#they aren't exactly bad

[bethanydelleman]

Your entire argument boils down to, "Charlotte is a benevolent figure." and I'm sorry, but that's just not in the book. Saying Charlotte married for money is 100% true, she certainly didn't marry for love and it's money that makes that comfortable home. People don't perceive it as negative because she married for a small amount of money and didn't hurt anyone in the process, but it's still marrying for money. Also, Longbourn ain't a bonus, it's mentioned as part of the attraction at engagement:

Sir William and Lady Lucas were speedily applied to for their consent; and it was bestowed with a most joyful alacrity. Mr. Collins’s present circumstances made it a most eligible match for their daughter, to whom they could give little fortune; and his prospects of future wealth were exceedingly fair. Lady Lucas began directly to calculate, with more interest than the matter had ever excited before, how many years longer Mr. Bennet was likely to live; and Sir William gave it as his decided opinion, that whenever Mr. Collins should be in possession of the Longbourn estate, it would be highly expedient that both he and his wife should make their appearance at St. James’s

(Not Charlotte's voice because she's polite, but this is certainly part of her calculations when deciding to go after Collins)

Also, if Charlotte's grand plan is to get her brother into livings, why aren't the brothers visiting instead of a sister? Do the Lucas boys even have university educations? Because that is a requirement, and it's pretty expensive to get them.

However, it's not just conjecture that Charlotte does things with ulterior motives or at least considers the benefits to herself. Here is her considering Elizabeth's marriage prospects and how it would benefit her:

In her kind schemes for Elizabeth, she sometimes planned her marrying Colonel Fitzwilliam. He was, beyond comparison, the pleasantest man: he certainly admired her, and his situation in life was most eligible; but, to counterbalance these advantages, Mr. Darcy had considerable patronage in the church, and his cousin could have none at all.

Patronage in the church is for Charlotte, not Elizabeth. Elizabeth has zero use for that. And Charlotte is weighing that equal with the fact that Colonel Fitzwilliam is a way better fit for Elizabeth (from the information she has). That's some pretty motivated math.

Mr. Bennet also perceives Mr. Collins as flattering for gain, otherwise he wouldn't have said this:

“Dear Sir, “I must trouble you once more for congratulations. Elizabeth will soon be the wife of Mr. Darcy. Console Lady Catherine as well as you can. But, if I were you, I would stand by the nephew. He has more to give. “Yours sincerely,” etc.

Being ambitious and wanting to have a higher income isn't a sin, it's just what people do. Charlotte isn't stepping on anyone to get higher, so it's morally neutral at worst, but it is exceedingly normal of her to want to improve her situation in life. It would be far more shocking for the Collinses to be content, most people try to move forward in their careers and incomes.

Charlotte is presented as morally ambiguous in Pride & Prejudice. Her motives are understandable, but what she did is something no Austen heroine would ever do. She's morally better than Caroline, but worse than Elizabeth. The narrator leaves it up to us to decide if her decisions were worth the cost.

Common misconception about Mr. Collins in Pride & Prejudice is that he's sucking up to Lady Catherine to retain his position in the church. This is not true, the living is his for life, he's sucking up for more, as Elizabeth observes: Very few days passed in which Mr. Collins did not walk to Rosings, and not many in which his wife did not think it necessary to go likewise; and till Elizabeth recollected that there might be other family livings to be disposed of, she could not understand the sacrifice of so many hours. (Ch 30)

It was possible at the time for a rector to hold multiple livings, they would install a curate for about £50/year and pocket the rest of the income.

Also, it was nigh impossible to remove a clergyman once he was installed at a living. This example is from the book Fashionable Goodness, Christianity in Jane Austen's England by Brenda S. Cox (TW: violence against pregnant women):

Dr. Free seduced his housekeepers, resulting in five illegitimate children; caused one of the women to miscarry; let his pigs desecrate the graveyard, and kept cattle on the church porch; sold the lead off the church roof; cut down and sold trees not belonging to him; left the parish for long periods of time; and refused to marry and bury his parishioners. Eventually, when he offended a gentry family over a burial, they lodged a complaint. This led to seven years of expensive trials, at the Bishop of Lincoln's personal expense. Finally Dr. Free was removed from his living, eventual dying as a beggar. (Ch 10)

(And now you can see why Darcy really didn't want Wickham to be given a living!)

Mr. Collins and Charlotte are not being irrational in their devotion to Lady Catherine, a second living could double their income without adding very much at all to their work. Charlotte might have the added benefit of Mr. Collins spending some time at his other living during the collection of tithes. Now I do think Jane Austen found this kind of behaviour repugnant, but it isn't ridiculous, it's highly motivated.

[baejax-the-great]

If I were a writer at a big game company working on a sequel to a beloved series and the higher ups kept telling me to make the game shittier and kept sending my work back to me to be dumbed down even further somehow, and then once most of the writing was done they laid me and my coworkers off illegally without severance, I'd probably gleefully watch as people trashed the shitty game that shipped.

[cdroloisms]

a little ramble about dreblr, meta, and the ever evolving nature of this fandom, i guess?

i don't mean to soapbox, this is mostly just going to be vomiting some thoughts into a post. some recent stuff and a post or two have had me thinking about this fandom and how different it is from when dsmp was ongoing. it's,, pretty obvious that the fandom is quite a bit smaller and less active than that time, and there are generally a lot fewer people actively posting meta and such every day--which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is natural obviously considering that the dsmp ended almost 2 years ago, but does mean that the culture around (?) meta and such has shifted, as well. it's one of those things too i think that is felt so much more obviously in dreblr, which is an even smaller group within this fandom that formed in response to uhhh being very much considered unwelcome by the greater fandom at the time.

that being said, as is the nature of all fandom, dreblr is still a community of people who are largely strangers who have gathered together because of one commonality: very strong feelings and often very strong opinions on the dream smp and c!dream. and i think when the fandom was more active, the entire fandom felt a lot more like a "pvp enabled" zone, lmao -- it was every other day when there'd be some new batshit meta about c!dream or some stream to react to and analyze and fight people about and whatever. since then, though, with the dsmp gone, the fandom has become quieter -- which i think has allowed some of the variation in opinions within dreblr become more and more obvious? and also become a sort of source of friction.

again, this is normal for any fandom. i'm certainly not here to agree with everyone about c!dream always, lmao. but the vagueing of takes is always more awkward on both sides when it's someone where you share more of the same circles. at the end of the day, it's up to each individual blogger's discretion to choose what they will or won't post on their own blog, but at the same time ... when it comes to the community, just speaking for myself, i don't want a super high barrier of entry when it comes to people feeling like they can't join this fandom unless they've got [xyz] experience or [xyz] takes.

when it comes to actual analysis of the source material, though, keeping meta a safe place for people to say "no, i don't agree with this take because of [xyz]" is important as well, which always raises the question of how said disagreements should be handled. and again, i'm no authority, i'm not here to tell people what to do. personally, when it comes to my own blog, i don't like to post very much directly about any one blogger, but I know I've definitely written posts inspired by specific takes before as well as screenshots of takes from the fandom's heyday, etc. i don't necessarily feel uncomfortable with this ...? but at the same time, i know that vagueposts can be a source of discomfort, especially if they're about your take in particular (speaking from experience) -- so it's you know. not the easiest line to draw, I guess, especially when we're talking about a community where different people are going to have different levels of comfort with what they post on their own blogs and what other blogs do in response to their takes. and whatever.

vagueposting, i think, has been common in the tumblr dsmp fandom for a long time, and especially in dreblr -- direct engagement in the past errr usually went badly, so a habit formed of keeping everything we did kind of within our own spaces (hence why many of us don't even tag c!dream or even dreblr on most of our posts; keeping everything untagged, or keeping the tagging system restricted to our own blogs, limited the possibility of trouble). that being said, vagueing within dreblr has become more common, i think, as disagreements within dreblr have become more and more obvious in the time since the dsmp ended. (just for the obvious example: i think it's a bit of an open secret that i, personally, strongly disagree with much of the common depictions of c!drunz in this fandom. i've written some meta about this before, as well as some responses to meta--which i enjoyed greatly, believe me--but i've also noticed (perhaps coincidence) an uptick in c!drunz positive meta every time i or someone else makes a post that maybe skews more negative. which is normal, don't get me wrong, but also a pattern i've noticed. i'm also very aware that someone the arguments i may bring up as counterarguments or structure my posts around arguing against are based on actual arguments i've seen while in this space, which i'm aware is an easy source of friction within dreblr.) and it's easy to say "don't take it personally when it's just metaanalysis," but that's easier said than done, lmao, especially depending on the tone of the vaguepost and a myriad of other factors.

i'm not saying that i have the answers. or, for that matter, a single answer. the boundaries i set aren't going to be the same as the boundaries other people set, for one, and i have no desire to police what other people do on their own blogs. i do miss, sometimes, the more collaborative and discussion-based meta experience of this fandom when it was more active--i might try to more actively reblog posts (including those i don't necessarily agree with) to discuss this server and these characters, bc at the end of the day that is kind of why we're here. personally, i've always drawn a pretty sharp distinction between fanwork and analysis -- i think it's pretty bad form to criticize people's AUs In General (not that i've not. been guilty of it in the past, but i try at least to keep it to criticizing more general patterns within fanwork; look, i'm not going to claim a moral high ground, i love bitching way too much and should probably get a handle on that but asj;lkfdsaf) but when we're talking meta about the source material, barring shit like. you know, harassment and otherwise abusive behavior, i do consider it more of a free-for-all. at the same time, i know that these standards can lead to newer fans feeling like they're going to be booed out the door for sharing their thoughts, which, i mean, isn't great 😭😭😭 fresh eyes can bring a lot of really cool new insights, and it'd suck pretty damn bad to miss that because they don't feel welcome, yknow?

anyway, this is a very inconclusive post, but i thought i'd just throw some of my thoughts out as someone who has been here for a decently long time. and if you want to discuss w/ me, inbox and dms are always open :)

[mint-ty]

.

[yardsards]

"they never dated but they ARE exes" is such a funny relationship for two characters to have. very awkward relationship to have irl tho

[theokusgallery]

I hate that I have reoccurring themes in everything I make. YES this guy has a complex over the fact that everyone prefers his sibling AGAIN. YES he was ostracized by his peers since he was in primary school and never knew why until years later. URGH

[beneathsilverstars]

working on my designs for young odile and gf(?), and coming up with clothes is so stressful... i know id5 probably just drew whatever looked cool but i am sitting here like b but how am i supposed to decide what they'd wear if i don't know the socio-political context, fashion is a cultural conversation not to mention a product of supply chains and labor !!!!

[halamshiral]

the more i think about it the more it bothers me that the fandom is taking for granted that since the south ends up the way it ends up each one of our choices in previous games is wiped out. but like, i don't get that??

yes, denerim is destroyed, but why should that imply that whoever i put on the throne is dead and the choice i made three games ago is null and void?? denerim has been destroyed before in the fifth blight, this didn't mean that everyone in the city was killed.

sure, kirkwall is destroyed too, but why that should mean that merrill fixing the eluvian doesn't matter?? maybe that's how they took people to safety??

the hero of ferelden not being mentioned doesn't sure as hell mean that they don't exist anymore or that they are not fighting. actually, considering they are not in weisshaupt, this gives us even more reason to believe that they are in the south doing what they always did (which is: whatever the fuck they want).

i've seen some people say that since the inquisitor's love interest doesn't mention the other da:i companions in the letter, then they are obviously all dead. i'm sorry, but what the actual fuck???

i feel like if something is not explicitly said in the game people are just assuming the worst and i don't understand why. to me this should also be seen as a way to keep our headcanons intact, expecially where the warden and hawke are concerned, and a way from bioware to not force a hard canon on us. sure, it would have been AWESOME to have our previous choices influence somewhat the way things were going, but this doesn't mean they can't get brought up in future games. most da:o choices didn't matter in da2, aside from the useless 5 minutes cameos, but lots of them came back during da:i. why with veilguard it cannot be the same??

the vagueness to me feels like a way to allow that, in the face of a lack of time and resources for veilguard. maybe in future games, if we get to revisit southern thedas, they will actually pull some of those storylines back and go more in depth on what happened there.

i just don't get why in the meanwhile we all have to absolutely assume death and destruction for everything and everyone. you are just painting the picture way worse than it actually is. all because you're disappointed in your own expectations. but those were your own.

[reminiscentrainclouds]

Overhearing my parents make fun of nonbinary people GET ME OUT OF HEEERE

[abirdie]

Gael García Bernal in Letters to Juliet (2010, dir. Gary Winick)

(these gifs also feature Amanda Seyfried)

Gifs are all 540px wide so you can click to see larger.

[other gael filmography gifsets]

[hexjulia]

hate when you look at the instructions of some humongous pill and the language used makes it sound like you HAVE to swallow it whole or something bad will happen.

And then you look up further instructions because you've been attempting not to choke on the thing for 10 minutes only to find something like 'if your patient is like, super disabled you can cut them in half. 🫲🥺 🫱 or grind them up. Whatever. fuck u.' on the manufacturer's site. Oh alright these pills specifically don't actually have much in the way of a time release mechanism. There's no mention of that anywhere. you just love making people choke down near airpod sized objects i guess.

[carnage-cathedral]

also hey anon, if you're really gonna send me long, vitriolic hate anons telling me I don't know anything about cat behavior, maybe ask a few questions to get the facts straight. this cat DOES have a routine, but he's also a rescue, has been through recent trauma (literal fucking house fire), and has not fully acclimated to our roommate's pets yet. so naturally, he's gonna act a little fucking weird. I've known this cat his whole life, raised him from a kitten, and I know what his signals are and what his little forms of communication are, what it looks like when he asks for food, water, attention, etc. and I can say with absolute fucking certainty that his behavior is weird as fuck right now. more to the point, you don't actually know shit about the situation, you're basing your opinion off of my psychosis and sleep deprivation fueled tumblr rants. also, really fucking weird thing to send anon hate about, buddy

[random2908]

Today, the woman who sat next to me in choir this past season (new this year) was introducing me to an old friend of hers. Her friend was saying it was great she was in choir because she was a good singer, and she said she always listens to me. I was like, well, I'm not the best person to listen to because it's only my second year, and there are songs I don't know that well yet.

(It's a religious choir so it's the same songs every year, but it's also like probably 40+ songs that we have to learn in 2 1/2 months; people who come year after year have the whole thing memorized, but it's a lot to pick up in just one season. She and I both had the advantage of, generally being in the religious community, we knew at least half the songs already--in my case, some from childhood; in her case, she's in her 80s so she's had time to pick things up. But that's still 20+ songs to learn in a very short amount of time.)

She explained to her friend that she got through choir by listening to me. I was like, that's just because I'm loud! I tried to listen to her, too, but she doesn't sing as loud as me, so it's hard. I listen to the (hired) choir director/pianist, because she usually sings along with the sopranos and she's very loud, and obviously knows all the music.

She was like, no, you don't understand. She was like, when you know the piece, when you know what note you want to hit, you have perfect intonation every time.

So that was nice to hear! I thanked her, of course. I told her it was impossible to tell from inside my head, but at the same time I really care about it, so I'm glad to hear I'm doing it. She said she could tell I cared about it, because it's not an accidental ability, even if I couldn't hear if I was getting it right. I told her I wondered if it was because I was trained as an instrumentalist, not a singer, as a kid. When you're playing an instrument in an ensemble, intonation really matters.

Like, I didn't say this, but. It seemed like the majority of kids who were still in band by high school had perfect relative pitch. (Perfect absolute pitch--what people usually mean when they say "perfect pitch"--is incredibly rare; as far as I know I've only ever met three people who had it.) So I always just assumed I had perfect relative pitch, like most of the other kids did, because no one had ever presented evidence to the contrary. I'm pretty sure I have partial absolute pitch, too, just from accumulated age--I don't think I did as a kid--but of course not perfect absolute pitch.

But perfect intonation is a step beyond that. It's perfect relative pitch, plus your voice actually doing exactly what your head thinks it should do. And that's the part I was never sure of. Especially since, once in college, a friend asked me to sub in at her church choir for a day, and then afterwards told me I was sharp. So I just always assume I'm off a bit, and I can't hear it because I'm hearing through my bones and it's a little different than someone else hearing me through the air. But maybe I have better vocal control now than I did at 21. (...I don't feel like I have better vocal control than at 21. But maybe I do.)

But yeah, I do care. So it's good to know I've got it.

[emiliosandozsequence]

tbh i think a lot of you who speak on booktok really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

[shimmerluna]

WAIT Elle has box braids in s3??? I could cry

I don't think she had bad hair in s1 or s2, but I'm excited that they're actually giving the Black girls Black hairstyles instead of having them wear it out.

Before, it felt like the (all-white, for context) hair department was just ignorant about Black hair, so they put wigs on the Black actresses and only did styles that also work on nonblack hair for their own sake/convenience. This theory was especially supported by the fact that Tara, whose 4c hair couldn't really be styled the same as nonblack hair, wore a twistout that would take literal hours to do every day, but she had box braids in s2! and Elle has box braids now!! I'm so excited!!!

I also feel like this fits her bold, fashion-loving personality so much better than leaving her hair out. Our hair is basically its own accessory, and the long box braids are very feminine. Again, I'm not saying not having a protective style isn't feminine or fashionable (I myself am a fashion girlie with an Afro), but having one is another outlet for her creativity, and I'm glad they're recognizing that now.