#i wanted to write like jane austen ok sue me

[shiros-boyfriends-are-pretty]

It was the beginning of the summer months of 1814, a simultaneously eventful and uneventful year for the house in Kent.

The Davis estate stood down a winding, unpaved road, hidden by trees. Its grandeur had been glimpsed by few, largely because no one dared to venture in, lest some misfortune befall them.

But the house and its inhabitants suffered not for the lack of local society. Sunlight filtered slowly through high windows just as it did on any other day, landing on old floorboards and intricate wall carvings- and a door. It looked to be elderly in its own right (the door) with carefully placed stained glass in the center panel, surrounded by more heavy wood. However, its age was soon no consideration, as a tall, sprightly young man swung it wide open, waiting on neither servant nor maid to attend to him.

"You cannot be serious, Madam, I know the man and his family are fed and taken care of; they do not need your hospitality."

The old woman, in contrast, merely stepped inside. She paused, and let her attendants remove her shawl, hat, and gloves from her form, speaking passively as they flitted about.

"Laurie you were quite entirely present; the Jennings' will stay here in this house."

"John works for the cobbler down the street! The only one in town. He is paid well enough!! Even his wife works as a seamstress under the Boyles!!"

"I will not hear another word on the matter, Laurie."

"They are lying to you."

"Laurie."

"But it's absurd!"

"Laurie. "

Her change in composure was brief lived, but he turned to face her nonetheless. Laurie attempted to speak but found himself unable to utter another word. He brought his hand to his mouth instead, gazing about the foyer in pure frustration.

Laurie sighed, turning away. His hands bracing against the table beneath him.

"These people- villagers! They gossip, slander your good name, speculate the validity of your fortune and your right to own it. They cannot stand to see a woman be rich without a man, and yet you grin and bear it! You have funded their church luncheons and school supplies and their opinions remain the same. They see you as someone from whom to leech! To fund their every desire until you are as ragged as they are."

If she registered his vexation at all it barely affected her. Madam Davis simply walked by him, into the sitting room. She arranged her skirts to facilitate her sitting, and called for a cup of tea. From her right pocket she retrieved a small tin of lemongrass hand cream, which she massaged into her deep brown hands. She was neither frail nor able bodied, neither short nor tall, and forever wore an expression akin to neither frown nor smile, a trait Laurie Elkins found most insufferable in times such as these. Nonetheless, as her maid brought forth the tea, she beckoned him to join her for a cup.

The two were so opposite in temperament at that very moment that you would have almost thought them siblings, despite the 40-year gap in age. His hair loose and wild, hers kept in a low bun; his collar undone slightly, her dress perfectly in place; his stance agitated, hers poised. They seemed two sides of the same coin.

The tea and time dwindled, and Laurie started again,

"I cannot understand why you care so much about any of them."

The lady set down her cup.

"Well, that much was clear."

"Then why do you care?"

The question hung in the air, finally asked properly.

"My dear Laurie, my mother raised me to believe I was nothing if not what I did for others, and I have lived my life continuing that selfish delusion."

Laurie's face contorted, confused.

"Selfish? I'd call you anything but!"

"Is it not selfish to find joy in being a conduit of happiness? To strive so wholly to be what people rely on to keep the world turning? To be praised and well liked for being nice? God does not make everyone happy because He is selfless. I, on the other hand, chose to love everyone for my own selfish gain, make no mistake. To love others is a narcissism most grave indeed."

"But is it not a moral obligation to others that drives kindness? Most treat it a burden."

The woman smiled a small smile.

"The most selfless thing that can be done is to leave others alone and care not about them. Actions have consequences regardless, and caring often hurts before it helps."

That response would not satisfy, but then again neither would tea, so the lady called to ask when the meal would be ready, and to discuss the plans for the Jennings' arrival.

The sun had moved to grace the tea set, but otherwise nothing had really changed. Outside, birds prepared for the night to come, feeding their nearly grown children. The winding road that lead away from the Davis estate remained unpaved, the woods still obscuring each end of it from the other. It was an ordinary summer day, in 1814. Uneventful and eventful all at once.

Happy are the things that never change. As such, quite little is truly happy.

[tolstoys-nemesis]

Funsize list of literary classics :)

Hey so this is just going to be a very brief list of classics I've read and really enjoyed. Please do bear in mind that I've only read a handful of all the books out there so don't get upset if you don't find your favourite classic or whatever, this is intended to be a very short rec list for people who don't really like classics/want to get into classic literature but don't know where to start. This is probably going to be very basic, but uh, sue me!

1. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen Premise: The novel follows Elizabeth Bennet, a young woman, second-born of a family of five daughters. Her older sister, Jane, meets a man named Mr Bingley and the two of them fall in love. Bingley has a friend, Mr Darcy, who is remarkably haughty and inconsiderate. One day Bingley leaves town for no apparent reason. Cool stuff: Austen is peak feminist literature. Lots of female characters, amazing friendships, huge diversity in their personalities. Very nice and cosy, the book does have a plot and some conflict, but the stakes are quite low which allows for a peaceful read. Not-so-cool stuff: Ok so this might just be me, but I read the book and listened to the audiobook at the same time, and I found that a lot of the spelling was archaic, causing me to be quite reliant on the audio to fully grasp what was being said. But don't get me wrong, P&P is easier to understand than #3 on the list.

2. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens Premise: We meet the main character, Ebenezer Scrooge, on Christmas Eve. He's a greedy man who thinks socialism is a plague and is generally terrible. Later that evening, the ghost of his long-dead business partner comes to him and tells him that he must get his act together, lest he should be condemned to eternal damnation. That night, he is visited by three spirits, the first one takes him back to his youth, the second one shows him the horrors that he is passively contributing to, and the third one shows him what will become of him if he doesn't change his ways. Cool stuff: A Christmas Carol is essentially baby Dickens. The tone is ludicrously light for Dickens, and the book is very short (my copy is like 130 pages), so you can absolutely sit down one afternoon in December and read it in one sitting!!). The story is super famous so you already know what you're getting into, so the prose won't get in the way of your understanding of the text. Speaking of which. . . Not-so-cool stuff: ACC may be Dickens' most accessible book, but the style is still very, well, Dickens.

3. Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens Premise: Oliver Twist is an orphan brought up in a workhouse in the first half of the 19th century (read, under inhumane conditions). One day, he is drafted by his friends to ask the quartermaster for more food. This goes over quite poorly indeed and Oliver is sent away to learn a trade away from the workhouse. Things go from bad to worse, and we follow Oliver on his journey from the English countryside to the slums of London to his long-lost family. Cool stuff: While Oliver Twist is a famous story, a lot of people don't know the specifics of the plot, and trust me, they're iconic. You catch feelings (both good and bad) for the characters, and honestly it's just so aesthetic I'm- Not-so-cool stuff: Right so there's the obvious factor of Dickens' notoriously pompous prose, but that's still very superficial. On a more serious note, anti-semitism. It's there. Dickens toned it down himself after it was pointed out to him, but it's still uncomfortable. There's also a lot of abuse, both physical and emotional, and uh,,, femicide happens, so if those are things which are sensitive issues for you, you might want to skip on that one? idk, I'm not the boss of you.

4. The World's Wife, Carol Ann Duffy Premise: Is it too early to regard Duffy as a Classic author? What's that I can't hear you over the sound of my love for her! Right so uh this is a collection of poems published in 1999, which focuses on the women behind great men (kinda? that's the most general summary I can give of it?) or bends great men's gender and gives their point of view on the events their Great Man are famous for. Cool stuff: Women loving woman writes about women. It's amazing. Not-so-cool stuff: it's very sexually explicit? yeah that's it.

5. The Last Day of a Condemned Man (Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamné), Victor Hugo Premise: Ok so most of the book is actually in the preface, an essay attacking the death penalty. (there's also a play in there for some reason?? I don't think all editions have the play but mine did and it was very confusing? I think the play is a satire of the society Hugo lived in, but yeah, quite odd). The actual narrative is more of an emotional complement to the very rational preface than anything and omg it's brilliant. Anyhow, the story follows an unnamed man, sentenced to death for an unknown crime (note: this is a far more solid way to advocate against the death penalty than your average "sOmEtiMeS iNnOcEnT pEoPLe aRe WrOnGLy aCcUsEd aNd eXeCuTeD", because that doesn't actually address what's really wrong about the death penalty) from about 6 weeks before his set execution date to moments before he meets the guillotine. Cool stuff: ok so if you're into activism, this is really an amazing book. It's short, can easily be read in one afternoon. Not-so-cool stuff: it's a bummer. You don't want to read that if you're going through some shit, you will make your existential crisis worse.

6. Animal Farm, George Orwell Premise: Do you know about communism and the USSR? Congratulations, you know about Animal Farm! Soviet leaders are pigs, soldiers are dogs, all the other animals are regular citizens. Men are aristocrats. If you like thinly veiled metaphors for autocratic regimes, but 1984 was too icky for you, this is the one! Cool stuff: Short and sweet, can be read in one afternoon. Gets you thinking but doesn't entirely rob you of your will to live. Not-so-cool stuff: Allegories can get very annoying in very little time.

7. Froth on the Daydream/Mood Indigo (L'Ecume des Jours), Boris Vian Premise: It's surrealism time sillies! Right so the main character's name is Colin, he's wealthy, he has a poorer best friend, and he wants a girlfriend. He meets this girl, Chloe, they fall in love they get married and everything is great for about 47 seconds! During their honeymoon, Chloe falls ill, and she is eventually diagnosed with *checks notes* a water lily in the lung! Everything goes to shits in record time! Cool stuff: It's very aesthetically pleasing. There have been a bunch of film adaptations and I don't want to watch any of them because I don't want images that are any different from those I pictured while reading the book. Best enjoyed with some ominous music playing in the background. Quite short, can be read in one afternoon but not necessarily advised. Can absolutely be read over one week-end though! Not-so-cool stuff: Remember what I said about the aesthetic? A lot of people I know read the book and disliked it because of the aesthetic. You just have to figure out whether that's your jam or not. Oh And, I've never been high, but finishing this book made me feel things that I'd never experienced before, and idk whether that's a good or a bad thing.

[imheresothedeadcanrestinpea-blog]

Do strong female characters still exists?

It’s me again. Been a while, right? well... this post has been created thanks to a random thought in my brain were I compared Sarah (from Labyrinth) and Tauriel (yes, her again, I know that many years have passed but I’m still pissed by her existence).

So what do we understand by “Strong Female Character” or, better yet, what do we want as one?

Lately the entertainment industry has placed in our brains that a Strong Woman is the one who can kick ass just as good as a man. Is it like that? My answer is no.

A Strong Character (male or female) is the one that doesn’t give up no matter if the odds are on it’s favor or not. Someone who literally has the world against but is still ready to fight in the name of whatever he or she protects because deep down he/she knows is the right thing to do according to his/her morals. It’s quite important to highlight the “ is the right thing to do according to his/her morals” so we don’t fall through the ilussion that everything this character does is good or in name of a greater good: no everybody is goodie-goodie, you know... a villain can -and should- be a strong character too. He/she must evolve by learning from his/her mistakes and assume the consecuences of his/her actions. Doesn’t it sounds more compelling than an “super awesome strong character”? It does to me.

Strong Female Character

In the field of “women inside fictional stories” you can find the typical “Damsel in Distress”, the (so feared) “Mary Sue” and, I’d like to believe, the “Strong Female”.

For several years the Damsel in Distress was the norm. That virginal, pure, sweet girl or princess that had to be rescued from the claws of evil so she could live happily ever after in the arms of her beloved was The Thing. She was a role model back on the day when girls had to marry beasts (that sometimes were kind of a good guy after all) like Belle, or “be nice” like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Snowhite. Beeing physically weak was (apparently) quite appealing in a young woman and it was even better if she was ill as well (nothing to serious,off course, but enough for her to lie in a couch all day suffering... and I’m not making this up, I’ve read it in Agatha Christie’s autobiography. She complains more than once of how her grandmother seemed to wanted her to embody Camille’s -or La Dame aux Camélias- lead character so she could get a husband). All of us has seen this girl at least once.

Time passed by and women became a little more powerful year after year. And no, I didn’t made a big jump from 1700′s to the final days of 2016. I’m talking about those women who started to write and, while doing it, creating a new place for women. Louisa May Alcott, the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen, Mary Shelley are the names that all of us know and many might have read -I didn’t, I’ve only read Shelley’s Frankenstein, the others are not my cup of tea- and I’m quite sure that there are many many more. With them Strong Females were born. I know, “all of them dressed in pretty dresses and had no violent action nor knew how to fight... how could they be Strong Females?” well... maybe because they were always fighting to have a voice? or because they were trying to break the tradition of beeing a daugther to become a wife and later a mother? Jo March, trying to be a writer and not caring if anyone said that she wasn’t feminine enough (when she cuts her hair to get some money or because she whistles!), not to mention certain sacrifices she (and her sisters) do to live day by day, is a strong character. Would you deny it? Maybe she’s not “the one” that will end an evil goverment, she won’t beat the crap out of her enemies nor will face the world alone holding nothing but a pocket-knife... but she’s strong and anyone can relate herself with her (and a young woman who doesn’t like “Little Women” and never could read beyond the chapter of the party at Laurie’s -after trying to read the book twice- is saying that!). Josephine March can kick some serious Strong Female’s asses today and she was “born” in 1868! Those were real Strong Females and that’s why nowdays they are still considerated role models -maybe-.

The All Mighty Mary Sue: now we found a big jump in time... times where women gotta be everything (good, pure and innocent at the same time that she’s a master assasin who can kill a hundred men blindfolded in the middle of the dark). I know that “Mary Sue” has becomed pretty much a curse word specially among those who write this type of characters -or at least enjoy them-. No-one likes to say that they like a token character that is as empty as the head of a Barbie doll and brings nothing to the story beyond her charming presence. Ok, there is another kind of Mary Sue, the Lead Character, she and her issues are the main reason why the story exists (Bella Swan from Twilight is a good example). In both roles (side character or main one) she’s worthless and depends A LOT of the men around her. Main Character Bella is nothing without her relationship with Edward, Jacob and her dad. Sure, she’s got some female friends but, in comparison with those three guys, she hardly talks to them. How do you think the book would’ve been without the love story and the differences with her dad? Side Character Tauriel (sorry, I can’t help it) is nothing without her relationships with Thranduil, Legolas and Kili. And she has NO female friends. What other version of this character could’ve existed without all of it?

Strong Females in movies

As I said, lately we had wave after wave of “strong female characters” that are just amaizing in everything they do and, sometimes, are even better than the men around them. Is it bad? No, but it could be a big “yes” depending on the story or in how often we get to see it.

All movies nowdays seem to believe that having a super-powerful woman is good and having a more “traditional” one is as bad as having a damsel in distress. Times have changed, I know, we do not need to “have” a man to be someone as it used to happen in the ‘50s... we can save ourselves, we can use guns, we can fight but does that mean that we are strong? Physically strong: sure... Strong-strong? not quite.

Of course it’s awesome to see a good fight on a movie (I quite enjoy them) but beyond the fantastic moves of this character we love is there anything to back it up? Is there a good reason to take that road? Was there a better choice? Here’s the random thought on my brain that made me write this article. Scene comparison ahead:

Labyrinth (1986):

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Let’s see... In both cases the heroines (filled with anger while thinking of calling Tauriel like that) find themselves against someone who doesn’t let them go on or their journey to save a baby brother (Sarah) or hot dwarf  a bunch of dwarves (Tauriel). In both cases this obstacle is an authority figure, Sir Didymus -guardian of the bridge- and Thranduil, the Elvenking. It’s the same dilemma... but two different reactions. Sarah, a teenager, chooses to talk to the guardian, to be reasonable with him so she can get his permision... and she has it! Tauriel, an adult elf, chooses to shut up and threatens the King’s life.

“You idiot! Tauriel is trying to save the dwarves lifes, there’s no time to talk and be nice! It’s a war!” Oh, really? What if I tell you that Sarah only has 13 hours to save her baby brother before he turns into a goblin? Actually maybe she has less than three hours to save him in that scene, considerating that sometime later we see a 13 hours clock marking 11 sharp. She doesn’t have that much time does she? We saw that Ludo defeated Sir Didymus and that he’s also capable of holding him in his hand, Sarah could’ve easily asked Ludo to hold him until she crossed the bridge... heck! she could’ve kicked Sir Didymus out of her way and cross! But she didn’t because she didn’t needed another enemy behind her and she had no reasons to be a jerk. Tauriel decided that convincing her King to help her was a waste of time. After all why a man that knows her, raised her, gave her a job, and send his son to get her back to his kingdom (so she wouldn’t get into trouble) would care about her or her needs? He’s a  cold hearted King, after all (major eye roll).

Which one is the strongest (and again, we’re not talking about physical strength)? The one that chooses to be gentle and polite or the one that chooses brutal force? It can be resumed in this: wisdom or brutality?

It’s quite funny that the question of wisdom or brutalilty shows up since Tauriel is a Silvan Elf, and they are -as said by Tolkien- less wise and more dangerous. As I said before “less wise” doesn’t mean “stupid” nor means “savage” as everybody seems to believe. Tolkien was reffering to the way of living of this elves, who turned away from the Valar’s invitation to join them and decided to live in a more “natural” way. A possible paralel to our society would be the hippie movement... we wouldn’t call them savages, would we?

As a character that was created to show how merceful we are it’s quite shocking to see Tauriel taking such a violent turn to get what she wants. The worst thing now is that we (anti-Tauriel people) can’t even say that that’s how teenagers behave, since Sarah in her 15s has shown the opposite reaction.

I ask you: of all the movies you’ve seen this year... did all the women took the high road instead of the easy one -that one beeing beating the crap out of someone to get what they wanted-? If violence was used: was this choice the only option? Did them had a really good reason to do so? If the answer is a “yes” congratulations! you’ve watched a movie with a strong female character (or at least, a good try to be one).

Can a Female Strong Character fall in love?

Of course she can!

Many people believe that their favourite females are criticized because they’ve fallen in love. Once Upon a Time said it first: love is not weakness, it’s strength. Everything’s OK if the girl loves someone, the problem begins when this love is the only reason why she moves a finger or when there’s nothing more for her than it or when love blinds her and makes her take stupid choices (and even forget her awesome set of skills).

Believe it or not, there’s a title for those strong females that after falling in love became -pretty much- damsels in distress or that were never intended to be Strong Females: Trinity Syndrome (you can read more about it here)

A strong female who falls in love? Glad you ask. The first one that comes to my mind is Lisbeth Salander from the Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, she goes through hell and yet falls in love but it never really affects her personality in a negative way (she was distant to people around her and opens up to Mikael -the guy she loves- but only with him and SPOILER ALERT once her heart breaks she’s still the same one). What about Princess Leia (RIP Carrie Fisher) she was tough, and smart and completly capable of comanding a group of rebels... but she falls in love anyway and it doesn’t change her at all. Any ot Tolkien’s women who fall in love are still the same and because of their love they push the boundaries and accomplish great deeds (Lúthien), others doesn’t need to fall in love to do so (Éowyn, Haleth). There are many more examples, sadly no so many from the last decade.

I’d like to do just one more comparison before finish this part.

Singin’ in the rain (1952)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Both of them ended up facing the love of their lives (yikes! in Tauriel’s case). Both men think that only because of their looks (probably) they got the girl and will live together happily ever after but first, they have to charm her and both go the wrong way with sexual innuendos, touches and glances. Kathy Selden (RIP Debbie Reynolds) knows what’s going on and thinks of the best way to get out of such situation, she even uses physical strength when it’s needed. She won’t let a men to get his way with her. Tauriel knows what’s going on and decides to go on with the game... say what? Girl, you hardly know him! He could be a dangerous prisioner... and you’re flirting with him? How did you get the title of Captain of the Guard? I wonder if any orc has pulled such a move on her and if she reacted the same way.

Again, we have a strong female and a female (I’ll even say that she’s how men would love to see women behave).

Conclussion

So? Do they still exists? Yes, I think. There aren’t many, but every now and then one shows up (Lisbeth Salander is the last one I’ve meet so far).

What about all the other women in the movies and books? They could be strong characters if the writers could put a little more effort. So far we have the male idealization of a woman (you know: super hot, awesome fighter, love-sick puppy, independent but not that much) and the female version of this male idealization (fighter, sometimes insecure, lives to love her man and protect him, etc). It’s quite scary if we see them like that. I wouldn’t be frightened if all girls grew up the way I did; I know, I’m not the best example out there, but I know that I was taught not to let anyone (male or female) to put me down or to “show me my place”. And this teaching came from my family, not movies, TV shows or books (at least not in my early years) this three tools were for entertainment purposes, nothing more.

Today we live in a different world were the image prevails and this is the same world were parents have no time to be with their kids or doesn’t know how to prepare them for the world out there or don’t want to be the kind of parents that smother their kids by controlling what they watch or read because that will make them “bad parents”. It’s not like that, kids depend on us all. WE have to be their role models, not a character or toy. How come that I grew up playing with my Barbie dolls and I don’t want to be a supermodel or blonde or super skinny? Because I had a good education at home. How is it possible that I grew up watching and admiring the Disney’s princesses and yet I’m not looking for Prince Charming nor I care if I look like them or not? Because I was taught the difference between a movie and the real life. I also learned, many years later, that gender doesn’t matter: if a character has a good set of morals we can apply them too... who cares if said character was a men or a woman?

I wish that newer generations could be able to learn that you have to be yourself, that makes you strong not your ability with the sword but the reason why you’re using it and the fears you’re facing.

I wish that newer generations wouldn’t need a Strong Female Character because they’ll be their own.