#mr bennet critical

[anghraine]

Meanwhile, in one of my other main fandoms:

My post about reading a surprisingly good article on eighteenth-century economics and (tangentially) Austen showed up on my dash again, I think thanks to @ladytharen. Now that my mind is rather clearer, I remembered that the author (Robert D. Hume) had left a footnote in the brief Austen section saying that it was contracted from a fuller discussion he'd made in a previous paper. I'd meant to check the previous paper out and simply forgot at the time, but that reminded me, so I read the other article, dated to the previous year (April 2013).

This article is simply called "Money in Jane Austen" (much less of a mouthful!), but is similarly granular about details. In terms of the general argument, the abundance of historical and textual details very much works in his favor. But he does fall a bit into the "AustenTime" problem, unfortunately, in this one.

I know I have another post talking in more detail about this, but I couldn't find it! Anyway, "AustenTime" is a term I heard once and have never been able to track down again for an approach to Austen and the times she lived through as this sort of pocket universe in which everything is happening in the same eternal moment that's roughly associated with the Regency England of the 1810s when her novels were first published (and often even more with "the Regency" as codified by Heyer and the Regency romance writers who followed her). Hume's take is much less Heyer-inflected than the usual, of course, but given his general attention to very precise details, it seemed odd that he didn't distinguish more between economic data from the 1770s, 1790s, and 1810s while lumping all her novels into c. 1810.

That said, he did use okay numbers for the central arguments wrt P&P and built from Austen's own extreme and painful consciousness of just how far not much money could go, to the gulf between her circumstances and even characters like Elizabeth's, and then to politely disagreeing with the kind of characterizations of the Bennets' lifestyle you find in even normally reliable things like The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. His argument is basically that there's enough textual information to tell us that the Bennets are fairly wealthy by genteel standards, not minor struggling gentry—at about the level of typical baronets in terms of income/land/lifestyle (Mr Bennet's situation is certainly more comparable to a random baronet's than Darcy's). Hume goes into estimates based on explicit details in the novel about the Bennets' household staff etc and what that would signify at the time, all good stuff, so that he can express his true feelings.

And his expression of those was actually really cathartic to read, because Hume's true feelings turn out to be even more seething rage at how much Mr Bennet sucks as a father than I would have guessed from the other article. He's like—

"Mr Bennet sucks SO MUCH y'all, and you might think I'm being ahistorical in my rants about what a failure he is, no I'm not overusing italics he DESERVES italicized hate*, and I've got contemporary source after contemporary source to prove just how incredibly irresponsible and selfish this guy is by the standards of the time and how callous he is about his children's future and even about the ungodly amount of money that Darcy drops to fix Mr Bennet's failures, and maybe it's not clear to most modern readers just how much that would have been BUT I HAVE THE NUMBERS. I swear this character is such an asshole and I'm embarrassed for ever liking him, honestly, and just because Elizabeth doesn't fully condemn him—but hey, remember that passage where she clearly knows more than she's been saying about what kind of man he is—doesn't mean that Austen isn't doing so. Elizabeth doesn't end up paying for Mr Bennet's colossal failures as a father and human in the novel only by authorial fiat, aka Darcy, whose circumstances are almost unimaginably niche even for high-ranking peers—but that's the fantasy, you know? And Charlotte's there to remind us of the reality of just how dire this situation could be in more typical lives, even when we're talking about the women in the richest 1% of the population."

I had a few other nitpicks, but the combination of detailed economic breakdowns and unashamed raw hatred for a character I also despise was truly enjoyable. And it was also—um.

Despite my griping about various Austen critics, I have my own struggles with imposter syndrome, and always feel guilty about how much Important Academic Work In My Field there is that I just haven't gotten around to and how I always feel like I'm missing important information and blahblahblah. But I do feel it a lot more acutely with the seventeenth-century works I've studied, since I came to that a good 15 years after I started getting into Austen criticism. Even so, I was surprised by how soothing it was to read an Austen essay that's imperfect but good and that is punctuated by all these references to other scholars whose names and work I recognized, influential interpretations that I've already read, all that kind of thing. It felt a bit like coming home, honestly, and it was reassuring that everything was so familiar at this point.

---

*He did not actually say that Mr Bennet deserved italicized hate, but italics for emphasis are actually really rare in this kind of writing and there are quite a few of them in the Why Mr Bennet Is The Worst section. More power to you, sir.

[ankahikoibaat]

KIND REGARDS AND WARM WISHES (2/?)

In order to bolster the spirits of the troops off for war, a scheme to pair up civilians to write to the soldiers anonymously is started. Mary Bennet is one of those civilians. Richard Fitzwilliam is one of those soldiers. The friendship they form through their letters lead to them finding what they did not know they were looking for.

this fic is being posted on AHA as well!

[alicentsultana]

The way we see mothers in fiction reflects our relationship with our own mothers.

Unless we're going mommy dearest and similar works that show narcissistic mothers and problematic/toxic relationships and portrayals, those are undeniably horrible and bad.

However, when we talk about general mothers portraiture we're going to immediately judge also through what we live and experienced.

I have a wonderful relationship with my mom, though she had me hours after she turned 18, and of course, have committed errors, she still succeeded in parenting and raised me with the best of her abilities. Therefore, I tend to see mother-sons/daughters relationships in a good light, as as depth and development goes by, I can change and adapt my initial opinion.

Therapist and Psychology Professors oftenly remarks that mothers, in a way or another, have some parcel of guilt over how her kids will develop and turn out, some more, some less. Relapse mother? Troubled kids. Distant mother? Insensitive kids. Overbearing/Overprotective? Kids learn to lie, omit, rebel. So on and so forth.

Mothers do have a hand on how you deal with your life. But a loving mother, a zealous mother, a young mother, an older mother, a religious mother, a free spirit mother... All of them doesn't have to justify themselves beyond maybe acknowledging where they went wrong, because, after all, aren't all of them also bound by expectations, morals, time and beliefs? And weren't all of them doing what they thought was right? Weren't all of them dealing with motherhood differently and in their particular ways? With or without support, they did what they could.

But take a look at these mothers:

They made mistakes, do they have to justify themselves and ask for forgiveness? Because they did what they have to? To survive, to attend demands, to protect, to ensure their safety and success...

There are mistakes, and there is also another even greater problem: you have to grow up and learn how to deal with this pain yourself, talk, digest, transform it, but no one but yourself will have to learn how to deal with it, even when it was done with such toxic and cruel behaviors, you will have to deal with it. To love or to hate.

Now, let's focus on the love part.

Mary, Elizabeth, Isabel, Januaria, the Bennets girls, Khadija, Alicent, Hürrem and Rhaenyra's children, all of them wouldn't even ask for their justification, ask why they did what they did, because they all know their mother loves them no matter what, they did what they had to do. Distant or not, overbearing, hysterical, insensitive, and doomed by the narrative. They know, and eventually recognize that those actions were done by love.

So yeah, go on, ask your loving mother to justify herself, I dare you all. Ask your grandma and aunt too. Ask that one mother who pissed you off online too.

Also, don't forget that maybe, that parenting style was all they came to know about. And unless one breaks a very long and, shockingly, difficult to recognize cycle, they will unknowingly perpetuate it.

Anyway. That's how I see it. Because oh boy, I wouldn't even ask my mom to explain herself to me, no matter my grievances. But that's a me thing. How do you see it?

[penny-for-your-past]

I'm about to say something controversial I think, but I'm not really into the Lizzie Bennet Diaries. For me, the very premise of the show is a non starter, because I cannot BELIEVE that ANY version of Elizabeth Bennet would record people without their knowledge or consent and post those clips online to a large viewing audience. I'm not being a protagonist moral purist; if Lydia was our main character I'd totally roll with it. But it is, objectively, reprehensible behavior that would FIRMLY put Lizzie in a category with "the lack of propriety" shown by her parents and younger sisters. This is a woman who, in the original story, didn't even tell her sisters that Wickham was bad news to protect Georgiana, and you think she'd post Jane's private moments online??? No. Elizabeth has character flaws but invasion of privacy and airing other people's business are never part of them.

[princesssarisa]

Pride and Prejudice adaptations with a modern setting – e.g. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, Bride and Prejudice, Pride and Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy, Fire Island – seem to almost always save Lydia from Wickham in the end. Either Darcy stops the elopement, or the elopement is replaced with an online sex tape which is taken down. Wickham is either arrested or at least left behind permanently, and Lydia learns a lesson and gets a happy ending. Neither she nor the other characters have to live with her mistake for the rest of their lives the way they do in the original.

I've just been rereading several people's posts on this subject, and about Lydia's portrayal in general, which show some very different opinions about it all.

Of course, part of the issue is that in a modern setting, it's much easier to save Lydia. In most of the modern Western world, a teenage girl running off with a 30-year-old man would result in the man being arrested, not in their needing to get married to save both the girl's reputation and her whole family's. And even if they did get married, divorce is an option.

But I suspect the bigger issue is that Austen's original ending is considered cruel, unfair, and a product of outdated morals.

People view Austen as punishing Lydia for being a "bad girl" by leaving her trapped in a loveless marriage to a worthless man and always living on the edge of poverty, when by modern standards, she's guilty only of teenage foolishness. They accuse Austen of "making an example" of Lydia to teach young female readers how to behave, in contrast to the virtuous, well-behaved Elizabeth and Jane with their happy endings, and they call it anti-feminist.

Not only is Lydia's marriage bleak for her, it slightly mars Elizabeth and Darcy's happy ending too, as well as Jane and Bingley's. It means Wickham will always be a part of their lives, and for Lydia's sake, they're forced to treat him as a family member. Darcy is forced to financially assist his worst enemy – though at least he draws the line by not letting Wickham visit Pemberley – and even Jane and Bingley's patience is worn thin by the long periods of time Wickham and Lydia stay with them.

By modern standards of romantic comedy, this isn't normal. The heroine, the hero, and all their family and friends are expected to live entirely "happily ever after," while the antagonist – especially if he's a womanizer who preys on teenage girls – is expected to be punished, then never heard from again.

But of course, Austen didn't write simple romantic comedy. Her work was social commentary. Lydia's ending arguably isn't a punishment, but simply the only way her story could end without disgracing her or killing her off, and it arguably it serves less to condemn Lydia herself than to condemn the society that lets men like Wickham get away with preying on naïve young girls and forces their victims to marry them or else be disgraced forever. It also condemns the type of bad parenting that leads to Lydia's mistake. Lydia is the product of her upbringing, after all: between Mrs. Bennet's spoiling and Mr. Bennet's neglect, she's never had any decent parental guidance or protection. And our heroines, Elizabeth and Jane, both pity their sister and regret that marriage to Wickham is the only way to save her honor. No sympathetic character ever says she deserves it.

The fact that Lydia is trapped in a bad marriage, and that Wickham does go unpunished and the other characters will always have to tolerate him and even cater to him for Lydia's sake, arguably drives home Austen's social criticism. The fact that it adds bittersweetness to the otherwise blissfully happy ending is arguably part of the point. If we change it just to create a happier ending, or in the name of "feminism" and "justice for Lydia," doesn't that dilute the message?

Then there's the fact that by the standards of Austen's era, Lydia's ending is remarkably happy. She doesn't die, or end up abandoned and forced into sex work or a life of seclusion. Nor, despite Mr. Collins' recommendation, does her family cut ties with her: the ending reveals that Jane and Elizabeth regularly welcome her into their homes, and Elizabeth "frequently" sends her money. Other authors would have punished her much more severely.

But of course, that was a different time. While in Austen's original context, Lydia's fate might seem fairly happy and lenient, by modern standards it seems more cruel. And since most of the modern retellings that change her fate are screen adaptations, not books, maybe the difference in art form further justifies the change. I'm thinking of that post I recently reblogged, which argued that some of Austen's more "merciless" plot points would seem darker on film than in print, and therefore tend to be softened in adaptations.

So how should a modernized adaptation handle Lydia's ending? Is it better and more progressive when they save her from Wickham? Or for the sake of social commentary and retaining Austen's sharp edges, should the writers follow the book and find a way (not necessarily marriage to Wickham, but some modern equivalent) for her mistake to leave her trapped in a less-than-happy life, and add a slight bittersweet note to the other characters' endings too?

I think a case can be made for both choices and I'd like to know other people's viewpoints.

[tossawary]

To be fair to Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice", I would also probably appear rude, proud, and altogether snobbish if I was stuck with the knowledge that everything I said was going to be fawned over or criticized by Mrs. Bennet, Caroline Bingley, Mr. Collins, or Lady Catherine. Like, he IS being a genuine snob at points and rightfully gets called out for it, but it definitely doesn't help that for the majority of the first part of the book, most of Darcy's conversations with Elizabeth happen when they're trapped in rooms with some of the Most Annoying People Alive.

POV: You are Fitzwilliam Darcy and cannot help but be intrigued by Elizabeth Bennet, a young woman with fine eyes and a lively manner. You would like to get to know her better. Unfortunately, Mr. Collins is here too, and he will tell Lady Catherine literally Every Single Thing you say.

[themalhambird]

Thinking about how Jane Austen's six novels taken together (in writing order, not publication order) become an increasingly scathing criticism of social class, i.e:

Northanger Abbey: Individual members of the gentry (General Tilney, chiefly) come in for some criticism, but mostly on a personal level: General Tilney is a grasping, tyrannical father to be sure but we hear little (though we might easily infer) of what he is like as the resident landholder. The final crisis of the novel, General Tilney's refusal to sanction Henry and Catherine's marriage, is resolved by Eleanor's marriage to a Viscount.

Sense and Sensibility: The "correctness" and "elegance" of the fashionable members of society- the Dashwoods, Robert Ferras, Lady Middleton- are negatively contrasted to the warmness and frankness of Mrs Jennings- whose kind-heartedness makes her more attractive, in spite of her lower-class origins and perceived vulgarity, than Fanny, Lady Middleton or Mrs Ferras (snr).

Pride and Prejudice: The aristocratic Lady Catherine de Bourgh is an interfearing busy body whose title and money only excuse her officiousness and rudeness. Darcy's pride in his superior situation to the Bennets leads him to act wrongly with regard to Bingley and Jane. Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, in trade, are more respectable- certainly better parental figures- than the gentleman Mr Bennet (and Mrs Bennet too). At the same time - Darcy's strengths are displayed in his undertakings as the resident landholder of the Pemberly estates- he supports the poor, and his situation allows him to shield the more vulnerable when he his spurred to act (Georgiana, to a less successful extent Lydia). Wickham's circumstances - debt, etc- could easily be read as the consequences of his wanting to step out of his place- his desire to be the oldest, or at least the second, son of a Mr Darcy- rather than what he 'is'- the son of Mr. Darcy's steward

Mansfield Park: Hey. HEY. look at the shitshow of a baronetcy. Lady Bertram is functionally useless. Sir Thomas is such a bad father that his daughters marry idiots just to get away from him. Also, having money can't give you intelligence or a personality. Most of "fashionable society" are actually miserable and mercenary and also probably immoralistic. The Church is clouded by corruption and isn't actively benefiting the local parish the way it should. The whole thing is underpinned by slavery, and the hardworking Price Children are ultimatley more deserving than the flighty Bertram ones. THAT BEING SAID: the portrait of Mr. Price is hardly better than the one of Sir Thomas, and Mansfield Park does stabilise- indeed, begins grows stronger with the reformation of its heir, and the implication that Fanny and Edmund go on to have children of their own. There is less of a quarrel with establishment, and more of a quarrel with the people who fill it.

Emma: "Gentility is inherent one can sense it in a person-" no you can't lmao shut up. There is literally no inherent difference marking out a gentleman's daughter and a farmer's daughter. Emma's snobbery as to class leaves her, at various times, both isolated and into some *serious* missteps. Emma and Frank Churchill both have a tendency to treat others as playthings, as their money allows them to do so.

Persuasion: The peerage/nobility are patently ridiculous throw them out in favour of [relative] meritocracy and hard workers. Sure, the resident landowners are supposed to be of benefit to those beneath them but they're not, actually, they take all of the privileges and fulfil non of the responsibilities and are pretty much uniformly selfish and our heroine Casts Them Off.

[beatrice-otter]

Such an exhibition

I have been thinking about the breakfast scene in Pride & Prejudice. You know the one:

“Yes, and her petticoat; I hope you saw her petticoat, six inches deep in mud, I am absolutely certain; and the gown which had been let down to hide it not doing its office.” ... “You observed it, Mr. Darcy, I am sure,” said Miss Bingley; “and I am inclined to think that you would not wish to see your sister make such an exhibition.” “Certainly not.” “To walk three miles, or four miles, or five miles, or whatever it is, above her ankles in dirt, and alone, quite alone! what could she mean by it? It seems to me to show an abominable sort of conceited independence, a most country-town indifference to decorum.”

It strikes me that there are some nuances that people often miss when talking about this. The first is that Miss Bingley attributes this "conceited independence" not to a flaw in Elizabeth personally, but to the difference between the manners of the country gentry (such as the Bennets) and the fashionable people who live in cities (like the Bingleys). In town, fashionable and wealthy people did not walk long distances. Fashionable people either owned horses/carriages, or took cabs. They would walk in parks where it was fashionable to walk. But they rarely walked alone, especially women. A man might walk to his club alone, in the afternoon, but when walking home from his club that evening he would hire a man to walk with him to discourage pickpockets and muggers. Even in posh neighborhoods!

But in the country ... there aren't cabs, and while there were robbers on the highways who would stop carriages to steal from them, they weren't lurking along footpaths such as the one Elizabeth would have taken. Elizabeth didn't ride horses, and her father is of the lower gentry, which means that the same horses which pull the carriage also work in the fields, and thus the carriage is not always available. Even when it is available, she's one of five daughters. If her dad or mom wants it, they get it; if she or her sisters want it, they have to argue over who gets it. And riding in a carriage was jolting and unpleasant (bad roads and no shock absorbers). So Elizabeth, like many members of the country lower gentry, often walks when she wants to go visit her neighbors.

Then there's the "alone" part. Everyone can quote "six inches deep in mud" but we forget that part of what shocks Miss Bingley is that Elizabeth walked by herself. In Regency England, the more wealth and status a woman's family had, the less often she would be alone. And again, big difference between the city and the country. In the city, a woman of Elizabeth's family status would never go anywhere alone. Either she'd have a female relative with her, or a friend or chaperone, or a servant. For protection, and also to vouch for her propriety. In the country ... as long as she's going to visit another woman, or just going out to walk for the exercise, and she's not going too far, nobody bats an eyelash. This is true both at Longbourn and also at Hunsford. If she were wealthier, that would not necessarily be the case; both Georgiana Darcy and Anne de Bourgh have companions who are paid to go where their mistress goes. So it's not just that Elizabeth is walking that shows the difference between town and country manners, it's also that she's walking alone.

Miss Bingley is criticizing Elizabeth in particular, but she is also criticizing her class, as a way of asserting both that the Bingleys have better manners than country gentry (despite their money coming from trade), and by appealing to Mr. Darcy about it she is also positioning herself as closer to his sphere and manners than to anyone else's.

Then we come to the question of how much does Darcy judge Elizabeth's actions. Mr. Darcy says he wouldn't want Georgiana to do what Elizabeth has done (walk three miles alone through muddy fields), but there's a big difference between the upper gentry and the lower gentry. Georgiana probably has her own horse, and she's much less likely to have to worry about whether the carriage horses are needed on the farm, and also she has someone who is literally paid to go with her everywhere. Also, Georgiana is sixteen years old, has already been targeted by a fortune hunter, and is very shy and timid. So the fact that he wouldn't want Georgiana to do it doesn't mean he necessarily sees it as a big deal when Elizabeth (older, not as wealthy*) does it.

*People sometimes claim the Bennets were either poor or middle class. They were at the bottom of the gentry, but that is still quite wealthy. Mr. Bennet has an income of £2,000/year, which is peanuts compared to Darcy. However, let us compare them to other people in their day. William and Dorothy Wordsworth spent the 1790s with an income of about £170-£180/year, with reasonable comfort. P&P was written in 1796-1797, so about the same time.

[leohttbriar]

hiiiii i recently watched ball of fire and the whole time i was thinking about your posts where you say worf/jadzia is like a screwball comedy. i am not a worfzia warrior but i do always love when jadzia is so flirty and cute. i love her sooooo much my beautiful worm wife

oh my gosh yes!! the screwball comedy dynamic that is worfzia is sooo! i just love screwball comedies--i find them more romantic than just about any other genre of romance. the dialogue, the hijinks, the absurdity, the understated affection: it's all there to expose precisely how much two characters are each other's equals in every way that matters.

when i wrote that post, i was thinking a lot about bringing up baby and it happened one night--maybe biggest ones of the genre? lol im so original--and how the story in both ends up being about the girl pursuing the guy single-mindedly, despite their superficial mismatch. colbert jumping into the ocean and sneaking onto a night-bus and flashing her leg to hitchhike after making fun of gable's ""know-how"" is all very flirty and liberated dax--and gable demanding only $39.60 from her father for keeping her safe and then saying "yes i love her but don't hold that against me im a little screwy myself" is Worf. he'd never demand a giant reward--he would demand precisely $39.60.

and hepburn in bringing up baby is so Jadzia Dax: A Menace. and the upright cary grant with all his poorly concealed social anxieties is very Worf: Do Not Tease Me and it works really well!

it's all very dependent on jadzia dax's character who i thought was screwball-comedy perfection even before worf came on the scene (i mean, it was in relation to kiradax but kira is very similar to worf in her character archetype and her normal role in ensemble scenes so i was delighted when worfzia ended up being the way it was). and not to get too into the lit crit regarding dax's flirty cuteness but i think one of the reasons jadzia isn't taken as seriously as she should by fans and critics and whatnot is not only the women-aren't-people bias but also the comedy-isn't-that-deep bias. jadzia is definitely a comic-relief character but she's not funny like quark is funny or worf is funny--she's deliberately wise-cracking and ironic and is even called out a few times for not taking things seriously. but the thing about humor is that it equalizes hierarchies and sets contradictions next to each other and forces serious-genre tropes to collapse under their own weight and exposes the construction of anything we might think natural. and all of that is the point of jadzia dax's character, whether it's a humorous or sincere scene/plot. and also why worfzia works as well as it does--imagine worf with someone who doesn't tease him.

im figuring out now that one of the reasons i love dax so much is also why i prefer austen to most other romance novels---she is teasing. romance is funny. dax is like mr. bennet saying of mr. collins that he think he's ridiculous and that's why he loves the guy: "for what do we live but to make sport for our neighbors and laugh at them in our turn?"

anyway sorry for rambling on and on!! the point is: i love love flirty and cute dax too!!!!

[bethanydelleman]

Unconsciously Done: An Examination of Misogyny in the Treatment of Caroline Bingley in Jane Austen Fan Fiction

This essay is not meant as an attack on any specific author who writes JAFF. It is a criticism of a trend that is very strong in the genre and I find extremely problematic.

It is my firm belief that Jane Austen felt deeply for the plight of women in her era and that her books examine the difficult decisions that women were forced to make because of their secondary position in society. Jane Austen presents women to us who have little power and whose only hope in future provision and comfort lies in the whims of men. Moreover, Jane Austen never in her collected works, asks us to delight in the downfall or destruction of a woman. Given this context, I find it highly distressing and untrue to Jane Austen’s legacy that so often in Jane Austen Fan Fiction (JAFF), authors invite readers to celebrate the degradation of Caroline Bingley. This is a repugnant practice that both goes against the intent of Jane Austen’s works and by attacking a woman in particular is an unconscious display of misogyny.

After the Netherfield Ball, where the Bennet family shocks Elizabeth, Darcy, and Caroline with their vulgar behaviour, Caroline and Darcy agree that it would be better for Charles, Caroline’s brother, not to marry into such a family. Together, they go to London and convince Charles to remain there, away from Jane. Caroline writes to Jane to inform her of this. Later, when Jane follows them to London, Caroline cuts off the friendship, which lasted, we should remember, for only a few weeks. She also works to conceal Jane’s presence in London from her brother. She is aided in this endeavour, again, by Mr. Darcy. Her final act of the book is attempting to embarrass Elizabeth in company at Pemberley and then insulting Elizabeth to Darcy in private.

For the purposes of this argument, I will first lay out what the original Caroline Bingley does in the novel Pride & Prejudice. Caroline dislikes the unmannered inhabitants of Hertfordshire, specifically the Bennet family, a sentiment she shares with Darcy. They make fun of the Bennets behind their backs together in the first section of the book, along with Caroline’s sister Louisa. When Jane Bennet is sick at Netherfield, Caroline is not as attentive to her as Jane’s sister would like, despite spending several hours with her multiple times.

It is important to note several things. Firstly, none of Caroline’s actions cause lasting harm to anyone. In the end, Jane and Charles do marry. Secondly, Caroline is drawn by Jane Austen as a social-climber who is not above using artifice to reach her goals, but her actions are entirely rational within that context. Every action that Caroline makes is a logical expression of her two motivations, a wish to marry Darcy and a wish to see her brother marry well. Thirdly, Caroline is aided in nearly everything she does by Darcy himself. One could speculate that without Darcy’s interference, Charles would have returned to Hertfordshire as he planned. Darcy’s own words imply this, “with a stronger dependence on my judgement than on his own.” (P&P, Ch 35.)

The position of women in Georgian society is made clear through Jane Austen’s works. Women are dependent on their parents or guardians until they marry at which point they are dependent upon their husbands. There are only two acceptable options for women of the gentry, marriage or becoming a governess. When Charlotte Lucas submits to a marriage with Mr. Collins, we are told marriage was the only provision for well-educated young women of small fortune (P&P, Ch 22). Jane Fairfax, in Emma, is so upset with her the profession of governess, that she compares it to slavery (V 2, Ch. 18). Jane Austen is clearly of the opinion that a woman should marry for affection rather than only for wealth, but she acknowledges how difficult this line is to draw when marriage is so vital to a woman's life. Caroline is set up as a representation of a mercenary worldview in Pride & Prejudice. Like many other Jane Austen women, Mary Crawford (Mansfield Park, specifically her early interest in Tom Bertram), Lucy Steele (S&S), and Charlotte Lucas (P&P) for example, Caroline is pursuing a man for wealth rather than love.

Lydia Bennet is another woman whom Jane Austen, in the social morays of the time, could have condemned and invited us to hate. In Mr. Collins letter we hear the morality that would delight in a woman’s downfall, “The death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison of this.” (P&P Ch. 48). Yet again, the narrator does not invite us to treat Lydia with scorn. We are reminded of Mrs. and Mr. Bennet’s faulty parenting and that he ignored Elizabeth’s advice, we are reminded of the character of Wickham, and we are assured of Lydia’s future provision. Lydia will not fall into poverty because her two wealthy sisters will protect her. Her sisters do this despite the fact that they had the most to lose from her rash actions. This demonstrates an acknowledgement that all women, despite their faults, deserve to be protected.

It is important to note that while Jane Austen invites the reader to disapprove of these women who marry for money, she does not outright condemn them. Charlotte Lucas’s decision to marry Collins is explained with some compassion. The narrator notes that, “the boys were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte’s dying an old maid” (P&P, Ch. 22) which again reminds us of the importance of marriage for a woman’s future provision. Maria Bertram (Mansfield Park), who married for money and then committed adultery for love and whose actions are clearly condemned, is still allowed compassion. The narrator mourns that Maria must suffer more than her male counterpart for the offence, "In this world the penalty is less equal than could be wished” (MP, Ch. 48) and Sir Thomas spends a good deal of time blaming himself for not raising his daughter properly, “here had been grievous mismanagement” (MP, Ch 48).

Unlikely as it is for Jane Austen to desire further punishment for Caroline, it is more improbable that she would wish for men to exact that retribution. We are told in the history of Eliza Brandon, (S&S) how much power a man can exert over a woman in their guardianship. Eliza is confined to the house and allowed no pleasures until she submits to a marriage to a man who will treat her with cruelty and steal her fortune. This action is despicable and is presented as such. Yet, many authors write Charles Bingley exerting this same sort of control over his sister, or at least threatening it. They wish for him to cut off her allowance and thus financially constrain her behaviour. They have Charles threaten to disown his sister, who in such stories is under his guardianship, or sometimes even give her money away. Not only is this unnecessary, as Charles already can control his sister’s behaviour to an extent as we see during the visit from Mrs. Bennet when he “forced his younger sister to be civil also” (P&P, Ch 9), it is cruel.

It is unlikely therefore, that Jane Austen meant for us to hate Caroline or take pleasure in her imagined downfall. In the original novel, the ‘punishment’ Caroline receives is equal to her actions, she must endure seeing Elizabeth Bennet raised to the position of mistress of Pemberley. It is the same thing that happens to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who like Caroline, wants Darcy to marry for wealth rather than affection.

More distressing are the words used by characters in works of JAFF, mostly by men who in Jane Austen’s original works treat women with respect, about how Charles might control this “deviant” sister. These terms are often far harsher than anything used for the correction of Lydia Bennet, whom we know to actually be unmannered and wild. Proposals that Charles, “bring Caroline to heel” are repugnant. Caroline is a human woman, not a dog. However one imagines speech in the Georgian era, these are not words used by Jane Austen. Suggestions that Charles cast her out of the family home or be obliged to lock her up, when not said in jest, are terrifying. In this society, these things could happen and would be catastrophic to Caroline.

Even the mere suggestion that Charles should control his sister’s speech in in a start contrast our exaltation of Elizabeth’s lively manner. Jane Austen allows us to find Mr. Collins distasteful for suggesting that Elizabeth controls her tongue, “and your wit and vivacity, I think, must be acceptable to her, especially when tempered with the silence and respect which her rank will inevitably excite” (P&P Ch. 19). Yet, JAFF authors want Charles to do this to his own sister! Would it be in keeping with the morality of the creator of Elizabeth Bennet to have a man force a woman into silence? Jane Austen gave women voices and ideas in a time when that was counter-cultural, yet 21st century authors, most of them women, want to send Caroline back to the dark ages.

Some authors have this same abuse performed by a husband that Caroline unfortunately marries for money or through "compromise" (a common but likely ahistorical trope), only to find out he is cruel. There are stories that present this outcome as just instead of horrifying. Again, these are 21st century authors, relegating a 19th century woman to a cruel marriage in which she has few rights and little chance of honourable escape. Occasionally Caroline is married to Wickham, and instead of Elizabeth Bennet pitying the match, as she does for her sister Lydia, she often finds it funny or just. The idea that any woman deserves to be trapped in an abusive situation, or have her wealth stolen from her by a deceitful suitor, is again, repulsive.

The final degradation that Caroline faces is also the most troubling: authors repeatedly deprive Caroline of her rationality. Jane Austen’s Caroline is a rational creature, as are all the women that are depicted in her works. Good or bad, Jane Austen’s women are carefully rendered images of real life and they have motivations that guide their actions. Caroline’s two motives were discussed above and her actions are entirely rational based on her goals Even if we dislike Caroline’s reasoning and acts, we ought to respect her humanity. Unfortunately, many works on JAFF, in an effort to create a more villainous character, twist Caroline into an evil, insane, psychopathic version of herself, bent only on cruelty and hatred, without any clear goals.

As for authors who relegate Caroline to a life of perpetual dependence, Jane Austen herself only consigns a single woman to this fate, Miss Bates in Emma. Jane Austen treats Miss Bates with respect and kindness, creating a town around her that takes care of both her physical and emotional needs. Emma is admonished by Mr. Knightley for ridiculing Miss Bates before other members of the community. To Jane Austen, a woman in perpetual dependence should excite pity, not disgust or laughter. Miss Bates also is granted a voice and we, along with Emma, are encouraged to listen to her and respect her value as a person.

The reason that all of this is so disturbing and repugnant is because these words are written by modern authors, people who should understand how oppressive and wrong the subjugation of women was in the Georgian era. For those authors, many of them women, to attack a fellow woman with the very tools of the patriarchy that we have ourselves struggle to throw off and fight against is horrid. Jane Austen does not resort to these methods; Caroline Bingley is not bent under the power of her male guardians in Pride & Prejudice. The only woman who is, Eliza Brandon, is an example we are supposed to pity, not scorn.

Worse, Mr. Darcy himself is an active participant in almost every bad action of Caroline. Yet, while Darcy is forgiven completely, and often given excuses like shyness for his actions, Caroline is again and again vilified. It is a double standard of the worst kind and one that especially female authors should recognize as unfair and unjust. Yes, we do not see Caroline’s apology or reformation in Pride & Prejudice, but she is also not a main character. Many JAFF works almost seem to forget Darcy’s interference or rudeness towards Jane and the rest of the Bennet family. He is excused and Caroline is hated and destroyed.

Instead of a human with rational motives, JAFF authors imagine Caroline as a demon. Caroline becomes a playhouse mirror imagine of Elizabeth, who is often turned into a “Mary-Sue” or a picture of perfection. This Carrie-Sue (credit to Amelia Marie Logan, who coined the term) acts in a way that Caroline of Pride & Prejudice never would. Carrie-Sue attacks and insults people in public without motive, including her own brother; she continues to pursue Darcy after he is married; she continually attempts to “compromise” him; and she will do anything no matter the cost. She is a grotesque in the worst sense of the word and she is not of Jane Austen.

If there is one overall thesis of Jane Austen’s works, it is that women are rational creatures. Elizabeth Bennet and Sophia Croft (Persuasion) actually use that term explicitly, but every heroine in Jane Austen demonstrates this same theme. We see inside their heads and we understand their humanity. Even the women we are meant to despise display rationality. Fanny Dashwood of Sense & Sensibility for example, talks her husband out of giving money to his sisters because she is greedy. Lucy Steele lashes out against Elinor Dashwood because she is fearful of losing her one chance at financial security: Edward Ferrars. Mrs. Norris (Mansfield Park), probably the cruellest woman in Jane Austen’s works, abuses her niece because she cannot bear her own inferiority to the Bertram family. She relieves her own feelings of dependence by pushing her niece further below herself. All of the actions of these women are despicable, but they also follow cogent motivations.

This is especially problematic because it is almost always Caroline who faces this treatment. Wickham, a character who actually deserves the term “villain”, is allowed rational motives, most often lust, revenge, and greed. He is allowed to retain his humanity and his mind; it is a woman who is deprived of hers. As I have stated, I believe this is done without malice on the part of the authors, but I would ask them to reflect on every instance, for I know there have been many i their own lives, where another person has deprived them of their humanity based on their gender. It is a pervasive problem that persists in our modern society and we ought not perpetuate it in our works of fiction.

To conclude, Jane Austen does not delight in the destruction, humiliation, or subjugation of women. If we wish as JAFF authors, and as women, to honour Jane Austen’s legacy, then we should refrain from doing those very things and from depriving a woman of her rational mind. The treatment of Caroline Bingley in JAFF is a form of misogyny and as such it should be stopped. This is important because while Caroline Bingley is of course fictional, the representation of women in fiction can perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices in real life. Jane Austen wanted to tell the world, through her fiction, that women are humans worth listening to and worth respecting. Let us leave Carrie-Sue behind and allow Caroline Bingley to finally live in peace.

[warrioreowynofrohan]

I’m subscribed to Wildfell Weekly, so here’s some thoughts on the first three chapters of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I’ve read it before, so there are some very general spoilers for later events, but no specifics.

So, who is Gilbert Markham, from what we’ve seen so far? I would say that, on the whole, he’s a fairly average guy. He has a good relationships with his family; he has a job (important, as we will see later - Anne Brontë has strong opinions about the negative effects of idleness and privilege upon men of the gentry class); he has a pretty high opinion of himself; and he’s good with kids. He is decided not Byronic - his life to this point has been very normal and uneventful - whereas Mrs. Graham is the unconventional one with a mysterious past and distinctive looks.

He is a mix of the practical (looking at the Romantic scenery around Wildfell Hall, he thinks first in terms of its agricultural properties) and the romantic (he nonetheless spends a while looking at the house and daydreaming; and, while telling himself he doesn’t like Mrs. Graham, he powtically describes her “sweet, pale face and lofty brow, where thought and suffering seem equally to have stamped their impress”.

He and his social circle seem clearly of a lower social class than what we see in, for example, the novels of Jane Austen - none of Austen’s rural characters farm their own land, and all of them have servants. In Pride and Prejudice, Mrs. Bennet is offended by Mr. Collins’ assumption that one of her daughters cooked their dinner; their servants do that! Whereas Gilbert’s mother prides herself on her cooking and criticizes Mrs. Graham’s lack of knowledge in that area (which provides a hint towards Mrs. Graham’s background).

He has conventional opinions, and defends them determinedly against Helen’s equally determined advocacy of unconventional ones, and he’s very annoyed by how effectively she reveals the unconscious double standards buried in his views. Mrs. Graham’s views - that young men should not be expected to resist all temptation unaided, and that young women should not be sheltered even from the knowledge of evils, but that both should be aided by the experience of others - is the same that the author expresses in the Preface:

When we have to deal with vice and vicious characters, I maintain it is better to depict them as they really are than as they would wish to appear. To represent a bad thing in its least offensive light is doubtless the most agreeable course for a writer of fiction to pursue; but is it the most honest, or the safest? Is it better to reveal the snares and pitfalls of life to the young and thoughtless traveller, or to cover them with branches and flowers. O Reader! if there were less of this delicate concealment of facts - this whispering of ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace - there would be less of sin and misery to the young of both sexes who are left to wring their bitter knowledge from experience.

[gothhabiba]

I want to have conversations about Netflix's Persuasion that are very different from the ones I've seen. For the most part we seem to have retreated into a literary-textual discussion about what Jane Austen's Persuasion "means" or "is about" and how the adaptation differs from this "meaning" (in 'moral,' tone, composition, plot). At their best, these conversations take a socially situated view in speculating on why an adaptation (and all the people who go into making one) might have felt that changes in a specific direction were necessary or desirable in presenting Persuasion to a particular audience—at their worst (by which I mean: most mundance, least challenging), they merely catalogue how the adaptation is "different from" the text, including in terms of general historical inaccuracies, with a sense of indignation approaching to violation.*

I see people saying that the "modern" tone, dialogue, jokes, and narration style are out of place in what is supposedly (from dress, technology, and other details) a period piece—they specify that they don't mind modern adaptations (Clueless, even Bridget Jones' Diary is mentioned with generosity!) so long as they bill themselves as such (e.g. "if they wanted to make a modern adaptation, they should have just made a modern adaptation"). We don't expect a period piece to make such unabashedly modern jokes or references.

But why not? We are offended when our expectations of what a "period piece" is are transgressed against. But why? We insist that these modes of storytelling (the "period" and the "modern") must not be mixed. But why not?

Quotations of the more obviously "modern" concepts and turns of phrase in the dialogue are trotted out ("I'm an empath," "exes," "alone, in my room, with a bottle of red," "if you're a 5 in London you're a 10 in Bath")—but then we kind of stop there, as though it is enough to say that this sounds awkward in a period setting.

Of course it sounds awkward in a period setting—it's obvious enough that even the writers undoubtedly knew it sounded jarring and were doing it on purpose. So what might this instinctive recoiling from this type of period mish-mash tell us about what we usually hope to get out of period pieces? Obviously every adaptation is "modern" in that it is produced for an audience of the producers' contemporaries, and in that the sensibilities of the "original" will inevitably be shifted in a thousand ways more or less perceptible to us—so what we can we learn from the places where these shifts raise our ire, as opposed to the places where they go largely unnoticed (a shift to a modern concept of "romantic" love that removes much of the requirement of tutelage, for example—no adaptation that I know of has Mr. Bennet tell Elizabeth to look up to her husband "as a superior")?

Literary-critical-style analyses of the adaptation complain that it got Anne Elliot "wrong" (interestingly, the people saying this have pretty different interpretations of her character amongst themselves). I don't think this is untrue so much as I wish we could push this conversation further. Assertions that the adaptation "failed" assume what its goals were—but what can we deduce about the team's goals from interviews (which I admit I haven't read) or from the film itself? Why do these goals offend us so much? We have a feeling that an adaptation has to "respect" its source material (I recall one person in a youtube video essay baldly stating as much)—but why?

What happens when an adaptation does not respect its source material, in terms of literary or adaptation / book-to-film studies or in terms of the commercial marketplace for movies? How does this movie reveal its own assumptions to us? How does it reveal our assumptions to us? Has it stumbled onto anything clever in its attempt to be more, well... 'clever'? What's going on with the audience-addressing narration? What pitches and shifts does that produce? How does it compare to Austen's narration? Why is this kind of question fruitful or unfruitful to ask of an adaptation?

For anyone who doesn't already get it, this isn't a 'defense' of Netflix's Persuasion (nothing with so much money behind it needs me to defend it). I just wish we were asking more interesting questions!!!

*Of course the language of fandom is frequently self-consciously exaggerated and emotional, as well as based around collective rituals of sharing and commenting, assuming a framework and an idiom that is common to those of others in the same spaces, for fun. This kind of indignation is fun! I get it! As Elizabeth Bennet says, hating something is a spur to one’s genius. And some of these literary-textual discussions are genuinely insightful and convincing. There's nothing "wrong" with these discussions. They're just not exactly what I want to read and therefore I'm making that everyone's problem.

[aneshza]

Pride and Prejudice

The book Pride and Prejudice was written by Jane Austen. It was written during the Victorian period and the setting is in the 19th century in rural England. It is a gothic novel with a pure female heroine and a handsome, brooding older man. Pride and Prejudice is about two lovers who fall in love with each other unexpectedly. Both the protagonist has great pride in themselves, but they are also prejudiced, they criticize each other at first but the perspective of the man towards the woman changes when he notices the behavior and personality of the woman, and he begins to like her. However, the woman was different, he hated the man for a long time but her perspective of him changed when the man did everything for her and made ways and solutions to her and her family’s problems.

My favorite character in the novel is Elizabeth, the main character. She is the second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. She is a different kind of woman in their society. I can relate to her because I also don’t like people who are prejudiced, and I ignore them like she ignores other people who discriminate against her. Even though she has great pride, she tries to understand others like Mr. Darcy. And I also try to understand people, especially if I’m finding the reason why they treat me and others differently. I want to know the truth behind every person’s mystery.  She loves her family so much, so do I. We are very concerned about them especially if something bad happens. She is the second child, and so am I, and we feel responsible if our eldest sibling is in trouble, we must act like we are strong and dependable, even if we are not the firstborn, we must also show leadership and have an elderly manner. Also, she cherishes people who show concern for her and her family, and I also love and care for my parents’ families and friends, showing sympathy, and lending a hand if they need it.

She is the kind of woman who wants to know the truth behind everything, behind those events and lies. I liked how she acts like she never cares about people judging her, as long as they never step on or touch her private life. She never let society eat her, be influenced, or succumb to their judgment. She is beautiful, brave, and the kind of woman that I liked the most. I believe that everyone is built differently, but having a mindset of not allowing the world to influence how you act is a big deal. Right now, I’m trying not to be like society wants me to be, but following what is right, standing on my foot, without stepping into the lives of other people.

Pride and Prejudice can be seen as a type of novel where social class matters, but a female heroine is a unique kind of woman who has an unshakable determination to do what she wants to do, not go with the flow of society. The way of living of people back then in the Victorian period was illustrated in this novel, what is significant, what is the standard, and what is the destiny and life in their era.

[emilysidhe]

Does anyone know if there’s been any historical literary criticism on why Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice is called “Mr. Collins”? Because if he’s inheriting the estate because it’s entailed away from the female line, then he must be descended through the male line, which means he and Mr. Bennet should have the same surname.

[princesssarisa]

Since @bethanydelleman has been posting about blatantly wrong statements that have been made about Pride and Prejudice (by one specific author, but that author isn't the only one who does it), I thought I would share a minor one I once read.

I once came across an online discussion of Mrs. Bennet, which (rightly) criticized the tenancy of fanfic to portray her as having abused Elizabeth all her life.

Amid the accurate arguments that just because Elizabeth is Mrs. Bennet's least favorite daughter doesn't mean she abuses her, there was one inaccurate claim. Someone wrote that we shouldn't assume Elizabeth is really Mrs. Bennet's least favorite daughter, per se, because Mrs, Bennet "only says it in a tantrum" after Elizabeth rejects Mr. Collins' proposal.

Except that's not true.

It's not Mrs. Bennet herself who says calls Elizabeth her least favorite daughter; it's the omniscient narrator. And not during Mrs. Bennet's anger about the rejected proposal either. On the contrary, the narrator says it when Mrs. Bennet happily thinks Elizabeth is going to marry Mr. Collins, as an explanation of why she was less excited about that pending marriage than about Jane and Bingley's.

Elizabeth was the least dear to her of all her children; and though the man and the match were quite good enough for her, the worth of each was eclipsed by Mr. Bingley and Netherfield.

While it certainly doesn't make Mrs. Bennet an abusive mother, the fact that Elizabeth is her least favorite daughter is canon.

That passage above might also undermine the popular claim that Mrs. Bennet is only being practical and trying to secure her own future and her daughters'. If this were true, then wouldn't Elizabeth's apparent pending marriage to Mr. Collins be her greatest joy, since it would ensure that she could still live at Longbourne with them after Mr. Bennet dies? Yet her response is effectively just "Meh... that's nice... but Jane and Bingley!" She doesn't seem to care much about it until Elizabeth makes it clear that it won't happen. I'm very much a proponent of "Both Bennet parents are bad in different ways," and just because Mrs. Bennet has some valid concerns and is treated badly by her husband doesn't mean she deserves much defense.

[jackoshadows]

"A Darcy who falls in love with Jane Bennet is not the Darcy in the story Austen is writing. In the same way a Jon Snow who falls in love with Sansa Stark is not the Jon Snow in the story George R R Martin  is telling. "

Yes, exactly. I was just talking to someone about this. Their Jon is not all the same character, I'm convinced none of them have read the books. There's no way one can read his chapters and come out of it saying he will fall for someone like sansa, he just loves warrior and independent women so much. Sansa is the exact opposite of what he wants. The fact that people put this ship on the same level as jonrya or jonerys just because he is related to these women is insulting and I'm not even a die hard jon stan.

As I mentioned in my previous ask, my interpretation of Jon has always been that he has a lot of respect and love for the characters who are proactive, the go-getters who decide what they want to happen and then actively work towards making that happen, the characters who don't settle but want more for themselves. You are right in that he does like the independent and aggressively proactive female characters.

And yes, I used the P&P example to highlight the absurdity of the Jonsa fandom. For the non ASoIaF readers, It’s like reading P&P and thinking that Darcy and Jane or even Darcy and Miss Bingley is the superior ship.

Imagine Darcy/Jane shippers hating on Lizzy for walking in all that mud to Netherfield park and all these essays on how Lizzy’s a NLOG undeserving of romance or how any criticism of Miss Bingley’s treatment of Jane and Lizzy is from women who have internalized misogyny or how we are against the Darcy/Jane ship because we are ‘sexist dudes’ who hate beautiful, girly girls.

Imagine these shippers arguing that Darcy/Jane is what is actually happening in the books and not Darcy falling for Elizabeth. That every interaction that Darcy has with Elizabeth is actually telling us something about Darcy and Jane. And that Jane and Mr. Bingley is actually just a stepping stone and foreshadowing for Jane and Darcy happening.

For ex., take this bit in the book:

"To walk three miles, or four miles, or five miles, or whatever it  is, above her ankles in dirt, and alone, quite alone!  What could  she mean by it?  It seems to me to show an abominable sort of  conceited independence, a most country-town indifference to  decorum."

"It shows an affection for her sister that is very pleasing," said  Bingley.

"I am afraid, Mr. Darcy," observed Miss Bingley in a half  whisper, "that this adventure has rather affected your  admiration of her fine eyes."

"Not at all," he replied; "they were brightened by the exercise."  A short pause followed this speech, - Pride and Prejudice, chapter 8

Imagine reading the above and interpreting that as Darcy talking about Jane’s eyes, not Elizabeth’s. That while saying the above, in his mind he is thinking of Jane up above in her room. Anyone would think this person is living in cloud cuckoo land right? This is precisely how normal asoiaf readers feel about the Jonsa fandom.

Imagine these shippers saying that Darcy is not attracted to Elizabeth’s intelligence and wits, no he is attracted to snobby Miss Bingley’s love for rules and propriety or to Jane’s beauty and sweet, gentle nature.

Imagine if someone argues that a true Darcy fan would only ship Darcy and Jane, that Darcy and Jane was what Austen intended all along and that’s what happened off page...

The thing is that no matter if some shippers want Darcy and Jane Bennet to be in a relationship, for Jane to get the beautiful grounds of Pemberley and a handsome husband and children or they ship Darcy and Jane together because Jane’s more beautiful than Elizabeth and sweet and gentle and therefore deserves the traditionally happy ever after ending compared to Elizabeth who walked miles in the mud and is therefore a ‘not like other girls’ type, not marriage material - no matter all this, the central relationship in the book from start to end is between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet!

Darcy is not subconsciously thinking of Jane or Miss Bingley all the time, he’s interacting with Elizabeth Bennet. He’s attracted to Elizabeth’s mocking of the rules for ladies, to her pretty eyes brightened by walking miles in the mud, by her opposing him and arguing with him and matching wits with him. All the while, the more beautiful Jane’s right there. Again, TO MAKE DARCY FALL IN LOVE WITH JANE, ONE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE DARCY’S ENTIRE PERSONALITY. THIS WOULD THEN NO LONGER BE MR. DARCY.

To ship Jonsa, one has to change Jon’s entire personality and story right from AGoT, Chapter I. They have to remove all the themes about underdogs and valuing the person instead of giving importance to societal prejudice from his story.  They have to remove his important relationships with Arya and Sam Tarly. These relationships are important because it defines who he is as a character, makes him a fully realized three dimensional character. They have to make him pathetically self loathing. Take away his self esteem and self worth. Remove his entire arc with the Freefolk. Make him a side character in Sansa Stark’s story of being QITN (Like the TV show did), instead of a politically savvy strategist main character with identity issues and being instrumental to dealing with the threat from beyond the Wall.

The only way anyone is going to ship Jonsa is if they skip all of Jon’s chapters, have never read the books or deliberately misread or misinterpret the text to try and shove one’s nonsensical crackship in there.