.edu.ng/English%2520Language/Celtic%2520Influences%2520in%2520English%2520A%2520Re-evaluation.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ohDYdq3BoWImwHn6oWQAg&scisig=AAGBfm29zTF0FBCpd1KqDiAbjM-0X7nfoA&oi=scholarr (PDF)

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=http://www.oppi.uef.fi/wanda/unicont/abstracts/14ICEHL_MF.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ohDYdq3BoWImwHn6oWQAg&scisig=AAGBfm3UvOXbJEb0b51J73eBnTJvgGaQOA&oi=scholarr (PDF)

Sociolects and class distinction within language in English:

https://languageawarenessbyrosalie.weebly.com/social-dialects.html

https://www.grin.com/document/313937

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English

Milk in tea first and the potential class reason:

https://www.theteaclub.com/blog/milk-in-tea/

https://qmhistoryoftea.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/milk-in-first-a-miffy-question/

[gonewiddershins]

Romancelandia you don’t have to ask I’m just gonna say it anyway~

Original Post Here

Barbara Cartland: Favourite author?

Courtney Milan.

Alisha Rai: Favorite era? (i.e. when they were written, not when set)

Current! I’m ecstatic to see how much more punk the romance novel genre has become lately- so many authors explicitly talking about race and class and gender and mental health and neurodivergence in so many interesting ways. Independent publishing opening up entirely new avenues which were not recommended for traditional publications. It’s exciting and wonderful.

Eve Dangerfield: Favourite setting for historicals?

Not sure if my opinion matters here because I have read books from very few eras? I think my preferences have moved to mid-to-late Victorian era for England-based books, but what I really want more of is historicals on other (non North American) continents. I badly want to do a romance in Historical India that is not about Englishmen, for example. Like a Muslim and Hindu falling in love during the Aurangazeb era, maybe. 

Anne Mather: Favourite contemporary setting/sub-genre

Again, I haven’t really read enough to form a nuanced opinion- when I look for contemporaries, my first priority used to be “does this make me laugh?” Which is um- a relic of a bygone era, because that used to be the only thing I wanted from contemporaries. 

Right now, I try to get read more of diverse romance in contemporary eras. Again, including non-American/English nationalities.

Georgette Heyer: Third or first person tense?

Either will do. It’s not really a factor in how much I enjoy a story. 

Lisa Kleypas: Hero/ine you’d most like to date & Jane Austen: Hero/ine you’d most like to be friends with

Same answer to both of the above categories. I’ll take anyone who I think is a rational person who forgives misunderstandings ans does not try to actively make them. I’m not really that picky. 

Amanda Quick: Hero/ine you most relate to

At the time when I first read it as a dramatic early twenties person, Minerva Lane from Courtney Milan’s The Duchess War spoke to me. There was a lot in there about fear and having to push yourself down fro the sake of survival that was similar to my life back then. I cried a lot when I read that book. 

More recently, I really wanted to snuggle up to Verity Plum from Cat Sebastian’s A duke in Disguise because her feelings of independence and placing it above pretty much everything else her life is... yeah. A lot of what Verity says sounds intimately familiar. 

Julie Anne Long: Historical or contemporary?

Historical. Given a choice between two books which are similarly positioned in terms of tropes I like and hate, I’ll pick a historical every time. 

Mariana Zapata: Open or closed door sex scenes? & Anne Hampson: Erotic or clean romances?

Ninety percent of the time I’m thoroughly disinterested in the sex scenes, and sometimes I am actively annoyed at the many pages of boning happening while the protagonists barely have an emotional connection. That said, there are plenty books which have no sex scenes where I am reduced to gross sobbing because GODDAMMIT THERE IS TOO MUCH SEXUAL TENSION IN THE AIR GIVE ME BONING.

I am still thirsty about Jo Beverley’s The Unwilling Bride. There was so much sexual tension and growth and Lucien was hot as hell but there was no sex scene. //grumbles

Elizabeth Hoyt: Paranormal or science fiction?

I haven’t read that much SF romance, but I’m going to pick it anyway because the usual tropes associated with Werewolves/Vampires bug the crap out of me. 

Nalini Singh: Favourite tropes

Both the protagonists have problems with stakes, and one is not there to manic pixie the other. Protagonists have relationships (non-romantic) outside of the romance. Subversions and reversions of gender norms. Banter and Snark. Character tries very very hard to not be emotionally vulnerable, but goddammit there are these stupid feelings. 

Alyssa Cole: Least favourite tropes

Prolonged Miscommunication. Slut shaming, especially when coupled with I Have Had So Much Sex and I am So Experienced hypocrisy. Gratuitous sex with no emotional connection. Protagonists immediately throwing over all other friends/family/loved ones for the sake of their new romantic interest. False competence in female characters which immediately get thrown to the wind when the romantic interest comes on scene (Ahem. Never Judge a lady By Her Cover.)

Rose Lerner: Favourite / Least favourite series

Nope.

Sandra Marton: Favourite romantic non-romance or love story

Unspoken Trilogy, by Sarah Rees Brennan. It is in part a fascinating exploration of privacy in a relationship- most of the rest of it is about friendships and platonic relationships. There is also a cult of sorcerers trying to take over the world via human sacrifice but I continue to insist that’s mostly just setting information. 

Skye Warren: Any problematic faves?

I have a depressingly large soft spot for anything funny, and I will forgive a lot of despised tropes if a book makes me laugh. I’m easy.

Specific examples: Until You (Judith McNaught), Dragon Shifter Series (Katie MacCalister).   

Ainsley Booth: Position on HEAs

I’m cool with those.

Abby Green: Position on HFNs

I like these better than HEAs, because the characters I like tend to be difficult and also fighting various difficult scenarios so it’s far more likely that more problems will pop up in their lives than not. 

Kristen Ashley: Position on the “romance novels are feminist” discourse

Conflicted. I think many romances are feminist, but there are an equal number or more which are patently not. Like all other genres, it has to be judged on a book by book basis, not for the genre as a whole.  

Carla Kelly: Position on the “calling romance novels trashy is problematic” discourse

Yes. Outright dismissal of an entire genre is just dumb. 

Diana Palmer: Position on the “are romance novels porn” discourse

Ha, no. Porn is porn. 

Johanna Lindsey: Position on the “romance novels represent the female gaze” discourse

Yes, I guess? In many romances the way men are portrayed is markedly different from the way they are seen in other genres. Again, this is not a universal constant- all romances do not show men in the exact same way. 

Also, it is hard to find any other genre with a larger proportion of characters, viewpoints and conflicts centered around women so there’s that.   

Mary Jo Putney: Position on the “calling romances without sex ‘clean’ or ‘sweet’ is implicitly slut shaming romances with sex” discourse?

Yes. Just call them romances without sex. What are we, the moral police?

Cara McKenna: What’s your hot take on the “forced seduction” trope?

I understand the time and place where there scenes were popular, and the social norms which prompted them. I’m still uncomfortable with them and there are may things I’d rather read about so I avoid them.    

Abigail Barnette: Opinion of Fifty Shades of Grey

Never read it, don’t plan to. Like I said, sex is not really my thing.

Tessa Bailey: Opinion of Twilight

I gobbled these books like a maniac when I first read them and there is a lot of pure entertainment in there and there is so much emotion. That said, they are not quite as interesting on re-reads. :(

Kathleen E. Woodiwiss: Opinion of Pride & Prejudice

I’m not comfortable with the prose, which means i prefer to watch/read adaptations. Most notably the Lizzie Bennet Diaries. 

Lynne Graham: Opinion of Harlequin Mills & Boon

Meh. 

Tessa Dare: Opinion of bodice rippers

I mean, I would be fine if there wasn’t so much of people causing their own problems by refusing to talk to each other. 

Sylvia Day: Opinion of Fabio

I did not even know he was a real person till like- recently.

Roni Loren: Opinion of male romance authors

Yes please. Particularly if they are writing under female pseudonyms. With this, we are getting the exact same thing that female authors did and have to go through- a forced perspective from people oft he other gender. That can only lead to more nuance and acceptance and I am all about that.  

Courtney Milan: All-time favourite romance novel & Jana Aston: Favourite contemporary romance & Judith McNaught: Favourite historical romance

Nope.

Alexa Riley: Physical or digital books?

Digital. I tend to make a lot of highlights and notes and that holds up much better with ebooks. 

E.L. James: Internal drama or external drama

Characters who are not getting together/along because they can’t communicate with each other are better off not being with each other in the first place. So if that’s what internal drama is then I prefer the external type. 

Sarah MacLean: Favourite heroine/s & Maya Rodale: Least favourite heroine/s & Penny Reid: Favourite hero/s & Megan Hart: Least favourite hero/s & Stephenie Meyer: Favourite and least favourite couple/s

I have types rather than specific examples. Most of it has already been detailed out in the tropes questions.

Beverly Jenkins: First romance novel you ever read

Almost Heaven, by Judith McNaught.

Sabrina Jeffries: How long have you been reading romance novels?

14 years or thereabouts.  

Loretta Chase: Last romance novel you read

A Duke in Disguise by Cat Sebastian. I’m currently reading An Unconditional Freedom (Alyussa Cole) and Earthrise (MCA Hogarth).

Christina Lauren: Do you need to start a series from the beginning, or can you just dive in anywhere?

Anywhere is fine.

Chuck Tingle: How strong does your HEA have to be?

Not much. See the HFN answer. 

Julia Quinn: Underrated author/s & Mary Balogh: Most overrated author/s & Violet Winspear: Most overrated book/s & Sara Craven: Most underrated book/s & Susan Elizabeth Phillips: Best romance by a debut author? & Madison Faye: Favourite romance by a non-romance author

Error Report: Cannot Compute, not enough data.

Nora Roberts: Least favourite hero and heroine archetypes

Eloisa James: What are you reading when you’re not reading romance?

Fantasy, Science Fiction, YA, Comics, Mysteries, Fanfiction, Nonfiction. I’ll read anything. 

Teresa Medeiros: Other media property you wish was a romance novel

Idk what this means?   

Laura Lee Guhrke: Last romance novel you DNFed

I think it was Elizabeth Kingston’s A Fallen Lady? Which was actually a GOOD book and I skipped ahead to scenes I really wanted to see and those scenes made me cry but also... there was not much about the romance itself that I was really interested in. I loved the heroine to death though. 

Cat Sebastian: Alpha, Gamma, or Beta heroes?

Depends on how they are written, but I confess an Alpha is so easily made into an irredeemable dipshit.  

Jeannie Lin: Ideal hero and heroine archetypes

Family-minded hero stressed out about taking care of his family. Independent, business minded heroine. 

Helen Hoang: Sexually experienced or inexperienced heroines? & Lucy Monroe: Sexually experienced or inexperienced heroes?

Experienced heroines and inexperienced heroes. Play against the type!

Lorraine Heath: When you choose a book do you look for tropes, plots or authors?

Authors, then Tropes. I barely pay attention to plots. 

C.D. Reiss: Puns in titles: 👍 or 👎?

YES. I have picked up books purely because of punny titles. 

Emily Bronte: Favourite cover designs/illustrations & Maya Banks: Least favourite cover design 

I suck a remembering covers so this question is going to get skipped~

Penny Jordan: What would you like to see more of in romance novels?

Diversity and cliche subversions. 

Lauren Blakey: What would you like to see less of in romance novels?

Overplayed cliches played in the same way again and again. Relationships based entirely on sex. 

Betty Neels: What do you think are the high and low points of the genre?

Highs: Romancelandia is probably the most intelligent and nuanced fandom I have ever been a part of and I have been a part of many fandoms. The genre is very, very diverse and there are so many experiments going on in the fringes. Questions and stories about the emotional components of relationships can never get old because there are too many permutations to explore in a few lifetimes.  

Lows: The core of the romance novel industry is still trying desperately to hold on to tropes and themes of older days, many of which are regressive. 

Jill Shalvis: Finish this sentence: “Romance novels are__________”

complex social commentaries. 

[thevalkirias]

Why Pride and Prejudice is the best love story of all time and the deconstruction of love at first sight

Perhaps everybody has heard, read or watched a story about love at first sight. It’s a cliché that always works in movies. The quirky girl, in a hurry to get to a meeting, stumbles on a grumpy man in the middle of the street and he lets all his stuff fall down. Both bend over to gather his things that are on the street and, for a second, only a second, the girl is not in a hurry anymore and the man’s soul is light as a summer day. That’s it, the passion is born. It’s simple, easy, and works almost every time.

Despite its efficiency in fiction, it’s always rather weird to apply this concept in real life -- to believe someone can fall in love without even knowing the other person. I, personally, can’t imagine falling for someone that supports Trump, or that hates Harry Potter. And you can’t identify these things just by looking at someone.

So why do we so easily believe in the concept that love can overcome anything? That’s another weird-ass concept; should love truly overcoming every single obstacle? If I ever fall in love with a misogynist serial killer, please, rescue me from that trap!! There will never be enough attraction to overcome so many differences. And so we go back to love at first sight: even if I fell in love with someone just by looking at them, I think it’s unlikely I’d still be in love after actually getting to know them.

My favorite love stories are the ones in which none of the central characters is interested in one another when they first meet. The “love at first sight” trope (or: a cliché or allegory used in fiction in order to develop characters or plots) is still recurrent in literature, but many books have been trying to subvert this cliché; such as Fangirl, by Rainbow Rowell, or The Raven Cycle series by Maggie Stiefvater. Both are pretty recent examples – Fangirl was released in 2014 and The Raven Cycle started in 2012. Maybe the subversion of love at first sight is a recent phenomenon, but long before any of these books were published, long before these authors were even born, we already had a good example of a love story in which love itself is a construction that takes a lot of time, and its title is Pride and Prejudice, written by Jane Austen.

2017 marked the 200th anniversary of the author’s death and the 204 years that passed since the first publication of the novel which is perhaps the most iconic Jane Austen wrote. Despite being two hundred years old, Pride and Prejudice is one of those timeless stories. It’s a classic.

In Why read the classics Italo Calvino explains that a classic is a book you always re-read; because if it’s a classic everyone already knows the plot, so even if it’s the reader’s first time with that specific book, she’s revisiting it nonetheless. We can say Pride and Prejudice is a classic because it’s a story that everyone knows: girl meets boy, girl hates boy, time goes by and the guy shows himself worthy of the girl’s affection and both declare they love for each other. Happy ending. It’s not by chance that Jane Austen’s story has inspired many modern adaptations, such as the Bridget Jones’ Diary series, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, or even the amazing web series The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. Pride and Prejudice remains relevant nowadays.

Even though I agree with Italo Calvino, I want to add here another factor that makes Pride and Prejudice a classic: identification. If the characters of the novel were not well developed, so complex that they seem real, a great portion of the strength of the book would not exist. Even more so because in real life people can change their minds, they can turn out wrong and have strong opinions that sometimes lead to mistakes or misjudgments. Being wrong is not necessarily equivalent to being a bad person; actually, those are pretty different things. We are all wrong at some point in our lives – or in many of them. And that’s fine, because we can all realize the mistake, apologize and become better. People can always – and should always – become better, listen to others, empathize and stay away from prejudices. Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy, the heroes of the story, make mistakes, misjudge each other and others, are prideful and prejudiced, but also regret their mistakes, apologize and become better.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of good fortune, must be in want of a wife. It’s with this sentence that Jane Austen begins her original novel, a quote that has become quite famous in the literary world and is recognized as one of the most memorable first sentences that exist. Reading it here like this, it must sound silly; what if the single wealthy man does not want to get married? Or what if he was gay and is in want of a husband? Nowadays this sentence makes even less sense than it did back then, but this is not what makes it so important: it’s what comes after it.

For those who have read the book or seen the movie, it’s known that the single wealthy man can be either Mr. Darcy or Mr. Bingley. These two are the main male characters that will get married throughout the story. But if we only take Mr. Darcy into account, the truth universally acknowledged does not apply. Maybe the truth is not so truthful, after all. Mr. Darcy is indeed single and has a nice fortune, but we don’t know if he is actually in want of a wife. The sentence “universal truth” is neither “universal” nor “true” because, even though it fits the expectations of the English society at the beginning of the 19th century, Jane Austen knew very well that that’s not the way love stories work. Elizabeth Bennet is not in want of a single wealthy man to marry, and neither is Mr. Darcy looking for such a wife.

Returning to love at first sight: if love depended solely on our first impressions of others, love affairs would be in severe decadency, and if this rule applied to Pride and Prejudice, none of the characters would be married by the end of the story (maybe Jane and Bingley). Elizabeth would remain prideful and Darcy prejudiced, but thankfully second chances exist!

Love at first sight usually comes with the idealization of the loved one. Even though it’s easy to imagine how the other person must be and nurture feelings for this idea, it’s also dangerous. Women’s representation in fiction, even more so in love stories, often comes with the idealization of a perfect woman, a male dream that becomes true. This gives rise to another very common trope: the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, that quirky and beautiful-without-even-trying girl whose only purpose is to help in the development of other characters (usually her significant other). Despite the many studies surrounding this theme, along with the calling out of these flaws, women’s representation in fiction is still in bad shape. Of course, we have to this date many well-developed characters, but there’s still a long way to go. However, two centuries ago, Jane Austen created complex characters, with wants of their own and a critical view of the world.

Elizabeth did not like Darcy when they first met -- or the second time they met, or the third. In fact, she only starts to think positively of him when they really get to know each other – when they talk, apologize for their mistakes and open themselves to each other’s point of view. Elizabeth does not exist solely to make Darcy a better man, nor is the opposite true. Both are equally well-developed and tridimensional characters. It’s almost impossible to read Pride and Prejudice without empathizing or identifying with them.

I think empathy is the main word when it comes to Pride and Prejudice, because it’s only when Darcy and Elizabeth put themselves in each other’s shoes that they are able to get out of their own personal worlds filled with pride and prejudice and start seeing the other with new eyes. And this is also true for Elizabeth and her sister Jane, or her friend Charlotte and her mother; it’s also true for Darcy and the Bennet family, and Darcy and his friend Bingley.

Pride and Prejudice is perhaps the best love story ever because it is about characters that are compatible with the real world, because it believes in second chances, because it depends on empathy, because it shows that it’s possible to make mistakes, regret them and become better and because it shows us that no one is perfect, not even love.

About the author

JÚLIA MEDINA

Júlia studies letters and has studied Russian in college. She has spent way too much time feeling conflicted about being more pop or more cult before she realized that what's truly cool is having fun. Aspiring critic and meme maker, she is just another millenial trying to get over Sirius Black dying. She was born on the same day as Junior from Sandy & Junior and in the same year as Harry Styles (1994) and she considers this to be a victory.

This piece was originally published in Portuguese on March 14th, 2017 as "Por que Orgulho e Preconceito é a melhor história de amor de todos os tempos e a desconstrução do amor à primeira vista". Translated by Anna Viduani.