#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.

[sysig]

Webkinz collecting fever (Patreon)

[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 :)

[waterfallofspace]

Question I love to ask people. Feelings on gigantic sneeze?

Side note great stuff keep up the good work.

thanks for the ask/question!~

that type of thing isn't exactly for me, I'm personally not into huge/loud sneezes, loud noises tend to leave me a bit shaken, I'm uh- I'm not good with yelling and such, so it's just not really an attractive thing for me personally~ as well as all the destruction sfx people usually use tend to get me a bit on edge, but!! that said!! I understand the appeal for others~

and absolutely no judgement here with that type of thing, I'd even be willing at times to engage with it myself, whether creating or enjoying, there are some that do get me!~ Just overall not exactly my thing, for a couple of the reasons mentioned~

thanks for asking! <3

[mint-ty]

.

[mazken]

assorted sketches of my skyrim ocs (it's almost all just the one oc)

[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 !!!!

[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.

[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

[cdroloisms]

I just came across your post about vagueposting and I think I agree with it, but the situation you most likely wrote it about is hardly a "vagueposting" because you could say who it was about after reading it literally one time and that person got jumped and insulted in the anon ask anyway so discussing it in person could be safer...

I'm reeeally sorry for bring up a past situation, but I don't think it's a good idea to write nasty things about another person and specific details about how they interact with the fandom and their post, say things that will help to easily identify a person and at the same time insult them or say how you think they feel about the characters or the story based on your feelings about their one take that you didn't like and then call it's "vague" because there is no name in the post. I mean, It can lead to bad consequences, it literally did in that situation.

And yes, I do think people have the right to discuss bad takes or takes they don't like, but there's a way to do it without giving away every detail about the post and the person who wrote it so everyone knows who you're talking about, and if you're not good at being vague, just discuss it in a private chat.

this ask is old but i was busy last week, so forgive me for the late response. i was debating answering it at all, but i dont want myself to be misunderstood, so just. to clarify under the cut.

i'll agree with you that the post/situation in question wasn't vagueing. now, i don't know exactly the difference between the number of followers i have and the number of followers that the blogger in question has, and when it comes to the number of active dsmp followers i think both of us have even less of a clue. that being said, both of us frequent much of the same circles, so i think it's fair to say that many of my posts will end up being exposed to a very similar audience to his, and so therefore this response about the situation you're talking about will be just about as clearly traceable to a specific person as the post he made that started the situation in question. just as a general observation.

if i'm understanding your ask correctly, while vagueing a take is fine, the vague shouldn't be clearly identifiable if you're going to speak badly about it or disagree heavily. to which i have to ask what, specifically, is defined as clearly identifiable? i think most takes in this fandom can be pretty easily traced to a person, even if that person is not the only person that believes in that take--just as an example, c!tommy as a butterfly pinned behind glass was a take in response to the c!sam and c!dream stream after techno escaped, and grew to be a pretty prominent theme to the point of a zine being modeled after it, but i can also trace it to a pretty specific tumblr post with a name attached. i also think that that same statement probably isn't true for many fans who maybe joined later on in the fandom. i mean, i'm aware that i'm being pedantic here, i'm aware that the situation in question created conflict specifically due to it being within dreblr and in a space where multiple people would've seen both posts and felt ensuing awkwardness bc they know both people either on a personal or acquaintance level, but i mean the same applied ages ago whenever strategist-interpretation and trauma-interpretation c!dream apologists felt like going at it again on the dash.

in this scenario specifically, what made the situation clearly identifiable was the nature of the take that was being discussed. the main identifying detail was the take that the asker was asked about, imo, and i mean ... yeah i mean. most takes that haven't blown up pretty heavily do end up being tied to one or two people? i mean, staged finale is a take that can be tied to three people who argued in favor of it the most before the rest of dreblr got on board only in late 2021. i simply don't think that a take that maybe only one person has argued for (which, i dont remember the statistics of the take in this situation, so i dont remember how many notes it had or how many people in total may have expressed public agreement towards it, honestly) is exempt from discussion when it is posted in a meta or analysis space as an analytical piece, which i do think applies to this take from what i remember about it and how it was tagged.

and back to the discussion of what's acceptable as far as directly responding versus vagueing, i mean, a lot of the discussion i've had on my blog (abt discourse etiquette in General in meta spaces on dreblr moreso than this specific situation, largely bc i did want to avoid commenting on a situation that 1) i really had no business in and 2) i have reason to be biased about. the main reason why i'm talking abt it now is bc hopefully enough time has passed for feelings to be less fraught and bc i want to make certain thoughts of mine clear, in case they weren't clear enough in my original posts abt dreblr and whatever) revolves around both direct responses and vagueing having their reasons as well as pros and cons, and both will likely continue to exist in analysis spaces and generally i don't think it's productive to really comment on what people can or can't do on their own blogs. in this scenario, i don't think "vagueing about one specific person in a way that may be clearly identifiable to parts of their audience" is uniquely unacceptable? a direct response very clearly would make the person in question identifiable -- outside of how it's kind of impossible to make a post vagueing someone in a way where No One has Any Idea who you might be talking about without making the post like, incoherent inherently, if vagueing (not identifiable) is okay and directly responding (identifiable) is okay, then why is vagueing (identifiable) not okay?

now, i understand that any situation where the person in question might be identifiable, some people may take the open disagreement as permission to harass them. and obviously, harassment sucks. part of the whole point of opening up this conversation on my blog was bc i worry, with the way that a single conflict between dsmp opinions has kind of rippled through dreblr recently and the responses to this "situation," that an environment is being created with too much of a forced global consensus that punishes people for stepping out of the status quo in both opinions and behavior, which is obviously bad for the whole community, and was looking to voice some of that and have a conversation on solutions. and i understand that in this situation, a lot of your problem with the blogger has to do with his general attitude in discussing the take and his statements on the person who made it. now, i think you have every right to find his statements offensive and disagreeable and to unfollow and/or block him. that being said, i am not exactly a PR agent, and i want to reiterate that what people do on their own blogs isn't my business and i don't think it should be my business. or uh, anyone's business, for that matter. i don't think that everyone "in dreblr" is beholden to keeping to a certain person's standard for "acceptable" disagreement and "acceptable" sharing of their own opinions on their own blog as long as they're not inciting harassment, which entails, like, actively encouraging harm to happen yk. i mean, you can think that the blogger was being rude or an asshole and prefer to never see him again, that's fine. that's your prerogative. but i mean, i'm not gonna tell the guy how to interact with the fandom on his own blog, haha.

to be clear, im not telling you what you can or can't do on your own blog either. if you wanna make a post about how his posts contain harmful rhetoric, how he's an idiot, or how he's rude bc you disagree with his public posts on this situation or on the dsmp as a whole, i mean, i'm not gonna handwring over it and tell you that you're not allowed to do that. it's none of my business, and i like to think i'm not that hypocritical. and honestly, i think that in a space where we're talking about analysis, commenting on harmful rhetoric happens often and should happen often when it happens -- literally anyone can make an analysis post that has harmful rhetoric, and sure it's fiction and no one has to answer to the analysis police for making a bad analysis post, but i've also been in this space and seen enough truly mind-boggling amounts of parroting takes about torture that make people sound like CIA psyops to go "well saying that someone's analysis post contains harmful rhetoric is really rude" pfft. again, i'm not saying i'm immune to hypocrisy, but i've certainly malded enough times in public about the shit people have said in this fandom to take issue with that. now, getting a little less into the strictly-analysis side of things, i understand that insults like calling someone an idiot may not sit right with everyone, to which i say. block to your heart's content. but c'mon man i've called people idiots before i'm no saint 😭😅

anyway. i hope this clarified some things, anon. take issue with whatever and whoever you like, honestly, whether that's me, the person that i just not-vagued for the last however many words, etc etc -- again, your prerogative. and i agree, it's a shame the situation devolved into stuff like insults in both bloggers' inboxes when it really didn't have to be like that like. at all.

[seventh-district]

again and again i find myself lamenting that audio roleplay isn't taken more seriously by some people. like yeah, they often have a romantic element, and by nature they usually directly involve/address the listener- and i totally get that those things aren't to everyone's taste. no art or entertainment is universally appealing, and that's okay! but.. it still makes me a lil sad that the "cringe" reputation of asmr/audio rp precedes it. there's a whole lot of talent and creativity being poured into these audios by so many people that i feel goes unrecognized and/or disrespected simply due to the medium that the stories are being told through.