#anti henry crawford

[junewongapologia]

It is no secret that I hate the Fanny/Henry pairing, bc like...

How can you read that book, and how Henry acts, and the distress it causes Fanny while we're in her head the whole way through...

And want her to be wrong? And want her to be the one to have to admit she was wrong?

No! Terrible, awful ending. Henry Crawford is not a good person. He's not, like, evil. But he's selfish and self-centred and thinks he deserves Fanny because he's rich and charming and made the bare minimum effort to seem like a better person. I fully buy into the idea that he likes her because he likes a challenge, and that if finally faced with what she like every day (shy and retiring and quiet and uncomfortable around loads of ppl) he'd start to resent her sharpish.

This is a book about selfishness and selfish people, and even in this cast, he's near the top of the most selfish, the most careless with the feelings of others. At the centre is Fanny, who is maligned and mistreated, but despite all is selfless and good, though she struggles with jealousy and negative thoughts and feelings.

It's a book about how she - poor and dependent and not especially well educated or taken care of by her relatives - knows her own mind and deserves to be treated as a rational, intelligent person.

It is literally crucial to her arc and the arc of the story that she's right about Crawford!

[misscrawfords]

Sometimes I just go internally feral about Henry Crawford and Susan Price who have not yet even met in my currently stalled Mansfield Park sequel. But they will meet and it will be so goddamn life-changing for both of them and they won't even know it. And meanwhile Mary is just sitting there giggling to herself in 50k enemies to lovers hurt/comfort fluff & angst HEA guaranteed.

It's a lonely job shipping the anti-hero of Austen's least popular novel with a minor character he met in one line that one time in Portsmouth who is basically an OC. It's a lonely job but someone has to do it.

[raystakes]

On The Re-Nomination of a Failed Candidate

This is an interesting historical oddity- that of the re-nomination of a (in this case, presidential) nominee that had ran once, failed, but was chosen a second time by their party.

The first example (we are not going to count the messes that were created by the original loser-becomes-VP thing) is Charles Pinckney, who ran against Thomas Jefferson in 1804 as the nominee of the Federalists- and then after being slaughtered in the electoral college, was re-nominated again in 1808 just in time for a (albeit significantly less so) second ass-beating in the EC. In both elections he was crushed in the popular vote, winning a paltry 27% in 1804 and 32% in 1808.

1824's election was inconclusive, and the results were split over 4 main candidates, with 3 of the 4 (excluding William Crawford) would run again in future elections, with eventual winner in 1824 John Quincy Adams becoming eventual loser in 1828, and stubborn loser Andrew Jackson becoming stubborn winner in 1828. Henry Clay, known by his moniker "The Great Compromiser", would run again several times- we'll get back to him.

After JQA's loss in 1828, Henry Clay would win the National Republican (sometimes referred to as the Anti-Jacksonian Republicans, to differentiate them from the Republican Party of today) ticket, but would lose to Jackson, whose nativist, nationalist populism had struck a chord with the voters (white men).

After Jackson's ally and successor Martin Van Buren served one term (1836-1840), and the political establishment was shaken by the sudden death of newly-elected William Henry Harrison in 1841 and the following disputes and incivility of the presidency of John Tyler, who finished out Harrison's term, Clay was nominated once again in 1844, this time as a Whig (a party born out of a merger between the National Republicans and the Anti-Masonic Parties.) He would once again lose, albeit by an incredibly slim measure of less than 40,000 votes. Clay would die in 1852. It was the end of an era for those who had loved "The Great Compromiser"- it would become clear over the following years that there was to be no compromise on the issue of Slavery.

I'll split this into two parts.

[xserpx]

I thought you might be, and I agree, though even then perhaps it's less that Henry is hot so much as Edmund is basically anti-hot, canonically. But also Henry totally did promote her brother, which I think ks the hottest thing he ever does (although reciting those lines of the play was also pretty hot). It also pains me how they make Crawford aesthetically hot in the adaptations and make the Bertrams not hot. Short King Crawford needs to happen.

Also Henry is hot and Edmund is not and there’s a lot to grapple with there.

[firawren]

JAFF recommendation: Unfairly Caught by @bethanydelleman

I really do not like Mansfield Park. But you know what I like? When authors figure out a way to change Mansfield Park so Fanny can be happy without stupidhead Edmund. And that's precisely what Unfairly Caught does.

The love story between Fanny and Henry is delightful. The character growth of both of them felt very believable, and the growth of their relationship was so satisfying. Honestly I felt kind of jealous of Fanny—I want someone to completely adore me and take care of my every need the way that Henry does for Fanny! It was so sweet.

The book does a great job at keeping Austen's style as well. I enjoyed the little references to other Austen works too, like the mention of the Crofts from Persuasion.

The bonus short stories at the end are also a lot of fun. I particularly enjoyed the hints in the first one that Edmund sucks at sex, because yes he for sure does! Luckily with Unfairly Caught, that is no longer dear Fanny's problem.

I recommend reading it!

[bethanydelleman]

Jane Austen’s Warning:

A lot of people tell me the Mrs. Smith/Mr. Elliot plot is a lose thread or Jane Austen would have went back and fixed it, but when you read all of her books it's a very clear repeat of an important theme: men are often not what they appear.

Northanger Abbey: Don’t just trust your brother when he tells you his friend is a good guy, judge for yourself. It was John Thorpe, your brother was dead wrong. Also, your creepy feelings about General Tilney were right, just more mundane.

S&S: The passionate, open, charming fellow who is obsessed with your sister? Turns out he’s a debt-ridden, teenage-seducer. It was good to doubt him, Elinor, he wasn’t being completely straight with you. The good ones have honour.

P&P: Superficially charming man is super bad news, man with snobby manners has a heart of gold underneath. Elizabeth is intelligent, the novel shows us that anyone can be drawn in. Elizabeth was unwilling to change her first impressions and take in new information.

Mansfield Park: Some men pretend to be in love for fun, Fanny’s clear-sighted judgement of Henry Crawford keeps her safe from his attack on her heart. We are shown that these men can seduce friends and guardians against you. Fanny refuses to “fix” Henry or accept him on his word, he needs to show her that he has changed before she will.

Emma: The superficially charming man was already engaged and was tricking you! The other charming, attractive man was actually a petty jerk! The plain-spoken, honest man was always the better choice.

Persuasion: Anne has a gut feeling that she can’t fully put words to about Mr. Elliot that he is bad news. She cannot even fully justify it to herself. ANNE, YOU WERE RIGHT.

Again and again, we are told that women need to trust their judgement, look for more evidence into a man’s character/past, and mistrust charm/looks without a basis of goodness. Anne figuring out that Mr. Elliot is evil isn’t anti-climactic, it’s a proof that her judgement is sound. It’s a reminder that one should never rush into a marriage without knowing more about a man’s past. Because for a woman especially, it can end horribly.

[zwischenstadt]

Liberals continued to look to the Soviet Union as a model, but what they now sought to emulate was not its ideology, but rather its ability to transcend the narrow limits of ideology.  They believed that if Americans could only abandon their sectarian anti-communism to the same extent that the Soviets had abandoned their sectarian commitment to Communist ideals, then practical men of affairs in both countries could join to guarantee international cooperation in the postwar world.

American goodwill toward Russia did not necessarily entail any change in attitude toward domestic Communists.  Kenneth Crawford suggested in the New Republic that the Russians could substantially aid the cause of anti-fascist unity by cutting all connections with the ‘irritating connivers who run the Community Party of the United States and who continue to bask in reflected Russian glory.’  Vice-President Henry Wallace, among the strongest proponents of the administration of close ties with the Soviet Union, confided in his diary that ‘a typical American Communist is the contentious sort of individual that would probably be shot in Russia without a ceremony.’  His wistful tone suggested some regret that American policymakers were unable to resort to such straightforward measures.

-Maurice Isserman, Which Side Were You On? The American Communist Party During the Second World War

lol

[curiousb]

The Crawford Family Album: Volume I

It’s high time to catch up with the graduates, now that they have all settled back into Merybury.

First, my favourites (I can’t help it), Lydia Bennet and Henry Crawford. They’re both still resolutely anti-commitment, but nonetheless happy to share their frolicking, free-spirited lives (mostly) with each other. 

Since Lydia Loves To Swim, they found themselves a house right on the beach.

Just like all my other Sims, they can’t afford to fully furnish their new home (I’m playing without using any money cheats), but they had just enough money for the essentials, such as a sofa - of which they immediately took full advantage, regardless of the passing paperboy.

The problem with this (especially when you have an individual Risky Woohoo rate of 26%, as Lydia does), is that it tends to lead to this...

Please welcome Merybury’s first new baby, Cassandra Crawford! (Pregnancy is a short-and-sweet 24 hours in my game.)

Henry, and Lydia too, it must be said, make surprisingly attentive parents!

But since babies don’t do very much, and patience is not one of my virtues, they don’t stay babies very long in my game (just one day, thanks to @simnopke’s ‘1yearAs1dayLifespan’ mod). Cassandra certainly hit the genetics jackpot!

~ Virgo 4 / 10 / 5 / 10 / 3

(I have @episims​’s ‘Baby Personality’ mod, so the personalities of born-in-game Sims don’t necessarily tally with their astrological sign, which I think is more fun anyway!)

~ Over-Emotional / Charismatic

(I mostly determine 3t2 Traits using my monster spreadsheet, so these are not necessarily ‘traditional’ toddler traits, although I do try to keep them age-appropriate; e.g. no Flirty toddlers/kids. I still occasionally use the Trait Randomizer, for a bit of, well, randomness!)

She’s also a little on the demanding side!

But thankfully easily pacified by a nursery rhyme.

You might - or might not - be pleased to know that motherhood has not changed Lydia one iota, and she takes the opportunity, while Henry is at work, to invite an old friend round to help her test out the new hot tub. They don’t even have a full complement of kitchen cabinets, but a hot tub was an absolutely essential purchase out of Henry’s first pay packet, as far as they were both concerned.

And then things got a bit chaotic, and I completely neglected to record the arrival of Cassandra’s little sister, Frances, right until she aged up to toddler!

Another cutie! And also Henry’s daughter, not John Willoughby’s.

~ Leo 6 / 9 / 4 / 8 / 4

~ Brave / Excitable

The two girls shared a birthday, so while Frances was getting all the attention, Cassandra aged up all alone, with only Mr Wobbly Wabbit Head to witness the event. Despite being a bit of an attention-seeker, Cassandra took it in her stride.

~ Virgo 4 / 10 / 5 / 10 / 3

~ Over-Emotional / Charismatic / Star Quality (randomized, and it suited her!)

~ OTH: Games

~ Favourite Colour(s): Pink / Black (My rule is that the colour of their everyday outfit when they age up to child is their favourite.)

Being as Outgoing as you can get, after a change of attire, Cassandra rushes outside to greet her aunt, Mary Bennet, who thoughtfully pops by every day, sometimes more than once (she’s so diligent), to steal the newspaper.

Yeah, I’m not sure that a water-balloon fight on a cold winter’s night is such a great idea...

I hate to say I told you so... Poor Mary turns into an icicle, while Cassandra leaves her to her fate...

...to go indoors and play with her baby sister. Oh, those Sims!

[bansheeoftheforest]

I Am Once Again Giving You London Gang!Jekyll Content

Okay but AU where Jekyll accidentally starts a gang though. He just helped people on the street way too often and then one day someone who opposes the Society just.. gets absolutely destroyed by a carriage out of nowhere. Jekyll gets a box with money and a note that refers to him as 'boss'. There are three routes this could then go.

Route 1: Jekyll is HORRIFIED, he did not want to start a GANG, he does not want to be a gang BOSS, but he can't tell them off because firstly, he doesn't know how he'd even do that, and secondly, they just KILLED SOMEONE, who's to say they won't kill him, too?? Jekyll must now try and figure out a way to solve this problem while Hyde has way too much fun (until he realizes the gang wants him dead for lighting their boss's building on fire).

Route 2: Jekyll is the most oblivious man on earth. He thinks one of the Lodgers gave him money as an apology. People who oppose the Society keep dropping dead and Jekyll keeps patching up the same people over and over who really like him for some reason, it is business as usual with how weird everything in his life already is. Someone (maybe your Crawford guy??) keeps trying to point out all the murders and link them to Jekyll but life hates this man specifically and nothing ever gets looked into because of the most ungodly amount of coincidences ever.

Route 3: Fuck it, he needs the money. He'll just wear a mask whenever he's duking it out in gang fights. He is surprisingly good at fighting, or maybe this could tie into the idea of Jekyll having been in a Scottish gang as a kid, but either way he mops the cobblestone streets with his opponents. He becomes one of the most feared and notorious gang leaders in London, and has a habit of targeting aristocracy that he knows are corrupt and abusive from meeting them as Dr. Jekyll at fancy events. Everything is all fine and well until Brokenshire approaches him saying they need to protect the doctor because clearly those in his social circles are being targeted. Sitcom level hijinks ensue.

(Bonus because I know you love your crackships: Jekyll gets challenged to a gang fight and meets a man in a tophat. He struggles a bit more than usual, but ultimately beats him. He is then held at gunpoint by this guy's sister demanding to know how he bested a trained assassin and whoa wait despite this guy having a bruised face now courtesy of himself he is actually very handsome haha ummm wait a minute did he just say that out loud and maybe invited him to get drinks as an apology for nearly kicking his teeth in uMMM- (bi disaster Dr. Jekyll strikes again!!))

Jeks. Jeks, my guy, thank you for making me laugh so hard, this is just... glorious. I love it all. Oh my god.

I don't know that route is best-- I honestly love the oblivious route bc of all the hijinx and Crawford wanting to rip his hair out in frustration and especially if it is a Syndicate au and it's the Crawford Starrick I based him off (which would make a lil less sense since he is gang leader tycoon and probably could have Jekyll killed but sssuuusshhhh) but I also love Henry just... Getting a goddamn Phantom Of The Opera-esque mask, deciding to go absolutely bonkers, painting entire alleyways red with the blood of his enemies, etc etc, and I absolutely love the idea of Brokenshire directly or indirectly approaching him asking him to protect himself, like they know that Jekyll's persona is well feared and a gang leader but they don't know that it is his gang that is targeting people so now Jekyll is the one sending assassins after abusive and corrupt aristocrats but also has a mission to protect himself from himself. Nice. I absolutely love it. I love it all. And I just... Hyde being do giddy until he realises that the gang wants him dead??? Fuck yes. Give me it all. I just love it so fucking much jfc i cant put it inTO WORDS.

Ok. Ok can we please combine the oblivious route with the masked gangleader phantom being the terror of london route??? Henry at first being completely oblivious, not realising why everyone that has ever insulted him and his work are suddenly disappearing one by one, Crawford wanting to rip his hair out in frustration bc "GUYS IT'S FUCKING JEKYLL HOW IS NO ONE SEEING IT" And jekyll just goes "ahah don't be silly Ricky, I'm not a gangleader lol". Henry being completely oblivious as the Lodgers suddenly get stalked by the gang members, only to be protected by them from other gangs or anti-sciences dudes, the Lodgers retelling the story to Jekyll who just goes like "oh wow man. Huh aren't those the people I have been patching up a lot lately. Strange. What a strange coincidence :)" but then a gang member gets really injured and Henry saves them from death and the gangmember is just... going like "wow, you are the best gang leader I have ever had, you are so much better than everyone else." and henry is just like "ahaha i'm a WHAT NOW"

Cue Henry deciding that, fuck it, if they already think of him as a gangleader why not take advantage of it. He has already been in gangs as a kid so he knows how they work. Quickly becomes a gangleader Tycoon, the lodgers/Rachel/Robert are all confused as to why people suddenly have stopped targeting them for robberies and shit and as to why Henry suddenly has a lot of money he spends on the Society and the bills. Henry telling them not to worry about it. He hears about a dude who suddenly has been swiping through all the ot her London gangs like a hot knife through butter, suddenly his gang is targeted so they are challenged to a gangfight. Henry beats the absolute shit out of him, he has him pinned to the ground when he hears a gun loading and he feels the hilt against his back. He is too busy staring into the beaten up guy's eyes to really care, wow he is so hot, the gangleaders demand that he takes off his mask or he gets shot. He instead lets go of the guy and just... Stands up, brushes himself off, tells them "ahaahh thanks but no thanks. also please stop destorying my gang we literally have not done anything provoking to you."

Anyways they agree to have their gangs work together (oh my god what would Henry's gang be called??? I imagine them wearing the colour blue bc the Rooks are green and the Blighters are red (since it's a specifically a syndicate au lol) but they probably would wear red if it's just tgs anyways off topic hehe). Henry invites them to a drink, his tab, they agree, they find out about all the accidental bullshit that Henry accidentally started and just... Yes pls. Also Jacob and Henry getting drunk and flirting like nobody's business, maybe Henry asking if Jacob likes guys and if he doesn't, is his sister single? Evie almost kicking his teeth in, Jacob laughing his ass off. Yes please.

ALso almost completely forgot the absolute scooby doo mystery of the twins trying to figure out who Henry is since he wears a mask and disguises his identity. Imagine them just being like... Who’s that pokemon? It’s dr. henry jekyll-- WAIT IT’S DR. HENRY JEKYLL????

[80s4life]

Character/Movie List

Below is movies and TV shows I like personally and are lsited as a reference. If you don't see something you're interested in, it is not that I don't like it, it is because I most likely forgot it because I love so many movies/shows tbh. Just ask, and I'll answer! And, from the Rules and Regulations page, what I had meant by "mostly" is that I can dabble outside of the acting world and into actors/actresses themselves and/or singers, popstars, etc.

{Another side-note, I am not so much into shows, but mostly movies! Although, there are some exceptions that I love beyond belief!}

MOVIES

Back to the Future Series:

Biff Tannen

Griff Tannen (Maybe, he wasn't the best of the Tannen's imo)

Buford Tannen

Marty McFly

George McFly

Doc Brown

Lorraine Baines

Match

Titanic:

Rose DeWitt Bukater

Jack Dawson

Caledon Hockley

Brock Lovett

Rabrizio De Rossi

Thomas "Tommy" Ryan

Karate Kid Series {1/2/3}:

1-

John Kreese

Mr. Miyagi

Johnny Lawrence

Daniel LaRusso

Tommy

Dutch

Bobby Brown (not so much; don't know him too well)

Ali Mills

Lucille LaRusso

2-

Chozen

Kumiko

3-

Terry Silver (duh lmao)

Mike Barnes (also duh)

Jessica Andrews

Stand By Me:

Vern Tessio

Billy Tessio

Gordie LaChance

Chris Chambers

Eyeball Chambers

Ace Merrill

Teddy Duchamp

Goonies:

Brand

Mikey

Chunk

Mouth

Data

Andy

Stef

Jake Fratelli (he was kinda hot ngl)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off:

Ferris Bueller

Jeanie Bueller

Cameron Frye

Sloane Peterson

License to Drive:

Les Anderson

Dean

Mercedes Lane

Charles

Toy Soldiers:

Billy Tepper

Joey Trotta

Snuffy Bradberry

Ricardo Montoya

Hank Giles

Derek/Yogurt

Scream Movie Series {1/2}:

1-

Billy Loomis

Stu Macher

Dwight "Dewey" Riley

Ghostface

Randy Meeks

Tatum Riley

Sidney Prescott

Gale Weathers

2-

Cotton Weary

Derek Feldman

Mickey

Predator:

Dutch

Blain

Yautja

Escape Plan:

Emil Rottmayer/ "Victor Maheim"

Ray Breslin/ "Anthony Portos"

The Expendables:

Barney Ross

Lee Christmas

Toll Road

Tool

Gunnar Jensen

Bao Thao/ "Yin Yang"

Hale Caesar

Trench

Church

Divergent Movie Series {1/2/3}:

Divergent-

Beatrice "Tris" Prior

Caleb Prior

Peter

Tobias "Four" Eaton

Christina "Chris"

Eric Coulter

Will

Insurgent-

Marcus Eaton

Allegiant-

Matthew

Terminator Series:

T-100/"Uncle Bob"/Terminator

T-1000 "Austin"

John Connor

Sarah Connor

Grace

Dani Ramos

Dazed and Confused:

David Wooderson

Fred O'Bannion

Randall "Pink" Floyd

Ron Slater

Don Dawson

Mitch Kramer

Benny O'Donnell

Rocky Series:

Rocky Balboa

Apollo Creed

Captain Ivan Drago

Zombieland {1/2}:

Tallahassee

Columbus

Berkeley

Witchita

Little Rock

Madison

Lethal Weapon Movie Series {1/2/3/4}:

Martin Riggs

Roger Myrtaugh

Rianne Murtaugh

Leo Getz

Goodfellas:

Henry Hill

Jimmy Conway

Tommy DeVito

Karen Hill

Marvel:

Avengers Heroes-

Iron Man/Tony Stark

Thor

Ant-Man/Scott Lang

Hulk/Bruce Banner

Captain America/Steve Rogers

Hawkeye/ Clint Barton

Quicksilver/Pietro Maximoff

Scarlet Witch/Wanda Maximoff

Black Panther/T'Challa

Vision/Victor Shade

Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff

Mantis

Spider-Man/Peter Parker

Doctor Strange/Stephen Strange

Avengers Anti-Heroes/Antagonists:

Yondu Udonta

Loki Laufeyson

Winter Soldier/Bucky Barnes

Whiplash

Thanos

Mysterio

Kaecilius

Ronan

Hela

Ultron

Wolverine/Deadpool:

Wolverine/Logan Howlett

Sabretooth/Victor Creed

Bolt/Chris Bradley

Gambit/Remy LeBeau

Cyclops/Scott Summers

(Younger!)Professor X

Deadpool/Wade Wilson

Cable/Nathan Summers

Colossus/Piotr "Peter" Nikolayevich Rasputin

Dopinger

Weasel

Negasonic Teenage Warhead/Ellie Phimister

DC Universe:

Superman/Clark Kent (Henry Cavill)

Batman/Bruce Wayne (Affleck, Bale versions)

Aquaman/Arthur Curry

Wonder Woman/Diana Prince

Harley Quinn

Joker (Leto, Ledger, Phoenix versions)

Deadshot

Captain Boomerang

Enchantress

Rick Flagg

Bane (Tom Hardy)

TV Shows

Stranger Things:

Mike Wheeler

Nancy Wheeler

Will Byers

Joyce Byers

Johnathan Byers

Maxine "Max" Hargrove

Billy Hargrove

Dustin Henderson

Lucas Sinclair

Robin Buckley

Jim Hopper

Steve Harrington

Sex Education:

Erric Effiong

Aimee Gibbs

Adam Groff

Ola Nyman

Rahim

Otis Milburn

Maeve Wiley

Hannibal (Show):

Hannibal Lector

Will Graham

Dr. Alana Bloom

Jack Crawford

Abigail Hobbs

Orange Is the New Black (OITNB):

Piper Chapman

Nicky Nichols

Suzanne "Crazy Eyes" Warren

Galina "Red" Reznikov

Tasha "Taystee" Jefferson

Dayanara "Daya" Diaz

Gloria Mendoza

Lorna Morello

Tiffany "Pennsatucky" Doggett

Alex Vause

Joel Luschek

Big Boo

Maritza Ramos

Poussey Washington

Yoga Jones

Gina Murphy

Brook Soso

Sophia Burst

George "Pornstache" Mendez

Larry Bloom

Polly Harper

Stella Carlin

The Boys:

Billy Butcher

Starlight/Annie January

Hughie Campbell

Homelander

Kimiko Miyashiro

Queen Maeve/Maggie Shaw

Mother's Milk "M.M."

The Deep/Kevin Moskowitz

Frenchie

Stormfront

Becca Butcher

The Walking Dead (TWD):

Daryl Dixon

Merle Dixon

Rick Grimes

Carl Grimes

Lori Grimes

Maggie Greene

Beth Greene

Glenn Rhee

Negan Smith

Michonne Hawthorne

Carol Peletier

Shane Walsh

Paul "Jesus" Monroe

Eugene Porter

Sgt. Abraham Ford

Outer Banks (OBX):

Sarah Cameron

Rafe Cameron

Ward Cameron

JJ

John B

Topper

Pope

Kiara

Shameless:

Frank Gallagher

Fiona Gallagher

Lip Gallagher

Ian Gallagher

Debbie Gallagher

Carl Gallagher

Kevin Ball

Veronica Fisher

Mickey Milkovich

Mandy Milkovich

Svetlana

Jimmy "Steve" Lishman

Karen Jackson

Cobra Kai

Miguel Diaz

Eli "Hawk" Moskowitz

Robby Keene

Demetri

Carmen Diaz

John Kreese (baby version & old version)

Terry Silver (baby version & old version)

Tory Nichols

Samantha "Sam" LaRusso

...AND MANY MORE!

If there is something or someone you like not on this list, feel free to ask or direct message me! For movies like the DC Universe and Marvel, if there is multiple actors of that character and you want a certain one, please make sure that you add that detail!

Rules & Regulations

Masterlist

[blushed-selfshipper]

New F/O list

Hi! As the title said, I have decided to update my f/o list since a few things have changed.

Without further ado: 

Dabi (MHA) 🌸💙

Trevor Belmont (Netflix's Castlevania)

Kai Chisaki, aka Overhaul (MHA)

Illumi Zoldyck (Hunter x Hunter)

Simon J. Paladino, aka Gazerbeam (The Incredibles) 🌸

Vincent Sinclair (House of Wax)

Cole Cash, aka Grifter (Flashpoint Paradox version) 

Not romantic, but not platonic either:

Rodion Raskolnikov (Crime and Punishment) 🌸

Tom Bertram (Mansfield Park)

Henry Crawford (Mansfield Park) 🌸

Geoffrey Raymond (The Murder of Roger Ackroyd)

Leto Sieberg (A Wish Too Dark and Kind)

Zora Ideale (Black Clover)

Ashleigh Wakefield (Choice of the Deathless)

🌸 The ones with a flower next to their name I'm not ok with sharing.

DNI if: Selfships with minors/pro-shipper, transphobic, racist, anti LGBTQ, misogynist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. 

[misscrawfords]

For the bad Austen take game: Fanny Price is boring. (I hated even typing that)

 Aaaaahhhh, you went straight to the jugular!

Mansfield Park was published in 1814, a year after Pride and Prejudice. The latter contained a spirited, active, and witty heroine. The former, a heroine who was shy, physically weak, and very introverted.

Fanny Price is actually closer to what a lot of contemporary heroines were like. Elizabeth Bennet, bursting in on the scene with her “pert opinions” and physical vigor and her direct challenges to the hero is not ahistorical because clever and witty heroines do exist in literature of the time, but she takes that to the next level.

The “perfect heroine” of the early 18th century in many novels was sweet, virtuous, morally dutiful, and somewhat passive. She was prone to fainting, basically had no faults, and at the end of the novel was rewarded with the love of the hero. She is not always a particularly interesting figure and often such narratives have a foil in a lively, witty anti-heroine who brings the fun to the novel but cannot be rewarded with a happy ending because she does not display the appropriate morals. That way the author and reader can get the pleasure of a “bad girl” or at least a “fun girl” without disrupting the expected didactic morals required of (many) novelists at the time.

Fanny Price and Mary Crawford are interesting variations on that. Fanny, like all of Austen’s heroines, challenges contemporary notions of what being a heroine was about. Austen does this in all her novels though Emma is the most obvious example. Fanny has many of the qualities that you would expect from a contemporary heroine but she is also not particularly attractive (a heroine should always be the most beautiful woman in the room) and it is hard to read her excessive passivity and not feel irritated by it. She has a much deeper inner life than most of her contemporaries of this type. We see her jealousy of Mary Crawford, we see her misery, we see her unrequited love for Edmund, her complicated feelings regarding her home in Portsmouth in ways that make her fully rounded internally, only little of that is spoken out loud. These feelings are very human and understandable, but they are not always to her credit and knowing them, we wish she could act on them. Austen seems to be asking the reader to take the classic novel heroine and then ask, “How would she really respond to novel situations?”

Austen’s plot also challenges expected novelistic plots. Edmund Bertram is not a satisfactory romantic hero. He is as quiet and rigidly moral as Fanny... except he blows all his convictions by his blind infatuation on Mary and he spends 99.9% of the novel oblivious to Fanny’s feelings or even that she’s an eligible woman at all. I have sympathy for him as well as for Fanny because he’s very young (only 22/23) and making poor judgements over women at that age and being an oblivious numpty over your childhood best friend’s crush seems pretty normal to me. Nevertheless, following Mr. Darcy, he’s hardly the stuff of dreams.

The character and plot that does seem more novelistic is Henry Crawford and his pursuit of Fanny. He’s handsome and rich and a bit of a rake. Then he meets Fanny who he attempts to seduce, falls in love with her for real, proposes to her and is rejected, then changes his behaviour, tries again and is accepted now that he is reformed and worthy her love.... wait. Rewind. That’s not what happened! Think this plot looks familiar? It should. Henry Crawford is what a lot of people think Mr. Darcy is who don’t understand Mr. Darcy on any level. Henry Crawford genuinely is a handsome bad boy who is reformed by the love of a virtuous woman after being rejected by her. And Austen teases readers with a redemption arc and a real enemies-to-lovers plot. But Henry is as real and complicated and human as Fanny and Edmund - he fails at the last hurdle and cannot complete his redemption arc. He relapses at the last moment. Isn’t that true to life? And is reforming a rake really Fanny’s destiny in life? She doesn’t think so. She sees right through his charm and hates who he is underneath. She doesn’t reject him as Elizabeth does Darcy because she doesn’t understand him; she rejects him because she understands him perfectly. She is the only person in the novel who does. I feel it would be a poor ending for Fanny to make her marry a man she despises and become the mistress of a large estate which brings with it the kind of social duties she must have been unhappy executing.

Fanny gets what she wants. She quietly, patiently does not change. She is surrounded by the superficial, the brash, the badly behaved, the immoral, the weak and she remains strong and stoical and by doing this and remaining true to her values, she triumphs. She wins. She gets the man she wants. She is truly and fully adopted into the heart of Mansfield Park with all her enemies and rivals removed. She is acknowledged as the best of them all. Without even needed to do anything except endure and stick to her guns, she defeats every big boss in her path.

These are not attractive modern values. Our concept of a “strong woman” (*shudder*) is Elizabeth Bennet. But not all of us are Elizabeth Bennets. Most of us aren’t in fact. Most of us are quiet and insecure and filled with envies, jealousies, private sadnesses. Many of us have experienced at some point less than ideal family situations and reacted not by being spirited and clever but by curling up in a ball and just waiting it out. Shouldn’t Fanny be held up as an icon for winning in absolutely the worst of circumstances? But she is an Aeneas in a society that only wants to read about Odysseuses and Achilleses.

Finally, another way in which Austen was distinctly saying in MP, “Hey, so, if you thought I was going to write another P&P, JOKE’S ON YOU, MATEY!” is that the entire novel is an anti-romance. Of course you’re going to be frustrated with Fanny and Edmund if you’re looking for a pair of exciting characters who fall in love and get a swoonworthy romance. But if you read MP as an examination of bad love, inappropriate love, selfish love, inexperienced love, love that taints and goes wrong through the eyes of a quiet and insightful observer who herself suffers the crushing and all too familiar pangs of hopelessly unrequited love - then you find a character and a novel that are rich, satirical, and deeply intimate and clever.

[soc-characters-as-songs]

The OCs as Jane Austen characters?

everyone is lizzie bennet, remember? lmao

quoted descriptions sourced from the atlantic, barnes and noble, the guardian, and stylist.

and yes, I realize some of these could definitely qualify as hot takes lmao

ivy: fitzwilliam darcy ("I always saw myself as more of a mr. darcy than an elizabeth bennet. we’re both more reserved, and people can mistake our standoffishness for arrogance. but mr. darcy gets the chance to prove what he is really like, and now people often think of him as the ideal romantic hero.")

meredith: marianne dashwood ("marianne is a hopeless, self-indulgent romantic who veers from ecstatic, all-consuming happiness to miserable self-neglect over the unsuitable man she has pinned her hopes on. she is, however, capable of self-improvement and learns invaluable life lessons from her practical and generous older sister, elinor.")

diana: susan vernon ("not all austen’s protagonists are morally sound, well behaved romantics. in her only epistolary novel she presents us with a vicious anti-heroine in the shape of lady susan vernon. a beautiful 30-something widow, she is charming and manipulative towards anyone she can make use of.")

dahlia: isabella thorpe ("in northanger abbey, isabella is one of austen’s funniest characters. she’s a very realistically drawn teenage girl who makes and breaks friends on a whim, is a shallow flirt and loves dancing, shopping and giggling.")

alassie: mary crawford ("in mansfield park, mary crawford is the character all men fall in love with. vivacious, worldly, musical, funny and kind, she is the ultimate femme fatale. even the dull parson edmund bertram falls for her charms, simultaneously attracted and repelled by her particular brand of sexy charisma. she’s a wonderful actress and plays the harp like an angel. she makes the filthiest joke in austen when she makes a pun about sodomy in the navy, concerning rear and vice admirals: “of rears and vices I saw enough. now do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat.”")

ramona: anne elliot ("she may be austen’s most hopeful character. without the native strength of emma or lizzy, her quiet character withstands her own youthful mistake to triumph in the end. since most of us blow it to one degree or another in our twenties, anne represents that painful journey to self-knowledge and courage that most of us experience.")

rhea: elinor dashwood ("on the surface, she has it together, she’s in control, she keeps her family together, and she acts like she has no need for romance. but underneath, she is a deeply emotional person. to me, she is jane austen’s most complex and human character. we all exist in layers and are neither sense nor sensibility, but a mixture of both.")

cornelia: elizabeth bennet ("she is smart, witty, charming, and loyal. I have always admired her self-respect: a self-respect that wasn't entirely vain or selfish. the self-respect that would not allow her to marry her intellectually inferior cousin, just to have a home, or save her family. her self-respect that gave her the fortitude to reject darcy's marriage proposal, though, again, it would have secured her future. Her self-respect that gave her the courage to speak her mind among men and women who outranked her socially and economically.")

kaden: emma woodhouse ("emma is rich, pretty, and thinks more of her matchmaking abilities than she should, but she is also a devoted daughter, a loving friend, and above all is someone who is willing to own up to her mistakes and attempt to right them. emma is a heroine you root for as she not only finds love (as any great austen heroine must), but also as she matures from an often inconsiderate girl to a sincere and kind young woman.")

andreia: diana parker ("diana is a homeopathic health fanatic in austen’s final, incomplete novel sanditon, written when she was dying. diana sips herbal and green tea, has anorexic tendencies and distrusts conventional medicine and doctors. she self-medicates with her numerous homemade remedies and is drawn to the other invalids who are staying at the seaside resort. she plans to take a sea bath in a bathing hut on wheels with a mixed-race girl. what a pity that we’re deprived of the chance to see how that would have turned out")

arely: fanny price ("fanny price is also an odd heroine, meek and quiet without any of the strength of her other heroines. she’s also very difficult to read, with a moralistic streak that comes across as quite judgemental. however, like anne elliot, she is very much the outcast of the family and has to endure a fair amount of humiliation from childhood. to see her finally defy her uncle in the gentlest way possible and end up with her childhood love edmund bertram is satisfying."

suzy: catherine morland ("catherine is a dramatic, gothic-novel-loving teen who is desperate for drama and tries to turn her own life into a ghost story, offending and upsetting her friends in the process. throughout my teens I did my best to make my life something in between a fantasy novel and a sofia coppola movie—I can relate. she’s funny, outgoing, and magnificently stupid. but catherine, in her ridiculousness, just wants to make life a fun story. she is the angsty suburban girl who invites you to join her book club with a message written in invisible ink. I would join in a heartbeat.")

samuel: henry tilney ("funny, good-natured, and forgiving, tilney’s even ready to defy his boorish father’s wishes to marry the woman he…loves? this novel lacks the intense romanticism of austen’s later works, but that doesn’t mean henry isn’t a peach.")

bianca: charlotte lucas (sensible and intelligent, does what she has to do for a successful life)

archibald: george knightley ("he is the epitome of kindness, an underestimated heroic quality. he takes care of a vulnerable woman like miss bates, and steps in to dance with lowly harriet smith when he sees that she has been snubbed by the awful mr and mrs elton. he represents the perfect english gentleman and sets himself firmly against french affectation. he refuses to play the conventional hero and talk the language of love: “I cannot make speeches, emma. If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more.” perfect!")

raphael: charles bingley ("this charming, gallant gentleman wouldn’t hurt a fly, but he would let his chilly sisters talk him out of proposing to the woman he loves, in an era when dancing with her all night has already got half the neighborhood writing up the wedding banns. but who doesn’t keep a spot in their heart for bingley, who’s glad to dance with even the homeliest old maids (we’re talking 27-year-old hags here). he may be suggestible, even a touch weak-willed, but he’s also got a heart of gold. (and if he had a bit more spine, he’d top mr. darcy.)

[timeless-hollywood-classics]

Margaret Brooke Sullavan (May 16, 1909 – January 1, 1960) was an American actress of stage and film.

Sullavan began her career onstage in 1929. In 1933 she caught the attention of movie director John M. Stahl and had her debut on the screen that same year in Only Yesterday.

Sullavan preferred working on the stage and made only 16 movies, four of which were opposite James Stewart in a popular partnership that included The Mortal Storm and The Shop Around the Corner. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in Three Comrades (1938). She retired from the screen in the early 1940s, but returned in 1950 to make her last film, No Sad Songs for Me, in which she played a woman who was dying of cancer. For the rest of her career she would appear only on the stage.

Sullavan experienced increasing hearing problems, depression, and mental frailty in the 1950s. She died of an overdose of barbiturates, which was ruled accidental, on January 1, 1960, at the age of 50.

Sullavan was born in Norfolk, Virginia, the daughter of a wealthy stockbroker, Cornelius Sullavan, and his wife, Garland Councill Sullavan. She had a younger brother, Cornelius, and a half-sister, Louise Gregory. The first years of her childhood were spent isolated from other children. She suffered from a painful muscular weakness in the legs that prevented her from walking, so that she was unable to socialize with other children until the age of six. After her recovery she emerged as an adventurous and tomboyish child who preferred playing with the children from the poorer neighborhood, much to the disapproval of her class-conscious parents.

She attended boarding school at Chatham Episcopal Institute (now Chatham Hall), where she was president of the student body and delivered the salutatory oration in 1927. She moved to Boston and lived with her half-sister, Weedie, while she studied dance at the Boston Denishawn studio and (against her parents' wishes) drama at the Copley Theatre. When her parents cut her allowance to a minimum, Sullavan defiantly paid her way by working as a clerk in the Harvard Cooperative Bookstore (The Coop), located in Harvard Square, Cambridge.

Sullavan succeeded in getting a chorus part in the Harvard Dramatic Society 1929 spring production Close Up, a musical written by Harvard senior Bernard Hanighen, who was later a composer for Broadway and Hollywood.

The President of the Harvard Dramatic Society, Charles Leatherbee, along with the President of Princeton's Theatre Intime, Bretaigne Windust, who together had established the University Players on Cape Cod the summer before, persuaded Sullavan to join them for their second summer season. Another member of the University Players was Henry Fonda, who had the comic lead in Close Up.

In the summer of 1929 Sullavan appeared opposite Fonda in The Devil in the Cheese, her debut on the professional stage. She returned for most of the University Players' 1930 season. In 1931, she squeezed in one production with the University Players between the closing of the Broadway production of A Modern Virgin in July and its tour in September. She rejoined the University Players for most of their 18-week 1930–31 winter season in Baltimore.

Sullavan's parents did not approve of her choice of career. She played the lead in Strictly Dishonorable (1930) by Preston Sturges, which her parents attended. Confronted with her evident talent, their objections ceased. "To my deep relief", Sullavan later recalled. "I thought I'd have to put up with their yappings on the subject forever."

A Shubert scout saw her in that play as well and eventually she met Lee Shubert himself. At the time, Sullavan was suffering from a bad case of laryngitis and her voice was huskier than usual. Shubert loved it. In subsequent years Sullavan would joke that she cultivated that "laryngitis" into a permanent hoarseness by standing in every available draft.

Sullavan made her debut on Broadway in A Modern Virgin (a comedy by Elmer Harris), on May 20, 1931.

At one point in 1932 she starred in four Broadway flops in a row (If Love Were All, Happy Landing, Chrysalis (with Humphrey Bogart) and Bad Manners), but the critics praised Sullavan for her performances in all of them. In March 1933, Sullavan replaced another actor in Dinner at Eight in New York. Movie director John M. Stahl happened to be watching the play and was intrigued by Sullavan. He decided she would be perfect for a picture he was planning, Only Yesterday.

At that time Sullavan had already turned down offers for five-year contracts from Paramount and Columbia. Sullavan was offered a three-year, two-pictures-a-year contract at $1,200 a week. She accepted it and had a clause put in her contract that allowed her to return to the stage on occasion. Later on in her career, Sullavan would sign only short-term contracts because she did not want to be "owned" by any studio.

Sullavan arrived in Hollywood on May 16, 1933, her 24th birthday. Her film debut came that same year in Only Yesterday. She chose her scripts carefully. She was dissatisfied with her performance in Only Yesterday. When she saw herself in the early rushes, she was so appalled that she tried to buy out her contract for $2,500, but Universal refused.

In his November 10, 1933, review in The New York Herald Tribune, Richard Watts, Jr. wrote that Sullavan "plays the tragic and lovelorn heroine of this shrewdly sentimental orgy with such forthright sympathy, wise reticence and honest feeling that she establishes herself with some definiteness as one of the cinema people to be watched".[11] She followed that role with one in Little Man, What Now? (1934), about a couple struggling to survive in impoverished post–World War I Germany.

Originally, Universal was reluctant to make a movie about unemployment, starvation and homelessness, but Little Man was an important project to Sullavan. After Only Yesterday she wanted to try "the real thing". She later said that it was one of the few things she did in Hollywood that gave her a great measure of satisfaction. The Good Fairy (1935) was a comedy that Sullavan chose to illustrate her versatility. During the production, she married its director, William Wyler.

King Vidor's So Red the Rose (1935) dealt with people in the South in the aftermath of the Civil War. It preceded by one year the publication of Margaret Mitchell's bestselling novel Gone With the Wind, and the novel's film adaptation by four years; the latter became a blockbuster. Sullavan played a childish Southern belle who matures into a responsible woman. The film also dealt with the situation of characters who were freed black slaves.

In Next Time We Love (1936), Sullavan plays opposite the then-unknown James Stewart. She had been campaigning for Stewart to be her leading man and the studio complied for fear that she would stage a threatened strike. The film dealt with a married couple who had grown apart over the years. The plot was unconvincing and simple, but the gentle interplay between Sullavan and Stewart saves the movie from being a soapy and sappy experience. Next Time We Love was the first of four films made by Sullavan and Stewart.

In the comedy The Moon's Our Home (1936), Sullavan played opposite her ex-husband Henry Fonda. The original script was rather pallid, and Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell were brought in to punch up the dialogue, reportedly at Sullavan's insistence. Sullavan and Fonda play a newly married couple, and the movie is a cavalcade of insults and quips. Her seventh film, Three Comrades (1938), is a drama set in post–World War I Germany. Three returning German soldiers meet Sullavan who joins them and eventually marries one of them. She gained an Oscar nomination for her role and was named the year's best actress by the New York Film Critics Circle.

Sullavan reunited with Stewart in The Shopworn Angel (1938). Stewart played a sweet, naive Texan soldier on his way to Europe (World War I) who marries Sullavan on the way. Her ninth film was the rather soapy The Shining Hour (1938), playing the suicidal sister-in-law to Joan Crawford. In The Shop Around the Corner (1940), Sullavan and Stewart worked together again, playing colleagues who do not get along at work, but have both responded to a lonely-hearts ad and are (without knowing it) exchanging letters with each other.

The Mortal Storm (1940) was the last movie Sullavan and Stewart did together. Sullavan played a young German girl engaged in 1933 to a confirmed Nazi (Robert Young). When she realizes the true nature of his political views, she breaks the engagement and turns her attention to anti-Nazi Stewart. Later, trying to flee the Nazi regime, Sullavan and Stewart attempt to ski across the border to safety in Austria. Sullavan is gunned down by the Nazis (under orders from her ex-fiance). Stewart, at her request, picks up the dying Sullavan and takes her by skis into Austria, so she can die in what was still a free country.

Back Street (1941) was lauded as one of the best performances of Sullavan's Hollywood career. She wanted Charles Boyer to play opposite her so much that she agreed to surrender top billing to him. Boyer plays a selfish and married banker and Sullavan his long-suffering mistress. Although he loves Sullavan, he is unwilling to leave his wife and family in favour of her. So Ends Our Night (1941) was another wartime drama. Sullavan (on loan for a one-picture deal from Universal) plays a Jewish girl perpetually on the move with falsified passport and identification papers and always fearing that the officials will discover her. On her way across Europe, she meets up with a young Jewish man (Glenn Ford) and the two fall in love.

A 1940 court decision obligated Sullavan to fulfill her original 1933 agreement with Universal, requiring her to make two more films for them. Back Street (1941) came first. The light comedy, Appointment for Love (1941), was Sullavan's last picture with that company. In the film, Sullavan appeared with Boyer again. Boyer's character marries Sullavan, who tells him that his past affairs mean nothing to her. She insists that each must have an apartment in the same building and that they meet only once a day, at seven o'clock in the morning.

Cry 'Havoc' (1943) is a World War II drama and a rare all-female film. Sullavan played the strong mother figure who keeps a crew of nurses in line in a dugout in Bataan, while they are awaiting the advance of Japanese soldiers who are about to take over. It was the last film Sullavan made with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. After its completion, she was free of all film commitments. She had often referred to MGM and Universal as "jails". When her husband, Leland Hayward, tried to read her the good reviews of Cry 'Havoc', she responded with usual bluntness: "You read them, use them for toilet paper. I had enough hell with that damned picture while making it – I don't want to read about it now!"

Sullavan's co-starring roles with James Stewart are among the highlights of their early careers. In 1935, Sullavan had decided on doing Next Time We Love. She had strong reservations about the story, but had to "work off the damned contract". The script contained a role she thought might be ideal for Stewart, who was best friends with Sullavan's first husband, actor Henry Fonda. Years earlier, during a casual conversation with some fellow actors on Broadway, Sullavan predicted Stewart would become a major Hollywood star.

By 1936, Stewart was a contract player at MGM but getting only small parts in B-movies. At that time Sullavan worked for Universal and when she brought up Stewart's name, they were puzzled. The Universal casting people had never heard of him. At Sullavan's suggestion Universal agreed to test him for her leading man and eventually he was borrowed from a willing MGM to star with Sullavan in Next Time We Love.

Stewart had been nervous and unsure of himself during the early stages of production. At that time he had only had two minor MGM parts which had not given him much camera experience. The director, Edward H. Griffith, began bullying Stewart. "Maggie, he's wet behind the ears," Griffith told Sullavan. "He's going to make a mess of things."

She believed in Stewart and spent evenings coaching him and helping him scale down his awkward mannerisms and hesitant speech that were soon to be famous around the world. "It was Margaret Sullavan who made James Stewart a star," director Griffith later said. "And she did, too," Bill Grady from MGM agreed. "That boy came back from Universal so changed I hardly recognized him." Gossip in Hollywood at that time (1935–36) was that William Wyler, Sullavan's then-husband, was suspicious about his wife's and Stewart's private rehearsing together.

When Sullavan divorced Wyler in 1936 and married Leland Hayward that same year, they moved to a colonial house just a block down from Stewart.[22] Stewart's frequent visits to the Sullavan/Hayward home soon restoked the rumors of his romantic feelings for Sullavan. Sullavan and Stewart's second movie together was The Shopworn Angel (1938). "Why, they're red-hot when they get in front of a camera," Louis B. Mayer said about their onscreen chemistry. "I don't know what the hell it is, but it sure jumps off the screen."

Walter Pidgeon, who was part of the triangle in The Shopworn Angel later recalled: "I really felt like the odd-man-out in that one. It was really all Jimmy and Maggie ... It was so obvious he was in love with her. He came absolutely alive in his scenes with her, playing with a conviction and a sincerity I never knew him to summon away from her." Eventually the duo made four movies together between 1936 and 1940 (Next Time We Love, The Shopworn Angel, The Shop Around the Corner, and The Mortal Storm).

Sullavan took a break from films from 1943-50. Throughout her career, Sullavan seemed to prefer the stage to the movies. She felt that only on the stage could she improve her skills as an actor. "When I really learn to act, I may take what I have learned back to Hollywood and display it on the screen", she said in an interview in October 1936 (when she was doing Stage Door on Broadway between movies). "But as long as the flesh-and-blood theatre will have me, it is to the flesh-and-blood theatre I'll belong. I really am stage-struck. And if that be treason, Hollywood will have to make the most of it".

Another reason for her early retirement from the screen (1943) was that she wanted to spend more time with her children, Brooke, Bridget and Bill (then 6, 4 and 2 years old). She felt that she had been neglecting them and felt guilty about it.[25] Sullavan would still do stage work on occasion. From 1943–44 she played the sexually inexperienced but curious Sally Middleton in The Voice of the Turtle (by John Van Druten) on Broadway and later in London (1947). After her short return to the screen in 1950 with No Sad Songs for Me, she did not return to the stage until 1952.

Her choice then was as the suicidal Hester Collyer, who meets a fellow sufferer, Mr. Miller (played by Herbert Berghof), in Terence Rattigan's The Deep Blue Sea. In 1953 she agreed to appear in Sabrina Fair by Samuel Taylor.

She came back to the screen in 1950 to do one last picture, No Sad Songs for Me. She played a suburban housewife and mother who learns that she will die of cancer within a year and who then determines to find a "second" wife for her soon-to-be-widower husband (Wendell Corey). Natalie Wood, then eleven, plays their daughter.

After No Sad Songs for Me and its favorable reviews, Sullavan had a number of offers for other films, but she decided to concentrate on the stage for the rest of her career.

In 1955–56 Sullavan appeared in Janus, a comedy by playwright Carolyn Green. Sullavan played the part of Jessica who writes under the pen name Janus, and Robert Preston played her husband. The play ran for 251 performances from November 1955 to June 1956.

In the late 1950s Sullavan's hearing and depression were getting worse. However, in 1959 she agreed to do Sweet Love Remembered by playwright Ruth Goetz. It was to be Sullavan's first Broadway appearance in four years. Rehearsals began on December 1, 1959. She had mixed emotions about a return to acting and her depression soon became clear to everyone: "I loathe acting", she said on the very day she started rehearsals. "I loathe what it does to my life. It cancels you out. You cannot live while you are working. You are a person surrounded by an unbreachable wall".

On December 18, 1955, Sullavan appeared as the mystery guest on the TV panel show What's My Line?.

Sullavan had a reputation for being both temperamental and straightforward. On one occasion Henry Fonda had decided to take up a collection for a 4th of July fireworks display. After Sullavan refused to make a contribution, Fonda complained loudly to a fellow actor. Then Sullavan rose from her seat and doused Fonda from head to foot with a pitcher of ice water. Fonda made a stately exit, and Sullavan, composed and unconcerned, returned to her table and ate heartily. Another of her blowups almost killed Sam Wood, one of the founders of the Motion Picture Alliance. Wood was a keen anti-Communist. He dropped dead from a heart attack shortly after a raging argument with Sullavan, who had refused to fire a writer on a proposed film on account of his left-wing views. Louis B. Mayer always seemed wary and nervous in her presence. "She was the only player who outbullied Mayer", Eddie Mannix of MGM later said of Sullavan. "She gave him the willies".

Sullavan was married four times. She married actor Henry Fonda on December 25, 1931, while both were performing with the University Players in its 18-week winter season in Baltimore at the Congress Hotel Ballroom on West Franklin Street near North Howard St. Sullavan and Fonda separated after two months and divorced in 1933.

After separating from Fonda, Sullavan began a relationship with Broadway producer Jed Harris. She later began a relationship with William Wyler, the director of her next movie, The Good Fairy (1935). They were married in November 1934, and divorced in March 1936.

Sullavan's third marriage was to agent and producer Leland Hayward. Hayward had been Sullavan's agent since 1931. They married on November 15, 1936. At the time of the marriage, Sullavan was pregnant with the couple's first child. Their daughter, Brooke, was born in 1937 and later became an actress. The couple had two more children, Bridget (1939 – October 17, 1960) and William III "Bill" (1941–2008), who became a film producer and attorney. In 1947, Sullavan filed for divorce after discovering that Hayward was having an affair with socialite Slim Keith. Their divorce became final on April 20, 1948.

In 1950, Sullavan married for a fourth and final time to English investment banker Kenneth Wagg. They remained married until her death in 1960.

Sullavan’s children, in particular Bridget and Bill, often proved rebellious and contrary. As a result of the divorce from Hayward, the family fell apart. Sullavan felt that Hayward was trying to alienate their children from her. When the children went to California to visit their father they were so spoiled with expensive gifts that, when they returned to their mother in Connecticut, they were deeply discontented with what they saw as a staid lifestyle.

By 1955, when Sullavan's two younger children told their mother that they preferred to stay with their father permanently, she suffered a nervous breakdown. Sullavan's eldest daughter, Brooke, later wrote about the breakdown in her 1977 autobiography Haywire: Sullavan had humiliated herself by begging her son to stay with her. He remained adamant and his mother had started to cry. "This time she couldn't stop. Even from my room the sound was so painful I went into my bathroom and put my hands on my ears". In another scene from the book, a friend of the family (Millicent Osborne) had been alarmed by the sound of whimpering from the bedroom: "She walked in and found mother under the bed, huddled in a foetal position. Kenneth was trying to get her out. The more authoritative his tone of voice, the farther under she crawled. Millicent Osborne took him aside and urged him to speak gently, to let her stay there until she came out of her own accord". Eventually Sullavan agreed to spend some time (two and a half months) in a private mental institution. Her two younger children, Bridget and Bill, also spent time in various institutions. Bridget died of a drug overdose in October 1960, while Bill died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in March 2008.

Sullavan suffered from the congenital hearing defect otosclerosis that worsened as she aged, making her more and more hearing impaired. Her voice had developed a throatiness because she could hear low tones better than high ones. From early 1957, Sullavan's hearing declined so much that she was becoming depressed and sleepless and often wandered about all night. She would often go to bed and stay there for days, her only words: "Just let me be, please". Sullavan had kept her hearing problem largely hidden. On January 8, 1960 (one week after Sullavan's death), The New York Post reporter Nancy Seely wrote: "The thunderous applause of a delighted audience—was it only a dim murmur over the years to Margaret Sullavan? Did the poised and confident mien of the beautiful actress mask a sick fear, night after night, that she'd miss an important cue?"

On January 1, 1960, at about 5:30 p.m., Sullavan was found in bed, barely alive and unconscious, in a hotel room in New Haven, Connecticut. Her copy of the script to Sweet Love Remembered, in which she was then starring during its tryout in New Haven, was found open beside her. Sullavan was rushed to Grace New Haven Hospital, but shortly after 6:00 p.m. she was pronounced dead on arrival.[38] She was 50 years old. No note was found to indicate suicide, and no conclusion was reached as to whether her death was the result of a deliberate or an accidental overdose of barbiturates. The county coroner officially ruled Sullavan's death an accidental overdose. After a private memorial service was held in Greenwich, Connecticut, Sullavan was interred at Saint Mary's Whitechapel Episcopal Churchyard in Lancaster, Virginia.

For her contribution to the motion picture industry, Margaret Sullavan has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame located at 1751 Vine Street. She was inducted, posthumously, into the American Theater Hall of Fame in 1981.

Sullavan's eldest daughter, actress Brooke Hayward, wrote Haywire, a best-selling memoir about her family, that was adapted into the miniseries Haywire that aired on CBS starring Lee Remick as Margaret Sullavan and Jason Robards as Leland Hayward.

[gravitascivics]

HINTS OF MODERN POLITICS

As advertised, this posting presents a timeline of Whig Party accomplishments, developments, and policy proposals.  Roughly the timeline begins in the 1820s but ideologically, the ideas of that party began with the Federalists, such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.  This review, though, starts with the general political environment of the 1820s.

1824  

By way of context, the party started as various members of the Democratic-Republican Party, inflated by former Federalists Party members – who drifted to Jefferson’s party as a result of the War of 1812 – felt uncomfortable with this alignment.  A new thrust took place as that discomfort became more acute and an array of minor “parties” took hold in representing their political beliefs.  For example, in 1824, John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay were National Republicans.

With that background, one can find the first organized efforts to attain the White House by these displaced politicians began in 1824.  In the election of that year, there were four major candidates:  nationalist Clay, Secretary of State Adams (whose father was the famous founding father and Federalist president), Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford (who while supporting re-chartering the national bank in 1811 was a champion of state sovereignty), and the war hero, Andrew Jackson.  

Clearly against the national bank was Jackson.  The pro national bank candidates were Clay and Adams.  Of the four candidates, Jackson garnered the most votes but failed to get a majority in either the popular vote or the Electorate College vote.  Per the Constitution, the election was forwarded to the House of Representatives where each state had/has one vote and chooses the winner among the three top vote getters of the general election.  

Clay, since he was third and generally agreed with Adams’ major positions, threw his support to Adams and that proved to be sufficient to win the White House. Jackson claimed that that arrangement was the product of a “corrupt bargain” and almost immediately began his campaign to become president four years hence.

1825-1828

Shortly afterward, those misplaced Democratic-Republicans, under the leadership of Adams, Clay, and Daniel Webster organized themselves initially under the name, Adams’ Party.  In opposition, Jackson, along with Crawford and John C. Calhoun, led in organizing the supporters of Jackson under the label of Jacksonians.  Highly effective in this latter effort was the organizing role that the New Yorker, Martin Van Buren, played.  

1828-1832

So effective was this other group that by 1828 they were able to defeat Adams’ attempt to win reelection by securing 56 percent of the vote.  Shortly after, they organized permanently as the Democratic Party. But not all was going swimmingly under this new party’s leadership.  During the years of his term, Jackson developed an animosity toward his vice president, Calhoun.  

It seems Calhoun’s wife involved herself in derogatory talk against recently deceased Rachel, Jackson’s wife.  As the next election day approached, Jackson did not choose Calhoun to be his running mate but instead chose Van Buren.  Consequently, those who supported Adams and Clay felt that their fate was in good stead since the Democrats were hit with this split between Calhoun and the President.

1832-1833

Beyond the “wife” issue, Calhoun and Jackson disagreed over tariff policy and Calhoun’s backing of South Carolina’s nullification position.[1]  He, Calhoun, resigned as vice president and entered the Senate in 1832.  To remind the reader, the nullification issue came to a boil in the years 1832-1833 and is known as the Nullification Crisis in which South Carolina threatened to not abide by federal law.  While a supporter of states’ rights, Jackson vehemently opposed this nullification position.

Clay proceeded to organize the National Republicans but was defeated in the 1832 election and Jackson achieved a second term.  That election saw for the first time that each party held nominating conventions.  But with the results of that election, the National Republicans would quickly thereafter fall apart as its members mostly evolved into the new Whig Party.  

That newer party was the product of smaller Whig groups that opposed South Carolina’s nullification position but could not align themselves with Jackson.  In short order, National Republicans, Anti-Mason adherents, and others formed a national Whig party.  But while one can detect a “party” of sorts, it was not unified enough and decided to use a curious strategy for the next election in 1836.

In 1833, Clay set out to unite those who opposed Jackson and supported Clay’s “American System” policy positions.  Those positions were made up of three foundational elements:  advocacy for a sufficiently high tariff to protect and encourage American industry, support of a national bank to encourage business activities, and promotion of central government infusing money to advance infrastructure projects such as roads and canals throughout the nation.  

These advocacies by Clay and his allies have been credited, by such historians as Michael Holt, with Whigs winning control of the Senate in 1833.[2]  Through their efforts, they were able to shed the elitist image the National Republicans had. They also were able to make inroads into the South.

1833-1836

These nationally aligned politicians were mostly united in their opposition to Jackson but with not enough harmony to support one candidate.  The challenge in 1836 was not facing the General – he was completing his second term – but instead his hand-picked successor, Martin Van Buren. As already alluded to, the Whigs ran various candidates and divided the anti-Jackson vote.  Their plan was to deny Van Buren a majority of Electoral College votes and again win the White House as Adams had done in 1828, but that plan did not succeed, and Van Buren ascended to the presidency.

Adding to the Whig’s diverse base between its northern and southern supporters, there were other factors at play.  There was the lost opportunity when former Jackson’s vice president, Calhoun, withheld his support to any anti-Jackson/Van Buren candidate who refused to adopt his nullification position.  And the Whigs faced an improving economy under the Democrats and Jackson’s leadership.  That proved to be enough to give Jackson the successor he wanted in Van Buren.  Apparently, the Whigs still were not sufficiently united.

But then the national scene changed a great deal.  And one sees what would become a recurring political storyline:  “what the economy giveth, the economy can taketh away.”  And it did not take long for the economy to face a sudden downturn.  This blog will pick up that part of the story in the next posting by describing how the Panic of 1837 brought to a cessation Democratic rule as a results of the 1840 election.  

1837-1840

But first, their defeat in 1836 convinced the Whigs that for 1840 they needed to be united.  In addition, they had to generate a national policy platform and run a single standard-bearer.  Among their ranks, they were able to elicit, beyond Clay and Webster, the support of many Anti-Masons such as William H. Seward and Thaddeus Stevens and disenchanted Democrats such as Willie P. Mangum, John Berrien, and John Tyler.[3]  

And before leaving this general topic of uniting people under the Whig banner is the general antagonism to the Masons.  It seems the concern there was that organization’s secrecy.  Whigs were big on ending or highly curtailing secrecy in politics.  Generally, they felt that such “behind the curtain” politicking was feeding a strong executive as exemplified by Jackson.  The “American System” should include transparent governance and this business of secret protocols or hidden beliefs seemed to them as being un-American.

Along with this openness, Whigs got into conducting open rallies.  Parades became common events as Whigs drummed up support around the country leading up to 1840.  This furthered their attempts to give them a common touch and counteract the general impression that they were the party of the wealthy or of business interests.  

The campaign ended, as will be further described in the next posting, with the election of William Henry Harrison and that effort is attributed with being the first presidential campaign to actively appeal to average Americans – a strong federalist move.  A lasting campaign slogan in 1840 to which American school children are still taught from that election is “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.”  

It, Tippecanoe, refers to Harrison’s military victory in what would become the state of Indiana during the War of 1812.  It reflects the Whigs’ understanding that for a party that represented the business interests of the country, it could only win a national election by proactively attracting those people’s votes that were not directly the targeted beneficiaries of their policies.  A good bit of salesmanship enters the American political landscape and has been there ever since.

But all that would be incorporated in the election not of 1836 which featured Harrison as one of its leading candidates, but of 1840.  Those moves went a long way in establishing the basic format of how national elections were to be conducted in the ensuing years up until today.  While the Whigs experimented with this openness in 1836, it was a full-throated effort leading up to the 1840 victory.

[1] Calhoun provided a lot of the theory supporting the nullification argument.

[2] Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1999).  For a critique of this book, one can look at a review by Allen C. Guelzo (“The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party:  Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War by Michael Holt,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, 22, 2 (Summer 2004), 71-86)), accessed July, 23, 2021, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0022.206/--rise-and-fall-of-the-american-whig-party-jacksonian-politics?rgn=main;view=fulltext .  In that review, Guelzo writes,

Howe reintroduced the Whigs, not as Eastern elitists bent upon wickedly obstructing the righteous class-leveling justice of Jackson/Roosevelt, but as the "sober, industrious, thrifty people," as the party of the American bourgeoisie, attracting the economic loyalty of small businesses and small commercial producers, and enlisting the political loyalty of those who aspired to transformation.

[3] Of course, this last politician will become president and prove not to maintain his support for Clay and the pro-national bank position of the Whigs. 

[thelonelybrilliance]

Such brilliant answers to my Austen-related!!! Now I need to ask more :) Unpopular Austen opinions? Reasons you're 'eh' on the 2005 version of P&P? Your favorite AND least favorite Austen heroes, heroines and ships?! I need to read your fanfic!!

ooh, a controversial ask!

My unpopular Austen opinions...well, I sort of don’t follow my own advice with Austen. I usually am pretty open to enjoying lesser and greater adaptations in fandom--I don’t need everything to be high-brow--but I’m very picky about Austen interpretation and adaptation. 

Other than that, let’s see.

- Mansfield Park is excellent and one of the Best Works.

- Frank Churchill is practically a villain

- Mr. Bingley is not an incorrigible pushover 

- Darcy is not socially awkward (more to come on that one)

- Edward Ferrars needed to Do More

Favorite Hero: Darcy (Wentworth, Knightley) Least Favorite: Edward 

Favorite Heroine: Elizabeth (Anne, Emma, Elinor, Fanny--) Least Favorite: Marianne

Favorite Ship: I mean, all the main ones, but I’d love to write or see Henry Crawford/redemption (it would require a major overhaul) Least Favorite: Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill

PUtting my anti P&P 2005 stuff under the cut bc I don’t want to harsh anyone’s buzz--including yours, if you would rather not see a wholly negative take!

I have seen it. Twice. I don’t think it’s a good film...it’s too short, it doesn’t develop the characters, it’s not well-paced, it focuses on weirdly cheap comedy and mood breaks, it’s not well-costumed, it’s not authentically set, etc etc etc

It’s a TERRIBLE take on Pride & Prejudice. It cheapens every important moment, misunderstands pretty much every character, and thinks it is both more romantic and funnier than Austen herself. It’s not.

Um...

The music is really pretty? That’s my one good take.