#c: fitzwilliam darcy

[anghraine]

Speaking of the social context of P&P and Austen in general, and also just literature of that era, I'm always interested in how things like precisely formulated hierarchies of precedence and tables of ranked social classes interact with the more complex and nuanced details of class-based status and consequence on a pragmatic day-to-day level. I remembered reading a social historian discussing the pragmatics of class wrt eighteenth-century English life many years ago and finally tracked down the source:

"In spite of the number of people who got their living from manufacture or trade, fundamentally it was a society in which the ownership of land alone conveyed social prestige and full political rights. ... The apex of this society was the nobility. In the eyes of the Law only members of the House of Lords, the peerage in the strictest use of the word, were a class apart, enjoying special privileges and composing one of the estates of the realm. Their families were commoners: even the eldest sons of peers could sit in the House of Commons. It was therefore in the social rather than in the legal sense of the word that English society was a class society. Before the law all English people except the peers were in theory equal. Legal concept and social practice were, however, very different. When men spoke of the nobility, they meant the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters, the uncles and aunts and cousins of the peers. They were an extremely influential and wealthy group.

"The peers and their near relations almost monopolized high political office. From these great families came the wealthiest Church dignitaries, the higher ranks in the army and navy. Many of them found a career in law; some even did not disdain the money to be made in trade. What gave this class its particular importance in the political life of the day was the way in which it was organized on a basis of family and connection ... in eighteenth-century politics men rarely acted as isolated individuals. A man came into Parliament supported by his friends and relations who expected, in return for this support, that he would further their interests to the extent of his parliamentary influence.

"Next in both political and social importance came the gentry. Again it is not easy to define exactly who were covered by this term. The Law knew nothing of gentle birth but Society recognized it. Like the nobility this group too was as a class closely connected with land. Indeed, the border line between the two classes is at times almost impossible to define ... Often these men are described as the squirearchy, this term being used to cover the major landowning families in every county who were not connected by birth with the aristocracy. Between them and the local nobility there was often considerable jealousy. The country gentleman considered himself well qualified to manage the affairs of his county without aristocratic interference.

"...The next great layer in society is perhaps best described the contemporary term 'the Middling Sort'. As with all eighteenth-century groups it is difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between them and their social superiors and inferiors. No economic line is possible, for a man with no pretensions to gentility might well be more prosperous than many a small squire. There was even on the fringe between the two classes some overlapping of activities ... The ambitious upstart who bought an estate and spent his income as a gentleman, might be either cold-shouldered by his better-born neighbours or treated by them with a certain contemptuous politeness. If however his daughters were presentable and well dowered, and if his sons received the education considered suitable for gentlemen, the next generation would see the obliteration of whatever distinction still remained. The solid mass of the middling sort had however no such aspirations, or considered them beyond their reach.

"...This term [the poor] was widely used to designate the great mass of the manual workers. Within their ranks differences of income and of outlook were as varied as those that characterized the middle class. Once again the line of demarcation is hard to draw..."

—Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (29-34)

(There's plenty more interesting information in the full chapter, especially regarding "the poor," and the chapter itself is contracted from a lengthier version published earlier.)

[saintsenara]

wait how bougie was Tom Riddle Sr.? How nice would his Manor have been? Was he like an actually Lord with a title and stuff?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

in half-blood prince, dumbledore refers to tom riddle sr. as "the squire's son" - which allows us to state with certainty that he was a minor aristocrat.

however, the word minor is important here.

there are - historically - two levels of aristocracy in britain. the first are the peers of the realm - which refers to families which hold one or more of the titles of duke, marquess, earl, or viscount. these are the elite of the elite - these gradations of nobility were created in the middle ages as a way of distinguishing those who held the titles from other noblemen, usually because of a close relationship [often one of blood or marriage or both] to the king.

the titles are hereditary by male primogeniture, and the holders - while this is no longer the case - used to have political power [such as the right to sit in the house of lords], simply by virtue of their birth.

[this is why they're called "peers" - it refers to them historically being close in status to royalty, and therefore expected to serve as royal advisors.]

there is another class of peer - a baronet - whose title is similarly hereditary, but whose position doesn't come historically with the right to sit in the lords or advise the king by virtue of birth. [baronets may - of course - have been members of parliament, or royal advisors selected at the king's discretion, but this would be separate from their title. a duke, in contrast, could historically expect to request a meeting with the king simply because he was a duke.]

while some families have historically been ennobled at the king's discretion, access to any of these titles is pretty much restricted to the small group of families who've held them for centuries.

but below the peers of the realm, there is a second, more minor class of aristocracy, the landed gentry - of which a village squire is a textbook example.

historically, what is meant by "landed" is an ability to live off of the rental income of one's country holdings, which would be leased to tenant farmers. that is, they are landlords in the original sense of the term - lords of the land. this is what tom sr. tells us his family does in half-blood prince:

“It’s not ours,” said a young man’s voice. “Everything on the other side of the valley belongs to us, but that cottage belongs to an old tramp called Gaunt, and his children. The son’s quite mad, you should hear some of the stories they tell in the village - ”

what is also meant by "landed" is that the family in question is of the upper-classes, but that they are still "commoners" - which in this context doesn't imply a value judgement, but which is a socio-legal term which simply indicates that they don't hold an aristocratic title such as duke, earl etc.

[and gentry families certainly aren't common in terms of financial standing... the most famous member of this class in literature? fitzwilliam darcy, whose ten thousand a year is something like thirteen million quid in today's money...]

gentry families might be very old - they might have received their lands from the king in the middle ages as a reward for knightly service, and it's interesting to imagine generations of gaunts and riddles brought up alongside each other in little hangleton - or they might be comparatively newer - tom sr.'s great-grandfather [feasibly born c.1810] could have been a self-made victorian industrialist who bought the lands from the original holder and established himself as gentry.

by 1900, it was becoming much harder for the gentry to live on rental income alone, and many would also have had jobs. these would have been elite, and very frequently were in politics, the civil service, the military, or the law. tom sr's father - whom the films call thomas, so let's go with that - might, for example, have served as a high-ranking officer in the army [including during the first world war], be the local magistrate, or be the local member of parliament.

in terms of titles, thomas riddle would almost undoubtedly be sir thomas - and this is how it would be correct to address him. but this title would be a courtesy, and it wouldn't be hereditary unless the riddles were also baronets [which it's entirely plausible that they were].

which is to say, tom sr. would not have a title while his father was alive - although he would have the right to be referred to formally in writing as mr thomas riddle esq. [esquire]. the correct form of verbal address for anyone other than friends and family would be to call him mr riddle, although the riddles' servants would probably refer to him as mister tom.

tom jr. would not have a title while his father or grandfather was alive. if the riddles were baronets, he would technically inherit the title after he kills the rest of the male line... but given that tom sr. never acknowledged him and his existence was presumably unknown to the riddles' lawyers this wouldn't be something which happened in reality. the estate's executors clearly took control of the riddles' property, the land was portioned off and sold, and the house became a standalone property for sale.

the riddle house - which is a name used informally for it in little hangleton, it would have a different "proper" name - is described in canon in ways which show that it's a typical manor house, which means it would look something like this:

these houses are obviously very impressive, but they're tiny in size in comparison to the magnificent stately homes - places like blenheim palace, chatsworth, burghley house, holkham hall - lived in by the titled aristocracy. the riddles would entertain - for example - by giving house parties, dinner parties, hunting parties, etc., but they wouldn't have a ballroom or a dining hall capable of seating hundreds.

[they would probably also own a property - probably a flat or small house - in london.]

they would have servants, but not colossal numbers - they would undoubtedly have a butler but not footmen, and the upstairs maids would report to the butler since they probably wouldn't have a housekeeper. they canonically have a cook, who probably had one or two kitchen maids assisting, and they canonically have a gardener - frank bryce - who probably doesn't have any assistants. they may, depending on the size of the estate, have a gamekeeper. sir thomas undoubtedly had a secretary and a chauffeur, and his wife might have a lady's maid. tom sr. would have had a nanny and then been educated until at least the age of eight by a governess, but would then have attended a prep school [either day or boarding] until the age of thirteen, and then gone to a boarding school, from which he likely went on [on the basis of social class rather than talent] to oxford or cambridge.

the family would have enormous social influence locally. most people - and also businesses - in little hangleton would be their tenants, and they would also probably have a say over the appointment of the local clergyman [an important figure in the community in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], since the parish church is likely to have been something called a "living" - the thing which turns up again and again in jane austen - which means that the church and its parsonage technically belongs to the landowner, but is granted to the vicar as a freehold while he's in post.

gossip about the riddles' doings would also be the main source of local interest - the servants were dining out for months on tom sr.'s elopement and return.

so they're something resembling celebrities - but they're local celebrities. nobody in london - and even nobody in cities we can imagine are nearer to little hangleton, such as liverpool - would particularly know or care who they were. tom sr. might have made it into the london gossip columns if he was part of a particularly scandalous "set" [a group of friends] who socialised in the capital, but these mentions would have been fleeting - and the press would have been much more concerned by the doings of members of his set who were genuinely titled or who were legitimately famous.

[this is the reason why mrs cole doesn't recognise the name. if merope had said her son was to be named cecil beaton after his father, she may well have been prompted to hunt him down...]

so tom sr. is elite - but he's elite in a way which is extremely culturally-specific, and which is [just like the portrayal of aristocracy in the wizarding world - the blacks, for example, are far less aristocratic than the riddles in terms of canonical vibe] often exaggerated into the sort of pseudo-royal grand aristocracy which the british period-drama-industrial-complex makes such a big deal of.

and tom jr.'s character is affected by this in a series of extremely interesting ways.

by which i mean that, in terms of blood, he's probably the most aristocratic character in the series - the absence of grand aristocracy in the wizarding world would mean that [were he raised by his father] he would come from a social background which was equivalent [even as it was divided from them by virtue of being muggle] to any of his fellow slytherins, and would help him easily blend into their society because the manners, genre of socio-cultural reference points [he would recognise, for example, that quidditch heavily resembles both rugby and polo], accent and way of speaking etc. that he would possess would be broadly indistinguishable from those of his pureblood peers.

[this is why justin finch-fletchley and draco malfoy speak in essentially the same way.]

but he would then be given the enormous boost in cachet - one which would genuinely elevate him above the rest of his cohort - of his maternal line.

and we see in canon that this does bestow some privilege on him among his peers while he's in school:

Tom Riddle merely smiled as the others laughed again. Harry noticed that he was by no means the eldest of the group of boys, but that they all seemed to look to him as their leader. “I don’t know that politics would suit me, sir,” he said when the laughter had died away. “I don’t have the right kind of background, for one thing.” A couple of the boys around him smirked at each other. Harry was sure they were enjoying a private joke, undoubtedly about what they knew, or suspected, regarding their gang leader’s famous ancestor.

where he's let down socially is that people like slughorn - to whom he can't reveal his slytherin ancestry and hope to maintain cover for his wrongdoing - don't think he's come from anywhere particularly special. this is because he has a muggle father - absolutely - but it's even more that he has a muggle father who, since he left him to be raised in an orphanage, was presumably working-class.

what the young voldemort lacks is any socio-cultural familiarity with the muggle class performance which the class performance of the wizarding world parallels. abraxas malfoy boasting about how important his father is would be something a tom jr. raised by the riddles could match - "oh yes, my father gives to all sorts of causes too. in fact, he was invited to buckingham palace because of it." - establishing himself as an equal in terms of class and social influence even if he isn't an equal in blood.

what actually happens in canon is that the orphaned tom - with his uncouth manners and his working-class accent - has no hope of gaining any sort of social equality with his posh peers.

so he becomes determined to outrank - and humiliate and control - them.

[nomisong]

saw characters react to you asking for their pronouns:

adam stanheight:

"he/him. or you know what, just use any of them. i know you want to. i don't care. are you gonna buy the adderall or not"

lawrence gordon:

"What does that mean? Oh, like what pronouns you should... refer to me in? Well, he and him I guess. And his, can't forget the possessive. That's weird, I've never been asked that before. I haven't seen my wife naked in 8 months."

amanda young:

"[stabs you] she [stabs you again] her [stabs you again] hers"

john kramer:

"You Know, kids these days Love asking people's proper Pronouns. It's like they don't even know how bad it feels to have to give people the wrong pronouns because they're closeted, Or To have their Gender identity questioned in Front Of an Audience. This Is Why some people, Much to the surprise of many, Prefer to have their pronouns assumed. However, it is very Difficult To know where to draw the line. Should you ask for pronouns or Assume? Many don't take the time To Assess. They Have their Insensitive pronouns circles and put people Through Hell. There is no nuance. Today, I want You to make a nuanced choice. In front of you Is A Copy Of Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen. I need you to write an Essay analyzing the character of Fitzwilliam Darcy with a Focus on the role of Social Transgression in the events of the story surrounding his Relationship with Elizabeth Bennet. Strapped to the chair next to you Is an English 101 professor. He will grade your Paper. If you get a C or Under on this paper, you Will Both Die. Good luck."

mark hoffman:

"Normal pronouns. There's only one gender."

[gayest-classiclit]

GUYS GUESS WHAT 💥

we now have a bracket! poll times are hit or miss. we'll see

your matchups are under the cut vvv

PART A

Viola/Cesario (Twelfth Night) vs Jane Bennet (Pride and Prejudice)

Medea (Greek mythology) vs Benedick and Beatrice (Much Ado About Nothing)

Grantaire (Les Miserables) vs Prince Hal (the Henriad)

Enjolras (Les Miserables) vs Clopin Trouillefou (Notre Dame de Paris)

Milady de Winter (The Count of Monte Cristo) vs Don Rodigue (Spanish folktales)

Mephistopheles (Faust) vs Big Brother (1984)

Jean Valjean (Les Miserables) vs Queequeg (Moby Dick)

Helen of Troy (Greek mythology) vs Jesus and Judas (the Bible)

PART B

Sherlock Holmes (the Sherlock Holmes books) vs Fitzwilliam Darcy (Pride and Prejudice)

Catherine Earnshaw (Wuthering Heights) vs Jonathan and Mina Harker (Dracula)

Cathy Ames (East of Eden) vs Lady Macbeth (Macbeth)

Arsene Lupin (the Arsene Lupin books) vs Eugene Onegin (Eugene Onegin)

Charles Bingley (Pride and Prejudice) vs Gregor Samsa (The Metamorphosis)

Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov) vs Frankenstein's Monster/Adam (Frankenstein)

Therem Harth Ir Em Estraven (The Left Hand of Darkness) vs Eugene de Rastignac (The Human Comedy)

Winston Smith (1984) vs Inspector Goole (An Inspector Calls)

PART C

Quincey Morris (Dracula) vs Count Dracula (Dracula)

Annabel Lee (Annabel Lee) vs the Woman Behind the Wallpaper (The Yellow Wallpaper)

the Duke de Nemours (La Princess de Cleves) vs Dorian Gray and Basil Hallward (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

Mercutio (Romeo and Juliet) vs Carmilla (Carmilla)

Hotspur (the Henriad) vs Edmond Dantes (The Count of Monte Cristo)

Hamlet (Hamlet) vs Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird)

Alyosha Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov) vs Robin Hood (assorted folktales)

Grendel's mother (Beowulf) vs Rodion Raskolnikov (Crime and Punishment)

PART D

Dmitri Razumikhin (Crime and Punishment) vs Balladyna (Balladyna)

Benedetto (The Count of Monte Cristo) vs Captain Hook (Peter Pan)

Gerald Croft (An Inspector Calls) vs Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan (The Great Gatsby)

Irene Adler (the Sherlock Holmes books) vs Emma Bovary (Madame Bovary)

Erik/the Phantom (The Phantom of the Opera) vs Gaspard Caderousse (The Count of Monte Cristo)

Woland (The Master and Margarita) vs Nastasya Filippovna (The Idiot)

Henry Jekyll (The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) vs Ruy Blas (Ruy Blas)

Behemoth (The Master and Margarita) vs Anatole Kuragin and Helene Bezukova (War and Peace)

[isabelpsaroslunnen]

My dear friend @inmediasras linked me to this character personality survey and I was really entertained by the results, especially once I did the 140-question version (which did somewhat alter the results, though the top ones remained similar—all my friends who took the quiz got a ton of female characters, while my results were very noticeably more "masculine", and doing the more detailed version only made my results even more dominated by dudes, lol).

I wasn't familiar with some of the characters, but the quiz has an option where you can break down your results by the source texts/media in addition to the overall lists of the most highly-correlated characters. Predictably, I vacillated between report methods (based on Pearson correlation or mean difference) and also about what should be my lowest threshold for "counting" the results. I settled on a threshold of 65% for counting any result and excluded characters from texts I'm not familiar with.

My top results (with the "canons" below the cut):

Chidi Anagonye (74%)

Simon Tam (73%)

Fitzwilliam Darcy (72%)

Ashley Wilkes (72%)

Bernard Lowe (71%)

Brandon Stark (71%)

Emma Pillsbury (70%)

Cogsworth (70%)

Jasper Hale (70%)

Stuart Bloom (70%)

Felix Gaeta (69%)

C-3PO (69%)

Rupert Giles (68%)

James Norrington (68%)

Nina Sayers (68%)

Thufir Hawat (68%)

Bella Swan (68%)

Nick Carraway (68%)

Tuvok (67%)

Calvin's dad (67%)

Artie Abrams (67%)

Sheldon Cooper (67%)

Mycroft Holmes (66%)

William Collins (66%)

Spencer Reid (65%)

Edward Cullen (65%)

India Wilkes (65%)

Battlestar Galactica (2004)

Felix Gaeta (69%)

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Cogsworth (70%)

The Big Bang Theory

Stuart Bloom (70%)

Sheldon Cooper (67%)

The Black Swan

Nina Sayers (68%)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Rupert Giles (68%)

Calvin and Hobbes

Calvin's dad (67%)

Criminal Minds

Spencer Reid (65%)

Dune

Thufir Hawat (68%)

Firefly

Simon Tam (73%)

Game of Thrones

Brandon Stark (71%)

Glee

Emma Pillsbury (70%)

Artie Abrams (67%)

Gone With the Wind

Ashley Wilkes (72%)

India Wilkes (65%)

The Good Place

Chidi Anagonye (74%)

The Great Gatsby

Nick Carraway (68%)

Pirates of the Caribbean

James Norrington (68%)

Pride and Prejudice

Fitzwilliam Darcy (72%)

William Collins (66%)

Sherlock Holmes

Mycroft Holmes (66%)

Star Trek

Tuvok (67%)

Star Wars

C-3PO (69%)

Twilight

Jasper Hale (70%)

Bella Swan (68%)

Edward Cullen (65%)

Westworld

Bernard Lowe (71%)

[boltlightning]

finished northanger abbey. last of austen’s main 6 novels i needed to read and a hell of a book, no notes. no one asked but here is my final ranking of the austen leading men:

george knightley (certified old man, also certified king)

henry tilney (so genre savvy he could look you right in the eye off the page)

colonel brandon (a little melancholic but he’s got the spirit. eventually.)

frederick wentworth (brick-headed jock. so in love he blinds HIMSELF)

fitzwilliam darcy (actual clown. he gets better. eventually.)

edward ferrars (speak up we can’t hear you over your family)

edmund bertram (lol)

thanks for tuning in, gonna go accuse my crush’s father of killing his wife now yours &c. bolt

[ecle-c-tic]

𝒯𝑜 𝓁𝑜𝓋𝑒 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓁𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇 𝒾𝓃 𝑒𝒶𝒸𝒽 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝓇𝓉𝓈

"Gotta be cool, relax" instructions unclear, Ms. Bennett hates me?

--

2005 Mr. Darcy moodboard based on being in love for anon.

I'm so sorry I couldn't figure out how to get crazy little thing called love to fit with mr. fitzwilliam social anxiety darcy but I hope you still like what I came up with!

--

return of the king ecle-c-tic celebration 🎉

--

hehe you're being tagged bc of this post:

@lady-ofmischief @whatmarisays @thislookinyoureyes @killerqueen-ofwillowgreen @trinikins

[the-queer-classic-lit-ship-ever]

round 2! finally!

in our defense it was baz's birthday on thursday so we were busy

matchups under cut again!

part a

les amis de l'abc (les miserables) vs geraldine/christabel (christabel)

henry jekyll/lanyon (jekyll and hyde) vs rodion raskolnikov/dmitri razumikhin (crime and punishment)

frog/toad (frog and toad) vs duncan/macbeth (macbeth)

dorian gray/basil hallward/henry wotton (the picture of dorian gray) vs marius pontmercy/eponine thenardier/cosette fauchelevent (les miserables)

anne shirley cuthbert/gilbert blythe (anne of green gables) vs rosencrantz/guildenstern (hamlet and rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead)

the tell-tale heart/the raven (edgar allan poe works) vs the tinman/the scarecrow (the wizard of oz)

tom buchanan/jay gatsby (the great gatsby) vs antonio/sebastian (twelfth night and/or the tempest)

dracula/jonathan harker (dracula) vs maria/sir toby (twelfth night)

part b

arthur holmwood/jack seward (dracula) vs catherine/eleanor (northanger abbey)

buttercup/westley (the princess bride) vs jane/helen (jane eyre)

andrei bolkonsky/pierre bezukhov (war and peace) vs romeo/juliet (romeo and juliet)

andrei bolkonsky/speransky (war and peace) vs elizabeth bennett/fitzwilliam darcy (pride and prejudice)

christine daae/meg giry (the phantom of the opera) vs henry clerval/victor frankenstein (frankenstein)

fyodor dolokhov/anatole kuragin (war and peace) vs sir toby belch/sir andrew aguecheek (twelfth night)

athos/aramis/pothos/d'artagnan (3 musketeers) vs fortunato/montresor (the cask of amontillado)

ishmael/queequeg (moby-dick) vs john watson/sherlock holmes (sherlock holmes)

part c

nick carraway/jay gatsby (the great gatsby) vs helene kuragina/natasha rostova (war and peace)

nikolai rostov/tsar alexander (war and peace) vs gilgamesh/enkidu (the epic of gilgamesh)

benedick/beatrice (much ado about nothing) vs ahab/starbuck (moby-dick)

fantine/sister simplice (les miserables) vs jean valjean/javert (les miserables)

samwise gamgee/frodo baggins (lord of the rings) vs romeo montague/tybalt capulet (romeo and juliet)

sampson/gregory (romeo and juliet) vs penelope/circe (the odyssey)

erik/raoul de chagny/christine daae (the phantom of the opera) vs the bear from war and peace/the bear from the winter’s tale (self-explanatory)

odysseus/diomedes (the odyssey) vs aramis/athos (3 musketeers)

part d

benvolio montague/mercutio (romeo and juliet) vs rosencrantz/guildenstern/hamlet (hamlet)

mina harker/lucy westenra (dracula) vs macbeth/banquo (macbeth)

lancelot/arthur/guinevere (arthurian legend) vs benvolio montague/tybalt capulet/mercutio (romeo and juliet)

orsino/olivia/violacesario (twelfth night) vs jonathan harker/mina harker (dracula)

hamlet/horatio (hamlet) vs malcolm/macduff (macbeth)

enjolras/grantaire (les miserables) vs maurice hall/alec scudder (maurice)

brutus/cassius (julius caesar) vs puck/titania/oberon (a midsummer night's dream)

jack seward/quincey morris (dracula) vs benedick/claudio (much ado about nothing)

[the-amazing-boop]

A conversation between Ms. Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, c. 1813.

i'm madly in love with you

Get real

[anghraine]

A few days ago, I briefly mentioned Wickham's take on Lady Catherine, and it's stuck in my mind. At least, this specific part of the description has:

She [Lady Catherine] has the reputation of being remarkably sensible and clever; but I [Wickham] rather believe she derives part of her abilities from her rank and fortune, part from her authoritative manner, and the rest from the pride of her nephew, who chooses that everyone connected with him should have an understanding of the first class.

I mean, in fairness to ... Wickham (ugh), it's evidently true that Lady Catherine is not actually clever and her power and force of personality do a lot of the work of giving her a reputation for it. But I do think the way he manages to link this to Darcy is interesting.

Wickham seems to assume that Darcy can just choose that everyone connected with him has a reputation for high intelligence, which I think is pretty debatable. On top of that, Wickham assumes that Darcy would choose to do that, because of pride. He's set up an odd framework in which Darcy cares deeply about everyone around him being perceived as clever (but only for nasty pride reasons, of course!), and in fact cares so deeply that he'd bring his influence to bear in maintaining Lady Catherine's reputation for it.

I don't think Lady Catherine's reputation for cleverness rests on Darcy just wanting his family to be seen as clever or requires that explanation at all. But I find it intriguing that Wickham thinks so, or at least says he does, given the Ch 4 description of Darcy:

In understanding, Darcy was the superior. Bingley was by no means deficient; but Darcy was clever.

So I suspect this may be part of Wickham's attempt to acknowledge Darcy's good reputation and qualities enough to cover his ass later, while tying everything good about him to his pride. Wickham doesn't quite admit that Darcy's (alleged) desire for those around him to be seen as clever derives from Darcy being clever himself and valuing the quality, but I think it's kind of implied, and at the very least, he could suggest that he'd said something to that effect.

It's a bit how he describes Darcy's careful guardianship of Georgiana (which Wickham certainly has reason to know about!). He mostly attributes it to Darcy's reputation for being a good brother, finds a way to make it somehow about pride, and barely wedges in a grudging admission that Darcy actually has some real affection for Georgiana. I suspect he only does the last because it's so incredibly obvious that it'd be suspicious if Wickham suggested otherwise.

I do wonder, though, if part of the reason that Wickham associates Lady Catherine's reputation for cleverness with Darcy's supposed desire for his family/connections to be seen as clever is Wickham's own fixation on Darcy. Wickham knows Darcy is seen as clever and likely that Darcy values intelligence. Darcy and Wickham were brought up together as companions in the same household. And tbh I don't think Wickham himself is, or has ever been, particularly clever in the way that Darcy and Elizabeth are.

Wickham suggests that Darcy was insecure and jealous from childhood (and some readers have really wanted to believe him!). But my headcanon is that, growing up with Darcy, Wickham was the more insecure one. He was the one who was supposed to go to school and Cambridge and become a clergyman; he was supposed to be quick-thinking and good at his books and morally restrained. Darcy was the heir; he could be anything he wanted to be. Yet I would guess that young Wickham was continually outstripped by Darcy in those terms, that he came to resent Darcy's freedom and what he did with it, and that it's very easy for his mind to link Lady Catherine's supposed cleverness to Darcy's.

In Wickham's head, the connection must somehow be causal. But he can't bring himself to quite admit to anyone that Darcy's cleverness is real any more than he can admit that Darcy's generosity or moral rectitude are real. It's got to be about pride, reputation, family, fortune. And I suspect Wickham can't admit the truth to himself, either.

[automaticprincepaper]

[eddardstark]

[codigodocavalheirismo]

[deanmarywinchester]

1 and 6?

1: Which book would you consider the best book you’ve ever read and why?

mrs. dalloway and white teeth are my go-to answers but i’ve already talked about those SO im gonna talk about the magician’s land. what a lovely, lovely, healing ending to a series that was really formative for me. i know a lot of people don’t like how self-indulgent the ending is, but i really did--I think it just shows how much lev grossman cares about letting quentin earn his happy ending, and shows how personal the character is to him and to a lot of fans. miss me with the ooc sex with alice though

6: Are you the type of person who will read a book to the end whether you like it or not, or will you put it down straight away if you’re not feeling into it?

depends! usually I will finish books even if im having a bad time (see: Death Comes to Pemberly recently, which is a gigantic waste of a great concept), but sometimes i just can’t do it (see: Master and Commander recently--I know there’s a weird amount of aubreyad fans on this site and I might try again someday, but sorry folks, i just could not do it)

[bethanydelleman]

I think it's pretty clear Elizabeth did have a headache. Also, it was very important to keep social engagements, I don't think we see a heroine every squelch on an invitation without being ill. (Marianne stays home once to meet Willoughby, but she is a known rule breaker)

Also, Charlotte confirms it: Mrs. Collins, seeing that she was really unwell, did not press her to go

As for why Darcy came, I actually lean towards (c) and I don't think it's ungenerous per se? Just him thinking she's giving him a chance. Darcy says to Elizabeth at the end:

“Indeed I had. What will you think of my vanity? I believed you to be wishing, expecting my addresses.”

My explanation is this, Elizabeth has already told Darcy where she walks alone, but that day she bumps into Colonel Fitzwilliam instead so Darcy is unable to propose. (Maybe he was lurking around somewhere outside). When she stays home from tea, he suspects it may be an excuse. He goes over and finds her downstairs and not in bed, proposes.

I have a few questions for Jane Austen fans about one important scene in Pride and Prejudice.

I still remember the post that circulated some time ago about the fact that when Darcy makes his first proposal, he finds Elizabeth alone because she's stayed behind with a headache while the others have gone to Rosings for tea. A stress headache caused by her overwhelming rage at the reveal that it was Darcy who persuaded Bingley not to marry Jane. Which gives her even more reason for responding to his insulting proposal by verbally ripping him to shreds.

I was surprised by how many people responded to that post by saying that they always thought Elizabeth just pretended to have a headache to avoid seeing Darcy at Rosings.

The text doesn't seem ambiguous to me: the omniscient narrator states that Elizabeth had a headache caused by her stress, which combined with her reluctance to see Darcy to make her stay behind:

The agitation and tears which the subject occasioned brought on a headache; and it grew so much worse towards the evening that, added to her unwillingness to see Mr. Darcy, it determined her not to attend her cousins to Rosings, where they were engaged to drink tea

But some people would argue that Austen is just being playful. She often makes sarcastic statements that blatantly aren't true, so maybe the above is just her playful way of stating that Elizabeth faked a headache to avoid seeing Darcy. It doesn't come across that way to me, but then I'm on the autism spectrum and don't always understand subtext either in real life or in fiction.

I already wrote a post asking people how they interpret this passage, but I thought I'd ask it again. Real headache or fake headache?

Then, of course, Darcy arrives. I've been wondering: how do other readers interpret his choice to visit and propose to Elizabeth then and there? Here's the text:

In a hurried manner he immediately began an inquiry after her health, imputing his visit to a wish of hearing that she were better. She answered him with cold civility. He sat down for a few moments, and then getting up walked about the room. Elizabeth was surprised, but said not a word. After a silence of several minutes, he came towards her in an agitated manner, and thus began:—

“In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.”

In the small amount of commentary I've read so far, I've come across three interpretations of Darcy's actions at this point.

(a) The most generous: He visits out of genuine concern for Elizabeth, and upon seeing that she's feeling better, he decides that now is as good a time as any to propose.

(b) Slightly less generous: When he hears that she's alone with a headache, he decides to seize the opportunity to go and propose, using "inquiry after her health" as an excuse.

(c) The least generous: When he hears that she's alone with a headache, since he thinks she knows his interest in her and has been encouraging him, he assumes she must be faking the headache to give him the chance to find her alone and propose.

Unless I'm forgetting some line or other, the last suggestion seems a little bit far-fetched to me – not that he thinks she's been encouraging him, that of course is true, but that he should think she's faking the headache just to make him visit her.

But I could believe either the first or the second interpretation. Does anyone else have any views on the subject?

@anghraine, @bethanydelleman