Katara and Mutuality in Relationships

There are lots of conflicting opinions about which characters Katara felt attraction towards, which characters she didn’t, and how long she felt that attraction. I see in most cases, people point to quick clips of her faintly blushing or kissing another character on the cheek as evidence, but I think these kind of takes miss the nuance of the purpose attraction serves in a story.

Most importantly, I see these characters treated as if they are actually people capable of making their own decisions. It’s important to remember that these are fictional characters. They don’t make their own choices; the writers make their choices for them for the purpose of telling a story. From that standpoint, it’s more valuable to examine how a character’s story and narrative themes tie into their relationships with other characters. Animators can shove in a kiss or a blush wherever they want, but it’s harder to demonstrate through storytelling how and why two characters might feel attraction towards one another, and how a relationship between them would develop both characters and contribute to the overarching themes of the story.

In other words, when discussing which characters Katara is “attracted” to, I’m discussing which relationships and actions within the narrative build on her established story and arc. Romance is always integrated into a story for a reason, and considering that reason is important.

Unfortunately, ATLA is very much a product of its time in this way. It’s easy to see what romance adds to the arcs of the male characters—but not so much with the female characters. All three canon relationships (kataang, sukka, and maiko) follow this trend to some degree. The primary purpose of the woman in this narrative is to act as a prize for the man for performing some good deed. Once they’re together, she ceases having her own motivations and becomes an extension of the male character she’s dating. This is pretty blatant with Suki—she barely had a personality in that later seasons; she is there to be Sokka’s girlfriend. Similarly, Katara becomes a completely different character—she’s even animated differently—when the narrative pushes her into romantic scenes with Aang. Her character is flattened.

So what is Katara’s arc, and how do the romantic interactions she has throughout the series contribute to this?

Well, that could be a whole other essay itself, but to put it simply, Katara’s arc is one of a young girl devastated by grief at a young age clinging to hope that she has the power to fight and change the world for the better. Which she does as she gains power and confidence throughout the series—culminating in her defeating Azula in the finale.

But the part I want to focus on here is how Katara connects with other characters. She connects with them over shared experiences of grief and loss.

Take Haru, for instance.

This isn’t just a throwaway moment; it’s an important character moment that leads up to growth and the progression of Katara’s overall story, both in this individual episode and in the whole series.

Katara finds her power in the connections she’s able to make with other characters. It’s a powerful driving force for her that makes her a strong character even before her bending abilities develop. Imprisoned was such an important episode to establish who Katara is and what her power is, and adds so much to her arc.

But there is one line in particular from the above exchange that also stands out: Haru says “it’s not enough, is it?” and Katara agrees. Even this early in the series, we’re establishing the fact that despite her drive and hopeful outlook, Katara feels deeply hurt, she feels a deep sense of loss that she opens up about to other characters in moments like these. But unlike Haru…Katara can’t go rescue her mother. Her mother is dead, and we see her grapple with that grief throughout the series.

Another character she reaches out to like this is Jet.

Another important note about Jet is that there are explicit romantic feelings from Katara in this episode. Again, Katara empathizes with another character through a shared sense of loss. Sadly, in this case, Jet manipulated her feelings and tricked her into helping in his plot to flood the village…but those feelings were undeniably there.

That was the tragedy in this episode, but it also gives the audience so much information about Katara as a character: what motivates her, and what she wants. Katara is established as a character who wants someone who will connect with her and empathize with her over her loss—her greatest sense of trauma. She wants to help others but also receive support in return. The reason why she was smitten with Jet, beyond just initial attraction, is because he gave her a sense of that before Katara realized his true motivations.

A lot of people make the claim that Aang is good for Katara because he also feels a sense of great loss and trauma. And while on paper that’s true…does he really demonstrate that? I just gave two examples of characters Katara connected with this way, and both responded with deep empathy to what she said. Very early on in the show—the third episode—Katara attempts to connect with Aang the same way. How does he respond?

Just compare this exchange to Haru and Jet. No effort to empathize, not even a “sorry for your loss” or anything. It’s a stark contrast, and the reason for that is because this narrative entirely centers Aang. Katara’s narrative always seems to be secondary to his when they’re together—which is exactly my point when I say this relationship has a fundamental lack of mutuality. It’s built that way from the beginning of the series. It does not add to Katara’s arc nor establish what about this dynamic would attract her.

And, look, before someone jumps down my throat about this…I’m not saying Aang is a horrible person for this response. I think it’s a sign that he’s immature and has a fundamentally different approach to problems than Katara. Katara is a character who has been forced to take on responsibilities beyond her years due to being a child of a war-torn world. Aang’s approach to problems is avoidance while Katara never had that luxury. It doesn’t mesh well.

This is all in Book 1. I honestly could have gotten on board with Kataang if the series meaningfully addressed these issues…but it didn’t. In fact, they actually got worse in some ways.

Back to Katara’s mother. We’ve established that this is a core part of Katara’s character and like in the scene with Haru, she indicates that this is an unresolved issue that pains her. But then, in Book 3, Katara actually does get a chance to confront this pain.

This would have been a powerful moment. Surely the character who is meant to be her partner, her equal, would have been there for her. Surely he would have understood and supported her, fulfilling her narrative and adding to her story.

But Aang didn’t do that. I won’t go into details because there are a million analyses out there on The Southern Raiders, but Aang’s response to Katara was the opposite of understanding. He got angry with her, insinuated that she was a monster for wanting revenge, and tried to dictate her behavior according to his own moral values. And importantly, from a narrative standpoint, he did not go with Katara. One of the most important events in her arc, and Aang didn’t support her—he actually tried stopping her. He didn’t contribute to her growth and development.

Also noteworthy:

Even at the end of the episode, Aang clearly doesn’t understand at all what Katara is feeling. This line demonstrates it perfectly. He thinks she forgave him when that wasn’t the case at all…but of course, he didn’t even accompany her, so he didn’t see what actually took place. His worldview is fundamentally different from hers, and he’s consistently too rigid in his morality and immature to center Katara’s feelings.

Throughout Katara’s whole arc, her most significant character moments, Aang’s character just doesn’t come through the way Katara’s constantly does for him. Their narrative lacks mutuality. When Katara and Aang are together, she becomes an accessory to him. The ending scene is a perfect demonstration of this.

Now, to address the elephant in the room.

Which character does actually add to Katara’s narrative and support her growth as a character?

Correct! I just talked about how important The Southern Raiders is to Katara’s character and story, how it’s a chance for her to finally address the grief she’s been carrying since Book 1. And who stood by her side throughout this pivotal moment? Right—Zuko did.

You can talk all you want about how he’s a “colonizer” while Aang’s people suffered genocide, but you’re forgetting that “show, don’t tell” is one of the most basic aspects of storytelling. The fact is, despite how it looks on paper, Zuko was the one there for Katara at her critical moments. Zuko empathized with Katara more than Aang ever did—as demonstrated in this episode. Zuko never once brought up his own cultural values. Zuko never once told Katara what to do. Zuko’s position was that Katara should be the one to decide, and that he would support any choice she made. He supported her decision to spare Yon Rha, but he would have also supported her if she decided to kill him. I actually found this episode to be a satisfying reversal to what is typically seen in TV—for once, the female character is centered while her male counterpart takes the backseat and becomes a supporting role to her narrative.

Even before this, Zuko is shown to empathize with Katara.

I think what gets me about this scene is the fact that he’s still Katara’s enemy, and she was just yelling about how she hates him and his people. But despite that, Zuko still empathizes with Katara. She is fundamentally human to him, and he expresses that to her in a way that allows them to connect. Zuko stands to gain nothing from this. It’s true that Azula entered the picture and twisted things around—but in this moment, Zuko’s compassion is genuine. His instinct was to respond to her grief with empathy, just like she consistently does for other characters.

And finally, how else does Zuko add to Katara’s arc?

I don’t think there is any more perfect of an example than the finale itself—the culmination of the arcs and development of all characters.

Zuko and Katara fight together. In a heartbeat, Zuko asks Katara to fight by his side against Azula, because he trusts her strength. She’s his equal—both in his mind, and in a narrative sense.

Then, this:

Both of their roles are so critical in this fight. They both save each other. The scene has such raw emotion to it. These characters were together at the conclusion of their respective arcs for a reason.

This is the perfect conclusion to Katara’s arc. She just played a critical role in ending the war that has caused her trauma her whole life. She just demonstrated her mastery of waterbending (another thing she’s dreamed of throughout the series) by defeating the world’s most powerful firebender during Sozin’s Comet. Even though she had help as all characters do, these are victories that belong to her and demonstrate the growth and power of her character. And to top it all off? She was able to save Zuko’s life. She didn’t have to endure the pain of feeling helpless to do anything while someone else died for her; this time, she had an active role, she changed her fate, and she prevailed. Zuko plays an important role in Katara’s story without dominating it. They perfectly represent mutuality. They add to each other’s stories. Their narratives become stronger when they’re together, without one diminishing or sidelining the other.

So, from that standpoint, that’s why I always see the attraction between Zuko and Katara and why I see it lacking between Aang and Katara. Zuko and Katara’s story doesn’t need some cheap little throwaway moments to shine. It’s integral to both characters’ stories. We are shown not told of the way these characters feel about each other. Given everything we know about Katara, her goals, her values, her past loves…absolutely everything points to Zuko being the true subject of her feelings.

Because let’s be honest. The ending I just described is so much more powerful and so much more Katara than seeing her being relegated back to a doe-eyed love interest for Aang to kiss. It hardly even made sense—Katara played no role at all at the culmination of Aang’s arc. She was relegated back to a love interest, rather than the powerful figure we saw fight alongside Zuko.

the switch from ‘a girl worth fighting for’ to coming upon the decimated village in mulan is THE MOST kick-in-the-teeth mood change IN ALL OF CINEMA

That scene shift did more for our generation’s understanding of the horror of war in ten seconds than Game of Thrones did in eight seasons, and it did it without showing us a single dead body. 

OKAY BUT HOLD ON THOUGH.

I’ve spent the past… five? Let’s say five - the past five years analyzing the structure of Disney Musicals as part of the process to write my own/a parody of them, and the thing is that all the modern ones have roughly the same number of songs - except Mulan.

Mulan has about half, because after AGWFF ends with that unresolved final phrase, there are no more songs until the end credits, which isn’t even sung in-universe.

Mulan wasn’t even the REALM of fucking around - when they arrive at that village, when the true horrors of war are brought into the story, not only does it interrupt THAT song, it breaks the entire fucking mold - the movie’s damn genre changes; it is no longer a musical.

And the Huns represent this from the start - Jafar and Hades are notable for not having proper villain songs, but Jafar does get his Prince Ali refrain and Hades and his plan get sung ABOUT by the muses. No scene with the Huns has any singing, they are mentioned once in song (the second line of Man, natch), and they of all Disney Villains are probably the most serious - no jokes, no witty asides, no sassy delivery of dry humor. The Huns are an invading army who plan to straight up kill a fuckton of people, including children, and AGWFF’s sudden end is the moment when our happy go lucky MUSICAL protagonists finally come in contact with them and their work directly - and it breaks them. Because shit like the Huns cannot exist in happy go lucky musical world. They just exist in our world. The real world. And you can’t sing your problems away here.

The end of A Girl Worth Fighting For is a brilliant use of metanarrative sensibilities to convey a message. It is utterly perfect.

Daaaamn, Tony. That’s fucking deep, my guy

I didn’t spend two years and thousands of dollars on a Master’s Degree in literature to NOT over analyze every text I engage with.

The story of how Suzanne Collins came up with the idea for The Hunger Games can make it sound like a random mashup, two separate ideas–war and reality TV–that became connected thanks to some fortunate channel-surfing. But Collins draws out themes that make it abundantly clear that these two concepts are deeply connected because they both promote the dehumanization of the other.

In the case of war, the problem’s obvious. When you’re in a battle, you’re encouraged to view the enemy as non-human–an object, not a person. It’s Gale’s advice for Katniss from the moment she’s reaped, and something she has to wrestle with through the whole series. But Katniss and Peeta’s experience as Victors makes it clear that the media spectacle also turns them into objects–toys for the amusement of the viewer. It doesn’t matter that Katniss has complex emotions and a complicated life–the viewers just want her to be the girl in love, the blushing bride. Katniss and Peeta are just characters in a story that makes the audience feel appealing emotions. It doesn’t matter who Katniss and Peeta really are; the media coverage brushes away the complexity and nuance that comes with being a real person so the audience can have a nice, easy-to-consume story. There’s no human connection–just consumption. The Victors are barely any more human outside of the arena than they were inside it. 

It’s shocking to us to see the Capitol viewers blithely watching televised death matches, but I think Collins also wants us to consider how the process didn’t start with watching murder–it started with turning real people into objects for our amusement.

I Hate How She Talks About Snow White

"People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White, where it's like, yeah, it is − because it needed that. It's an 85-year-old cartoon, and our version is a refreshing story about a young woman who has a function beyond 'Someday My Prince Will Come. "

Let me tell you a little something's about that "85-year-old cartoon," miss Zegler.

It's legacy endures. Your little "85-year-old cartoon" sold more than 1 million DVD copies upon re-release. Just on its first day. The Beatles quoted Snow White in one of their songs. Legacy directors call it "the greatest film ever made." Everything from Rolling Stones to the American Film Institute call this move one of the most influential masterpieces of our culture. This movie doesn't need anything from anybody. This movie is a cultural juggernaut for America. It's a staple in the art of filmmaking--and art, in general. It is the foundation of the Walt Disney Company, of modern children's media in the West, and of modern adaptations of classical fairy tales in the West. When you think only in the base, low, mean terms of "race" and "progressivism" you start taking things that are actually worlds-away from being in your league to judge, and you relegate them to silly ignorant phrases like "85-year-old cartoon" to explain why what you're doing is somehow better.

Sit down and be humble. Who the heck are you?

And just to add, Zegler summarizing Snow White as a “young woman who doesn’t have a function beyond Someday My Prince Will Come” implies she’s never seen the original film or she’s too dense to comprehend the character, which is another reason she shouldn’t be playing her.

There is so much more to Snow White than that one song. She’s literally like 14 years old and escapes an abusive situation and then is able to pick herself up by her bootstraps and take care of herself and seven others. Sure, she also dreams about romance, but that’s not bad? Young women tend to do that.

And I hate how she and Gal Gadot say “oh she’s not going to be saved by the Prince in this one.” Are we supposed to be pleased by that?? Like oh thank god we can’t have a man helping her out in any capacity. She was laying there dead and he kissed her and that created the iconic idea of true love’s kiss so thank god you’re tossing that right out!

It makes me upset that Zegler and Gadot can’t seem to promote this film without shitting on the original and if they hate it so much why are they remaking it?? Leave it alone.

I wasn’t planning on watching this in the first place but if I was someone who generally tried to watch these bastardized remakes Rachel Zegler alone would be enough for me to avoid this remake at all costs.

I thought we left the simplistic hate towards Disney princesses in the early 2010ns.

I definitely don’t like the disrespect Zegler is throwing on Snow White.

but like? Ima little confused. What’s wrong with something a little more feminist? Idk. I feel like as a kid I would have loved seeing a princess movie where the princess saves herself. Cause like nearly every single one had a prince waltz in at the last second to save her with a kiss? Like??? A near complete stranger? Btw the prince was 31 in Snow White and she’s jsur 14. Like that’s legitimately pedophelia 😭. I imagine y’all aren’t trying to support that right. That it definitely wasn’t true love??? Y’all should know like the old story was the prince didn’t just kiss her. He aka a complete stranger. Came up to a dead girl in a coffin. Beat her up. R*ped her corpse and then kissed her.

idk. Like I don’t like her odd hatred towards the movie??? Like she didn’t even watch it fully???? That’s wack. Like imagine hating the movie your portraying in.

but some of her thoughts don’t seem bad. Y’all just letting the first part kjnda overwhelm the good parts.

OH BUT DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE FUCKING DWARFS. TJOSE ARE NOT DWARFS that’s a random group that are literally not little people. Theirs only 1 little person???? Like what the hell. I’ve heard complaints about the gender and color of the people??? That’s not the problem. It’s the fact they’re not LITTLE PEOPLE. The one role that seems like such a given for them. Is now taken away??? Like. We’d love to see girl little people. Black little people. NB little people who cares! Perfect opportunity! BUT NO? YALL STEALING ROLES RHAT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A LITTLE PERSON FIRST????

Okay, real quick, I appreciate your sentiments, but you're a little mistaken on some major points.

Those are the actual facts.

My opinion is this: what’s wrong with “more feministic ideas” is that this is a remake of a story that was not a feminist story. It was a story about pure and innocent love, and how what you value determines who you are.

The Queen values her beauty because it hides how selfish and wicked she is on the inside—eventually that wickedness comes out and she dies. The Dwarfs value their comfort because they are afraid of change and danger on the inside—eventually meeting Snow White teaches them that they should value the pure love she represents, even though opening themselves up to attachment to her leaves them with broken hearts when they can’t protect her. Snow White values pure, innocent love, (she wants someone to love her) and she is pure, innocent love, with every character she meets. That’s what makes her so beautiful, and that’s what the Queen hates about her, and that’s what the Prince loves about her enough to keep searching for her and wake her up. Her pure, innocent love is what saves her.

That’s not a modern-feminism story. Modern feminism is all about “I can do everything myself” and “I should be affirmed and empowered” and “Loving myself is enough.”

And none of that is as strong or good a message as “Pure and Innocent Love is Worthy.” Worthy of seven bachelors sacrificing their comfort zones, worthy of a Prince searching for a year with no sight or sound, and worthy of the most beautiful Queen’s jealousy. Name me a feminism-story that is better than that. I’ll wait.

What’s “wrong with something a little more feminist?” Nothing, if you’re making an original story that is not named “Snow White.” But don’t sell me urine while telling me it’s my favorite brand of Apple Juice. Don’t sell me something called “Snow White” when it’s not “Snow White” at all, and it’s actually way worse.

£50 is around £4200 now, so about £21,000 for 6 women to live on today for the Bennets.

The Dashwoods at £500/year are at about £42,000 for 4 women to live on today.

Mr bennet definitely messed up, and mrs b deserves way more respect for the immense amount of pressure she’s under

I wrote an entire essay about this my last year of school, and my teacher thought I had lost the plot. He was my most hated teacher for other reasons, and this did not help his case.

I am Here for the Mrs. Bennet Defense Squad. Yes, she can be unsubtle in a major way, but she is also terrified of the alternative outcome. However, for all her lack of tact, she is also hella strategic, as demonstrated by setting up an “oh no I’m stuck in your house” romance trope situation for Jane and Bingley. She’s a clever lady, and she sees exactly what kind of shitty situation they’re in, and she can’t get her husband to do anything.

It’s really easy to read Mrs. Bennet’s inability to be subtle about anything as a sign of stupidity or inability to understand “society” (and the Bingley sisters are inclined to do this and link it to her very middle-class family because of classism) but she is literally panicking at all times about a very real concern, and everyone is just rolling their eyes. No compassion for her poor nerves indeed!

Ok so I started to scroll by. But the problem with the Mrs. Bennet discourse is that it can too quickly swing too far in the wrong direction. Yes, everything about this is (mostly) true. The Bennet women are in a really delicate position. Their safety and continued financial security hangs on Mr. Bennet’s faintest breath. It is in fact a conversation point several times that the girls are not educated enough to serve as governesses, but are of too high a social status to expect marriage to a tradesman. 

The problem is that while Mrs. Bennet is certainly the only one in the Bennet household taking this issue seriously, she's also gone too far in the opposite direction. The point of the Bennet marriage is that it’s bad for both of them. Mr. Bennet married a beautiful, foolish woman and then didn't live according to the economy he would have had to in order to leave her a tidy sum once he died. Mrs. Bennet held herself safe under the happy expectation that she would produce a son, who would inherit the estate and provide for her in her own age.

Once it became clear that wouldn’t happen (and remember Lydia is only fifteen when the book opens, so Mrs. Bennet might only have given up the idea that she would have a son possibly a decade before, when Jane was about twelve) Mrs. Bennet had to focus on her daughters’ marriages in order to ensure the family’s well-being. The problem is that she overcompensated beyond what the society she lives in found good form. 

Mrs. Bennet is a foolish, vain, nervous woman who is often called out in the narrative as an older woman with Lydia’s naturally foolish and selfish character. Her husband long ago realized he’d someone for looks who he was incompatible with personality-wise. The readers (especially modern readers) see his neglect of family affairs readily, and his gentle (and at times less than gentle) mockery of his family (particularly his wife and his three youngest daughters). But importantly, Mrs. Bennet also is meant to come across as a lesson to the reader. A silly woman who married above her station (it’s mentioned several times she secured the better marriage compared to her own sister) Mrs. Bennet doesn’t have the social graces she should have been expected to, as her husband’s wife.

This is an important plot point. Raising Mrs. Bennet up as the only Bennet aware of their impending doom as Mr. Bennet ages is important and adds depth to her matrimonial scheming on her daughters’ behalves. But vitally the way she goes about her work causes Mr. Darcy to hold the greatest of disdain for her and her family. It’s that disdain that helps induce him to persuade Mr. Bingley to leave Netherfield Park. This isn’t truly questioned by Elizabeth, who understands that her mother’s over-eager grasping immediately raised Mr. Darcy’s concerns. Remember, at this time there was an abundance of women who were deliberately setting out to marry men of good fortune, and desperate to make themselves amiable enough to secure that marriage, regardless of their true feelings. Mr. Darcy (and honestly Mr. Bingley too should have known better) would have spent his entire later youth and then adulthood on the alert for women whose intentions were only for his wealth, and not for his happiness. That’s important, especially after we see the great care Mr. Darcy takes with Pemberly and his dependents. 

Mrs. Bennet’s desperation is understandable. Her character (grasping, foolish, too needy and nervous to understand the social graces she must display to appear acceptable to men of the station she wants her daughters to marry) isn’t virtuous. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are intended by the narrative to stand as examples for what happens when people who are not of similar or compatible characters marry. Mr. Bennet grew so disillusioned with his wife that his reaction to his family’s financial insecurity is to make jokes and wave his wife’s concerns away as foolishness. He’s not really concerned with the future of his female family members. Mrs. Bennet on the other hand, doted on for her beauty then ignored and trivialized after that beauty lost it’s attraction, is left to indulge her worst impulses as she tries to snap up eligible young men for her daughters. Importantly, Mr. Wickham easily fools her as to his true character, even after he runs off with her daughter. 

While we look at Mrs. Bennet’s desperation and find it both pitiable and understandable, that doesn’t mean that she’s the better person in the marriage.  These two people could have been better than who they became as they aged. The problem is that in their youth they found a spouse who wasn’t compatible with them, and their own character deficiencies were magnified in the marriage. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are intended as a warning to the reader over marrying for shallow reasons (beauty for him, money for her). Character matters in a marriage, as does mutual compatibility. 

I was just thinking about this topic. I just saw a YouTube comment calling the Prince a creep because...

"he kisses the supposed corpse of a 14-year-old girl he only met once and who ran away from him."

Oh my God, there's so much to unpack in that claim!

"He kisses her supposed corpse" – It's a gentle goodbye kiss, because he loved her when she was alive. As mentioned above, in other cultures, this is much more normalized. Even in America, it was once more normalized than it is today, back when most deaths took place at home, bodies were prepared for burial by their family members, and the entire culture was less death-phobic. To call it "necrophilia" is so ignorant!

"She's only 14" – The Prince is only meant to be 18, just a few years older. And she isn't a modern 9th grader being flirted with by a college freshman: this is a medieval setting, where concepts of maturity and marriageable age are very different. Besides, I don't think the filmmakers conceived Snow White as a realistic 14-year-old, just like I don't think the Sleeping Beauty crew conceived Aurora as a realistic 16-year-old. Their ages are both more symbolic than real, poetic shorthand for "a young girl on the cusp of womanhood," and in Snow White's case, they were probably thinking of the fact that Shakespeare's Juliet is 14. (Her romance with the Prince is filled with Romeo and Juliet-like imagery.) Last but not least, she's never actually said to be 14 onscreen. It's only material from the studio that gives her age. If you'd rather imagine her as 16 or 17, then go ahead.

"They only met once" – Love at First Sight is a literary convention. Just because it's not realistic doesn't mean it can't be real in fiction. If you can suspend disbelief to believe in witches, magic mirrors, and dwarfs named Happy, Dopey, et al, then you should be able to suspend disbelief for Love at First Sight.

"She ran away from him" – Just in the first moment, out of shyness, uncertainty of his intentions, and maybe fear of what the Queen would do if she caught them together. But then she peers back out from the castle and smiles at him. Then she hugs herself in rapture as she listens to his song. Then she comes back out onto the balcony and smiles blissfully down at him. Then, most importantly, she sends a kiss down to him on the dove. A kiss. She makes it clear to the Prince that she returns his love and his pledge of devotion.

It's not modern, realistic romance writing. It's an old-fashioned, poetic fairy tale romance. But that doesn't make it bad, or unhealthy for kids to see, or anything the detractors claim!

Don't want being negative, but claiming that their chaste kiss of true love is wrong or whatever in the world of hook up culture where one sleeps with an absolute stranger often inviting them in one's house is not normal.

To add onto this, the original story is far worse than two teenaged lovebirds having a chaste kiss. Instead Snow White is found by a random king and he basically asks the Dwarves if he can have her body (mind you she’s grown up in this curse so while she’s physically 14-18, she’s still mentally around 7 in this original fairytale) and they shake the coffin so she coughs up the apple and then he takes her away.

Like…I dunno about you but I think a prince around her age that has actually met her before and genuinely loves her and is kissing her tenderly just to say goodbye with no self-serving motive behind it is IMMENSELY better and more romantic.

And not to mention I do fully agree that consent is absolutely important, but I’m pretty sure we can safely count a kiss to break a literal sleeping curse of death as a special case.

@nerdasaurus1200 Thank you for your thoughts and agreeing with me! It’s just that maybe you’re not agreeing with me.

If you’re talking about the Brothers Grimm version of the fairy tale (again, that is not the original, there are many earlier versions) then I’ll just point out, what you’re saying is another misread of the fairy tale.

They don’t shake the coffin, he asks the Dwarfs if he can have her body because she’s beautiful and he’ll “honor and prize her as my dearest possession,” and then they trip over a root while carrying the coffin and it jostles the apple piece free. Then the Prince, “full of joy,” tells Snow White who he is and asks her to marry him “because I love you more than anything in this world,” and the fairy tale specifically says, “and she was willing.”

That version of the fairy tale specifically organizes events so that the Prince actually never touches her or even gets to take her to his castle before she agrees to marry him.

Again, the story is about the idea that what is inside—purity—is what makes Snow White so beautiful on the outside. So when the Prince sees how beautiful she is and falls in love with her, these old fairy tales are just using that phrase as a way to say “he sees how pure of heart she is and can’t help but love her.” It’s not lust.

One more time—in this movie, it’s not a kiss “without consent.” It’s a return of the kiss she already gave him, it’s a fulfillment of the promise that she already accepted. He knows it, she knew it before she fell asleep, even the Dwarfs knew it because she told them about it.

Snow White and Treasure

While I’m on her topic.

I noticed treasure in my re-watch of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Every key character’s treasure reveals their true nature on the inside.

Nowhere is it more evident than in the Queen herself, obviously.

Her treasure is holding the title of Fairest of All. That’s what she cares about. How she’s perceived. After all, why else does she sneak out of the castle through the catacombs? Why does she have the Huntsman do her dirty work—why not just kill Snow White on her own? She clearly gets way too much joy out of the idea of poisoning Snow White.

But she can’t do that. She has to hide her true nature, so she sneaks out of her own castle.

Ironically, her treasure is Being the Fairest—but she’s not beautiful on the inside. She’s ugly on the inside, like a rotten apple! And that fixation on getting her treasure eventually puts that ugliness on the outside, no matter how much she wants to look the opposite.

The next character we have who’s treasure reveals his true nature is Grumpy. (My favorite.)

All of the Dwarves treasure their own comfort to some extent. But Grumpy doesn’t just treasure comfort. He treasures his own safety. After all, what is grumpiness if not a person who has been afraid and self-protective all their life? He’s always defensive, always on the lookout for a scam.

Grumpy is the last to change…and the only one who’s true nature is revealed when he does. Also, Grumpy is the only character who’s treasure changes.

Grumpy starts out being the most against Snow White. All of them are, at first, until they interact with her and she shows them what she can do for them.

But Grumpy takes the longest to warm up, because he’s not just afraid that she’ll bring the Queen to the cottage and put him in danger. He’s afraid of feelings. They make him feel unsafe.

I know that sounds weird but seriously. That’s his big beef with Snow White. He clearly likes her in spite of himself, but he’s terrified of opening up, because she’s A) new and different and B) getting attached is vulnerability, and vulnerability is dangerous.

That’s the opposite of Snow White! When she’s being her most vulnerable about her wish, he’s meeting the whole idea with scorn: “Ha! Mush!”

But he can’t help feeling, anyway. Because Snow White is so pure, and so not defensive, she gets under his skin.

And his treasure changes.

He goes from saying “get rid of her, she’ll bring nothing but trouble” to LEADING THE CHARGE to save her from the Queen.

He goes from treasuring his own safety to treasuring Snow White’s safety.

And that new treasure reveals his true nature: Grumpy is sentimental, and feels things strongly. Who is the Dwarf crying the hardest when Snow White dies?

Those two characters show that one’s treasure reveals their true nature, no matter how they try to guard against it or hide it.

The Queen’s treasure of her own appearance reveals that she’s ugly on the inside.

Grumpy’s treasure of safety reveals that he is very vulnerable on the inside.

But Snow White? Snow White’s treasure is not defended. Snow White’s nature is not hidden. Because Snow White is utterly innocent and pure. She just is who she is, beautiful and simple, and that’s what so great about her. She treasures love—and she is loving. She tells the birds at the wishing well, and sings out her wish, for love. That’s rewarded; the Prince hears it and promises her his heart. (She’s his treasure by the way.)

She tells the Dwarves that she’s got faith in his love, and she knows he’ll come back, and they just adore her.

She’s every bit as beautiful and vulnerable on the outside as her treasure of love is on the inside.

When she encounters lost birds, what does she do? Love them. When she encounters orphans, what does she do? Love them. When she encounters Princes openly giving their hearts to her, what does she do? Love them. Her nature reflects what she treasures.

There’s no sign of anything but innocence, no hiding, no disingenuousness—because why should there be? The thing she treasures is a good thing. So that’s what makes her beautiful.

Beautiful enough to be the Fairest of All dressed in rags and dirt.

Beautiful enough to be granted mercy by a Huntsman who’s own life is on the line.

Beautiful enough to be buried in a glass coffin, instead of buried alive when the Queen’s plot succeeds.

Beautiful enough to be searched for and found, against all odds, by the Prince who fell in love with her at first sight.

Someone who values love highly, and lets that treasure shine out through every part of their nature, is powerful. They can strike fear and hatred into the hearts of the most self-absorbed, and transform the most stuck-in-their-ways, and inspire love in anyone who comes into contact with them.

That’s what’s wonderful about Snow White. She’s pure, from what she treasures to her very nature, and needs to hide nothing about herself.

the fact that tangled has a perfect set-up for major miscommunication between rapunzel and eugene to be the final emotional climax of the movie (“why’d you leave me”) but instead sidesteps that in favor of a beautiful battle between the two of them in which they try to out-sacrifice each other because they love and understand each other that much. the fact that they each try to save the other using the best means they’ve got at their disposal, the ones they’ve used their whole lives: rapunzel bargaining with mother gothel and promising away pieces of herself- this time all of herself- in exchange for his safety, Eugene pulling one final scam and trick when he feigns tenderly touching her face so he can actually cut off all her hair and set her free. the fact that Eugene’s plan works but as a result he dies, Flynn dies. (he told us this at the beginning, “this is the story of how I died” but remember- it’s a fun story.) The fact that the swashbuckling rogue and trickster and thief Flynn DIES so that rapunzel, the girl who never got to have a life, can LIVE. The fact that after one final successful trick Flynn dies so Eugene, little lost orphan boy, can rise again in his final and only role as a good man and as rapunzel’s husband- all of these make tangled the masterpiece it is. in this essay I will

OP where’s the essaaaaay

What unites Eugene and Rapunzel, what forms the basis of their connection, is not just their lonely, isolated, unloved childhoods but the mechanisms they each used and still use to try to fill the voids in their lives. And those mechanisms boil down to- keeping busy, whatever the cost. Rapunzel’s opening song is literally a montage of her desperate attempts to fill an otherwise empty day (and empty life) and Eugene steals for the riches, sure, but mostly for the adventure, the thrill, the chase. The motion and color of it and the ways in which it is the opposite of boredom, the opposite of emptiness. 

They are both resourceful and determined, used to doing the best they can with what they have, and as a result they encounter each other and decide to team up. Practicality, not romance, is what drives them together and what keeps them together for much of the movie.

Their methods of filling voids with whatever scheme they can concoct, the skills they’ve both gained from their past experiences, become the means they use to achieve their shared goal: get Rapunzel to the city to watch the floating lights and return her safely home. The scrapes and (mis)adventures they get into on their way are not just filler or fluff; they are opportunities to highlight the natural teamwork they have, the ways in which they complement and complete each other and so help each other: Rapunzel solves the run-in with the group of thugs/misfits with vulnerability and openness; together, they escape from the guards and avoid drowning. 

Already this is an improvement on their previous work, their previous “business”. It has more warmth, it has more success, it has more color. But that’s not all. Alongside their adventures, they start to talk to each other. Confide in each other. Nothing huge or dramatic. When he tells her his name he follows it with the dryly delivered “someone might as well know”. And when he asks about the situation at home, his voice is gentle and kind but not full of depth of feeling just yet. But it’s real, honest connection about their pasts and so contains within it the articulation of their emptiness. It’s the realest relationship either of them have ever had. It’s far realer than anything their past endeavors have ever brought them.

When they reach the lights, Rapunzel realizes this and it comes out in her words expressing her fears and worries about the lights. Understandably, she’s scared finally seeing the lights won’t be enough. But then, and here’s the beautiful thing, she’s scared that it will be. “And what if it is,” she says, tears in her eyes and voice. “What then?” This is the moment in which Rapunzel recognizes that she really has never filled the void in her life, the place where real love and human connection should be, and that the lights won’t do it either. Chasing the lights was her noblest effort yet, a beautiful and real and a valid dream, but still not enough. because the lights are not a person and the lights can’t love her back. 

Eugene’s answer to this is hopeful- there’s always another dream to chase. But he still doesn’t really have an answer for her. He doesn’t really understand.

Until they see the lights. 

Until they see the lights together. 

Their golden glow and beauty is enchanting, it’s everything she dreamed it would be. And then, it’s more. 

And it’s more because when she turns around, right at the end of the first verse, she sees him. Holding her dream in her hands, watching her watch it, experiencing it with her. 

That’s when she knows. 

She hands him the satchel and he knows he knows too. 

He knows that there is no new dream, no better dream, than her, than a real life of love with the person in front of him. 

After the lights happens everything I said in the original post. They’re torn apart and beautifully, magically, unexpectedly Mother Gothel’s ploy to sow discord between them doesn’t work. Rapunzel sees through Mother Gothel’s lie to see the truth of everything, including his reasons for leaving, and when he shows up there is no reproach or misunderstanding to clear away. Like I said in my original post, they understand each other now. 

And like I said in the post above, Rapunzel’s bargaining for his life and Eugene’s cutting off of her hair are the means they use to set the other free. And ultimately Eugene wins. He dies and his death, the first time she truly experiences loss, opens her up to a fuller understanding of and use of her magic and her healing. He is restored to her and they live (truly) happily ever after.

But my point with all of this is, the heart of the story and its own specific magic, is that their skills and habits and means- whatever the word we want to use is- garnered by each of their efforts to fill their life with meaning finally fulfilled their true purpose, finally made them happy. Because they stopped being the end goal of their lives and became the means to their true purpose- the life and love they have with each other. 

THIS representation of a girl really noticing a boy:

Is very different from THIS representation of a girl really noticing a boy:

Just like THIS response to an overprotective parent:

Is totally different from this response to an overprotective parent:

And THIS representation of infatuation:

Is very different from THIS representation of infatuation:

And no. I will not shut up about how people should pay attention to the difference in what filmmakers are choosing to be realistic about from movie to movie, and what they’re choosing to present an idealized version of. Because otherwise, these two movies would be so similar in theme. 

Keep reading

So this is something I remember hearing. Wasn’t Turning Red written from a very different cultural point of view? Of a South Eastern Asian Child and her South Eastern Asian Parents? I remember seeing comments from people of that cultural circle how much they identified with this.

@da-boy-o-kultur I hear what you’re saying, but no, here’s the thing: the phrase “‘Honor your parents, but don’t forget to honor yourself,” is a message that can be very easily translated across cultures. 

Western cultures were built on the Biblical command, “‘Children, honor your father and mother” as much as South Eastern Asian cultures have been circulating ideals of generational honor. 

You would be hard-pressed to find any teenage girl with parents who could not readily say, “yeah; I can identify with my mom embarrassing me; I can identify with my mom overreacting; I can identify with feeling like I’m never quite reaching my parents’ standards; I can identify with feeling like my parents don’t trust me; I can identify with feeling like my parents don’t understand/like/support me.” Across cultures.

That is what happens when good storytelling combines with human beings who can naturally relate to one another no matter where they’re from or what kind of socio-political lines have been drawn across centuries. 

So now that we’ve established that Turning Red’s message is not just a South Eastern Asian story, but a largely relatable story meant to resonate with audiences from all walks of life—permit me to harp on my own point again.

Turning Red and the Little Mermaid are both about teenage girls who feel misunderstood by their over-protective parent.

One of them is rewarded for turning into a monster and making choices that have destructive consequences and lying to her parent. The happy ending only comes when the mom gets knocked unconscious, dragged into the spirit realm, and taught a lesson in self-acceptance by the middle-schooler.

The other teenager is punished for making a selfish choice and lying to her parent: that parent gets turned into a polyp, and the ocean is briefly taken over by a crazy sea-witch.  The films might have something to say about Western and Eastern mythology, but it’s tiny in comparison to what they’re saying about general human values. Instead of valuing a demure girl’s innocent love and her father’s willingness to sacrifice and protect her, we’re valuing funny lust and the “yaass queeen” of a middle-schooler lying to her mother, punching that mother in the face, and teaching that mother that kids should be allowed to pursue whatever destructive impulse comes their way.  ‘The audience hasn’t changed. Disney’s looking to grab as many eyes, families of all cultures and ethnicities, as they can. What’s changed is what they want those families to value.

In the Original Beauty & the Beast, the story is about sacrificial love. In the Live Action, it’s about freedom. One is fundamentally selfless, the other is not.

In the Original The Little Mermaid, Ariel is willing to sacrifice everything to go where she is understood (by Eric.) In the Live Action, Ariel is willing to sacrifice a few things to go where she can explore some more. Another “let’s change the main theme from love to freedom.”

In the Original Mulan, Mulan left her family to save her father and prove she could do things right—when all along, her father loved her regardless of how well she performed. In the Live Action, Mulan left her family to save her father—even though all along she had chi superpowers that she was dying to use anyway. Once more, the remake subtly shifts so that the main character values something within themself, taking the spotlight off of sacrificial love.

In the Original Aladdin, Jasmine teaches Aladdin trust. In the Live Action, Jasmine teaches Aladdin nothing because she’s busy wanting to be Sultan.

What I’m saying is, it used to be enough for female characters to have actual character and integrity, and their stories highlighted those aspects of their nature. Then every other character in the movie learns from or changes because of the Princess’ heart. Nowadays, her character is not powerful. It’s what she does, what she forces and fights her way into, that is focused on—usually to the detriment of all the other characters around her.

In Aladdin, the main character does not believe anyone will see him for who he really is and still choose him. He doesn’t trust anyone in Agrabah to love him the way he is. But when Jasmine first meets him, she trusts him. When she sees him again as a suitor, she trusts him again, despite knowing he lied to her. When he is faced with the reality that he, not Jasmine, has to be Sultan, that’s when he wakes up and realizes that not only does he have to trust Jasmine with the truth, but he can trust her with the truth the way she trusts him.

In Beauty and the Beast, the Beast starts out hopeless and brutal, and then gains hope. Not because Belle talks him into it with powerful-woman speeches or savage one-liners. Not because she hunts down the Enchantress and defeats her, breaking the spell. But because the Beast witnesses that Belle is the kind of woman who’s love and compassion would give up freedom. He’s betting that kind of love can break his curse, even though he started the movie with “who could ever learn to love a Beast?” And then her continued love for him teaches him how to love her, sacrificially.

In The Little Mermaid, Ariel sacrifices her tail and her safety to have a chance at being with Eric—because she knows she understands him, and he can understand her. That, in turn, reinforces Eric’s one big character trait: he believes in the idea of “the right girl” and when he learns that Ariel is a mermaid who saved his life, he sacrifices his life and safety for her, too.

I can go on and on.

My point is: If you’re a Princess in a Remake, you make decisions based on what you want, not on what you love.

Unless you’re Cinderella.

They changed Cinderella to be more passive as well. Compare the original animated movie where, when locked in her room, Cinderella attempts to get out and directs the mice to steal the key from Lady Tremaine, to the live action movie where she gives up and sits singing, and is only heard by the prince by chance.

@edgar-allen-possum

Hi, you're like the fifteenth person to say something like this in response to one of my posts, and I really adore the fairy tale of Cinderella, and I think the 2015 version is the best of that fairy tale--and does what a remake should do, which is enhance appreciation for the original.

So here we go. I'm going to try to say it more succinctly this time.

Cinderella is not a passive character. Passivity is making a choice to do nothing. Cinderella makes choices to do something throughout her entire story: that something is "have courage and be kind." That is an extremely active stance to take when you're being treated the way she is in her own home.

Ella isn't choosing to sit in the tower and give up. She's choosing to keep doing what she has been doing throughout the whole movie: the narrator says that although she was sad, her spirit was not broken, because she knew her time with the prince would become wonderful memories like those of her parents.

The film connects what Ella is doing in the present about the Prince and her circumstance to what Ella has been doing throughout the movie about her parents. She has always chosen to sacrifice her own comfort and even dignity on behalf of her step-family, because she has something they don't: love, and a confidence in who she is. That's why she can feel pity for them. That's why it's easy for her to sacrifice. That's why she can sing in a tower when her Stepmother might expect her to be crushed and crying--she knows who she is and she has what they ruin for themselves, and her stepmother can't take that away.

The fact that she's singing when the animated version was crying is strengthening the character. It shows that Cinderella's superpower is her character and her faith. If she didn't have that, she wouldn't be singing at her lowest point, and the Prince wouldn't have heard.

Additionally, the mice help her despite the fact that they're "just animals" and less anthropomorphic in this film, because the idea is that Ella was kinder and more respectful to them than anyone else would have been. The stepsisters mock her for talking to them. But Ella is always helping the mice even when she herself has nothing. So, again, the way that Ella is helped by the mice in the Live Action shines two big beautiful lights on her strength of character and her faith.

Nothing happens in that movie "by chance;" everything happens because Cinderella has faith. Therefore, the way she is saved at the end is so much more impactful than her screaming through a keyhole at mice.

You know what I realize that people underestimate with Pride & Prejudice is the strategic importance of Jane.

Because like, I recently saw Charlotte and Elizabeth contrasted as the former being pragmatic and the latter holding out for a love match, because she's younger and prettier and thinks she can afford it, and that is very much not what's happening.

The Charlotte take is correct, but the Elizabeth is all wrong. Lizzie doesn't insist on a love match. That's serendipitous and rather unexpected. She wants, exactly as Mr. Bennet says, someone she can respect. Contempt won't do. Mr. Bennet puts it in weirdly sexist terms like he's trying to avoid acknowledging what he did to himself by marrying a self-absorbed idiot, but it's still true. That's what Elizabeth is shooting for: a marriage that won't make her unhappy.

She's grown up watching how miserable her parents make one another; she's not willing to sign up for a lifetime of being bitter and lonely in her own home.

I think she is very aware, in refusing Mr. Collins, that it's reasonably unlikely that anyone she actually respects is going to want her, with her few accomplishments and her lack of property. That she is turning down security and the chance keep the house she grew up in, and all she gets in return may be spinsterhood.

But, crucially, she has absolute faith in Jane.

The bit about teaching Jane's daughters to embroider badly? That's a joke, but it's also a serious potential life plan. Jane is the best creature in the world, and a beauty; there's no chance at all she won't get married to someone worthwhile.

(Bingley mucks this up by breaking Jane's heart, but her prospects remain reasonable if their mother would lay off!)

And if Elizabeth can't replicate that feat, then there's also no doubt in her mind that Jane will let her live in her house as a dependent as long as she likes, and never let it be made shameful or awful to be that impoverished spinster aunt. It will be okay never to be married at all, because she has her sister, whom she trusts absolutely to succeed and to protect her.

And if something eventually happens to Jane's family and they can't keep her anymore, she can throw herself upon the mercy of the Gardeners, who have money and like her very much, and are likewise good people. She has a support network--not a perfect or impregnable one, but it exists. It gives her realistic options.

Spinsterhood was a very dangerous choice; there are reasons you would go to considerable lengths not to risk it.

But Elizabeth has Jane, and her pride, and an understanding of what marrying someone who will make you miserable costs.

That's part of the thesis of the book, I would say! Recurring Austen thought. How important it is not to marry someone who will make you, specifically, unhappy.

She would rather be a dependent of people she likes and trusts than of someone she doesn't, even if the latter is formally considered more secure; she would rather live in a happy, reasonable household as an extra than be the mistress of her own home, but that home is full of Mr. Collins and her mother.

This is a calculation she's making consciously! She's not counting on a better marriage coming along. She just feels the most likely bad outcome from refusing Mr. Collins is still much better than the certain outcome of accepting him. Which is being stuck with Mr. Collins forever.

Elizabeth is also being pragmatic. Austen also endorses her choice, for the person she is and the concerns she has. She's just picking different trade-offs than Charlotte.

Elizabeth's flaw is not in her own priorities; she doesn't make a reckless choice and get lucky. But in being unable to accept that Charlotte's are different, and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Charlotte.

Because realistically, when your marriage is your whole family and career forever, and you only get to pick the ones that offer themselves to you, when you are legally bound to the status of dependent, you're always going to be making some trade-offs.

😂 Even the unrealistically ideal dream scenario of wealthy handsome clever ethical Mr. Darcy still asks you to undergo personal growth, accommodate someone else's communication style, and eat a little crow.

Elizabeth counting on Jane is something I hadn’t really thought about before, but makes a lot of sense.

#my one quibble with this post is that it writes off Mrs Bennet #and while I would absolutely Not Cope with her as a partner or parent #and her execution is awful #her priorities are... at least understandable #she wants to know her daughters are going to be provided for after their parents die #and yes it makes her seem silly and frivolous and ruins her relationship *with* her daughters #but 'self-absorbed idiot' feels like it misses the part of this picture she's there to illustrate #she's superficial but she's also the parent who's thinking practically about her children's future #I don't think she does it right but I can't say she's entirely wrong

see several people have said this and they are missing the ball. in a but the same way as people leaning so hard into defending charlotte for her pragmatic match they misunderstand lizzie's goals in life, actually.

mrs bennet is a self-absorbed idiot. the text makes this very clear and it affects the whole story and most of the major characters that this is so.

that doesn't excuse mr. bennet's parenting choices, but it's important that it's true. it's a fact.

her preoccupation with getting her daughters married isn't the problem, that's a sensible goal as far as it goes, with clear economic and social incentives.

the problem is that she puts her own emotions about everything first, at all times, to the exclusion of being considerate of anyone's feelings at all or realistic about the actual circumstances. this makes her a huge emotional and practical burden on her daughters, who must spend a lot of time and energy managing her moods and cannot look to her for any real support, and who in fact get repeatedly sabotaged in the marriage market by her poor judgment and manners.

she's got an anxiety disorder and makes it everybody's problem. she is loudly stupid and determined never to learn anything new. she is not aware enough of other people's needs to even be capable of actual kindness.

there are a lot of elements in mrs. bennet that are pretty clearly drawn from a pool of features of the generic 'most unpleasant without ever being actually abusive' middle-class mother that continue to resonate to this day.

she and mr. bennet have both comprehensively failed to make any actual effort or inconvenience themselves in any way, ever, for the sake of their daughters. they are both very bad parents.

that's what the character is there for. to be awful and unhelpful and embarrassing and in the way and demanding and never, ever any help to elizabeth. to be the absence of a positive role model, and the evidence of what it looks like to tie yourself to someone you cannot hold in esteem.

(actually very deft of austen to pull some of the gender out of the concept by making it be lizzie's father she identifies with and her mother the example case of a terrible choice of partner, so it's clear that the issue here is the human question of sharing your life with a person, rather than the more obvious gendered issue of putting yourself under the power of a man you can trust.)

she's not there to make the point that marriage is important; austen's readers knew that. the relentless trudge of the genteel young woman's need to make a fine match consumed their lives and the bulk of their literature.

we today need reminding that the pressure was real and practical and economic and not at the base of things frivolous at all, but emphasizing that risks overemphasizing it to the point we miss that that was the baseline reality austen was writing against. she didn't need to say it, only to tease it out and hold it to the light and say, what part of this pressure is real? what part of success will really make you happy, and what kinds of happiness will last and not curdle on your tongue?

mrs. bennet is specifically the societal message that marriage is so important you should snatch shamelessly at any one you can get that isn't outright awful; the pressure to chase a man and count on catching one to make your life work out.

and as real as the reasons for that are, austen is also putting forth the argument that you can't let that pressure drive you to make a choice you'll regret.

being stupid gets mrs. bennet off the hook to a certain extent; she doesn't quite get how having neglected to save up money all these years or arrange better educations was cutting their girls off at the knees, or how bad she's making them look. mr. bennet definitely understands better, he's just decided it's too much work to care.

i think he's more morally culpable because his decisions are more conscious. but mrs. bennet doesn't have any bragging rights.

mrs. bennet isn't being selfless in worrying about her daughters' marriages, either. remember that her chances of remarriage are approximately -0 and she has nothing in her own name; she is guaranteed if she lives long enough to find herself in the same state of dependency Elizabeth is risking. These are her own fortunes she's securing, or rather cartoonishly failing to secure.

when she wanted Elizabeth to accept Mr. Collins it was very much because that would mean she got to stay in her house as a widow, and continue acting as the mistress of the place until she died. as far as she was concerned, this would solve most of her problems.

Lizzie's happiness was not particularly on her radar, not in any realistic sense.

If mrs bennet knew for sure she wouldn't outlive her husband, or if Mr. Collins didn't get Longbourne until she was dead as well, I don't think she'd care about seeing the sisters married even half as much. She'd care more than Mr. Bennet, still, because she's interested in marriage and it's a status thing and she has some sense of responsibility toward them, I think, that meddling in their love lives would satisfy.

But if like her husband she could say 'welp, i'll be dead before that's a problem' her intense interest in the subject would not, I think, survive. Because she is a self-involved person with a limited mental capacity and a worse education, and these facts about her are actually kind of important to the plot.

okay that was an awful ramble.

tl;dr mrs bennet being both self-absorbed and stupid in a way that has caused her to be worse than useless to her daughters their entire lives is explicit in the text, and impactful to the point of load-bearing for both the plot and the themes. you can't get rid of it.

both bennet parents are delinquent in their duties of personal care, and mrs. bennet's motives for being invested in the sisters' marital success are somewhat suspect, since unlike mr. bennet who is secure until his death, her own future comfort is likely to hinge on it.

here are some sleeping beauty plot points/general details that i love and i would love to see more discussion around

the story team did such an incredible job with fleshing out aurora while still making her feel true to the mythos from which she was derived. in every novelization i've ever read that predates the disney film, she's only ever given one line of dialogue (something like: "what is that thing that spins so merrily?") before falling asleep. disney took that same princess and successfully expanded her into a living, breathing dynamic human who is filled with everything- ethos, pathos, everything, but is also authentic to her origins. they also did a genius job at creating a basis for why love is so revered in this tale. true love conquers all, we're told, and it's indeed what keeps aurora safe from maleficent for all these years, as it's the one thing the evil fairy can't understand. yet, the fact that the princess grew up surrounded by the love from the three fairies, which instills that care in her heart, along with the fact that she grows up in isolation, so connected to the universe around her and allowing her to be introspective enough to observe the animals about her and draw a connection to the human condition and that of the consistencies of nature is so...deep and profound and develops her and makes her an evergreen character that will always represent people, for as long as we're around, because aurora's struggle is one that speaks to everyone. she isn't just some "lovesick princess" but a character that's growing up and longs to be able to find her soul's mate and to express the love in her heart in a universe where she was socially excluded and deprived of others outside of her three guardians. as humans are tribal creatures, social inclusion is one of the main pillars of wellbeing. so to take aurora, who is already an innately romantic person, and to deprive her of that just gives all the more reason why the kiss of true love really would revive her. she isn't just some princess who grows to be fifteen or sixteen, pricks her finger, and then is awakened by a prince she never meets. she is someone who was raised in love, grows up and wants to become a woman and share that love and express it with someone else. when she finds it, it's suddenly stripped from her and she's induced into a magic slumber that's meant to symbolize her transformation from girl to woman. then, she's awakened by the same love she'd thought she lost and it's just...the structure of it is genius and incredible and they retain all of the qualities about her in the fairytale and storytelling devices but they develop it so much further and round her out so well but still maintaining a reverence to her source material instead of condemning it or outright changing it and i just LOVE

i don't think enough people realized that, it wasn't until maleficent visited prince phillip in the dungeon and showed him the vision of aurora in slumber repose that he knew that aurora and briar rose were one in the same!!! like this is the moment it all clicked for him and it gave him the drive and determination to slay the dragon in her honor. he realized the woman he loved and the princess he had been betrothed were both one and that's so important and it's just such a plot twist that, again, was so genius of the writers. it proves to us that he loves her enough to leave the kingdom for her and risk damning the princess he had been betrothed to to the curse she was under and he'd take her as she is, even if it were a peasant, but also that his love is so steadfast and true that he'd defeat a dragon for her. 10/10 and is sooo runs along the vein of the lyric "visions are seldom all they seem." this is a plot twist done RIGHT but with so much sophistication that it tends to fly most everyone's radar because it isn't like loud

something i love about the original princess movies is how the female characters are forever in the forefront, and the fact that this film opens with the celebration of the birth of a female child is something that's so special! instead of having to think about how female children weren't celebrated in that time, or it was a disappointment she hadn't been a son, or something of the like, the fact that the spotlight is on their daughter and the opening of the film continues this matriarchy, where all in the land praise this female birth, before the fairies are introduced as their most "honored and exalted excellencies." we need to see more of worlds like this instead of pixar films where there's like not a single main female character lol

THE FACT THAT PHILLIP WAS WILLING TO GIVE UP THE THRONE AND THE KINGDOM "for some nobody" and told his dad flat out to his face without hesitating makes me love him soooo much?? he loves aurora for who she is, not just because she was a princess to whom he had been betrothed to his entire life, and this proves how genuine his love is. it also paints how progressive and open-minded phillip was, seeming to be the first that would ever break the tradition of princes marrying princesses and opening up his country for a new type of culture and reign. love me a freak like that

one of the biggest facets to aurora's character, and something that further develops her relationship to phillip, is how differently she reacts to her guardians when told of the betrothal. where phillip already knows, and is aware of the king and queen and how his duty is to marry their princess daughter, aurora is just finding out that she has living parents for the first time and the future of a nation rests on her shoulders. she discovers she's to be married to a prince and must give up her true love forever. again, before i hear anything about "she just met this man for two minutes in the woods, why is she crying," this is a fairytale with magic that's meant to be archetypical. in the narrative of the film, and in the universe of this world, phillip is her true love- and this is confirmed when it is his kiss that awakens her from the curse. so to leave the one true love who was meant for you, when that's all you ever wanted in the isolation you were raised in, to accept your duty and responsibility over parents you didn't even know you had and to assume the obligations of a nation you aren't even prepared for...it's astounding. aurora does everything right, she even leaves love behind for the good of her people and puts everyone above her own, and yet people still criticize her and say she's dependent on a man and all she cares about is love. meanwhile, phillip never receives any hate, and he's literally willing to give up the throne and the kingdom and start a war before the two countries for the girl "he just met in the woods for two minutes" but he's one of the most beloved princes...it really just makes me think about how misogynistic our society still is, without even realizing it. aurora literally couldn't have done anything better, by our modern standards, but people still condemn her just because? this is definitely a discussion piece i want to hear more about and, in general, i think it would behoof us all to understand why aurora is been so demeaned as a character when her actions, in and of themselves, are exactly what we say we want and would appeal to modern sensibilities

this is a slight sidenote but i always was tickled by merryweather proclaiming, if she had it her way, maleficent would be turned into a "fat old hop-toad." i always felt like this was a nod to the original tale from which this movie was based on, where a magical frog tells the queen that her wish to be with child shall soon be granted and that it, just generally, was a very clever easter egg/allusion

in this film, they have enough action and movement to appease the more restless demographic/traditionally "masculine" crowd, but i love how the basis of maleficent's defeat lies still in the femininity of the three good fairies. it's these elderly women that save phillip from the dungeon and arm him, not just with weapons that will kill another being and are predicated upon violence, but with symbolic weapons that are laced with truth and virtue. i think it really reminds us all how transformative these values are and how, in arming ourselves with them, we'll alone be able to navigate the road to true love (whether that be familial, platonic, or romantic love) which will be "barred by many more dangers" and how it enables us to have a sense of autonomy where we'll be able to overcome anything that's thrown our way while still retaining the core of how we are

i wrote about this moment previously, but to piggyback off of what i wrote about phillip just above...i love how aurora is the most competent human in this world? much has been said about how the plot of sleeping beauty is essentially the fairy worlds dueling with one another and, in that, many of the mortals are somewhat...inept, to put it for lack of a better term. king stefan is unable to protect his daughter with the burning of the spinning wheels, even with all the power he harnesses within his kingdom, and the fairies are quick to see his folly. prince phillip would still be rotting in the prison had the fairies not interjected, and he would be burned to a crisp had they not sprung a final chant of magic upon his, already, enchanted sword. yet, maleficent has to hypnotize aurora for the princess to even succumb to her plan and, even then, aurora is temporarily able to snap out of the magic hypnosis she's put under. i don't think people realize how powerful that is? yes, i understand it's a minor moment, but the hesitation and the ability to counter magic while remaining totally unarmed is something that reminds me why aurora is our main character, despite what anyone else might say.

going along with what i said above, while many are quick to point out aurora's lack of screentime, the film begins with her birth, the plot is sprung forth with every character wondering what they could do to protect her, then when she pricks her finger upon the spinning wheel, she and the entire kingdom are put to sleep. it isn't until she wakes up, that the entire kingdom does, too. she holds the key to this entire universe in a persephone like way and i just love how important it is in the narrative of the film to wake her up. she isn't just this beautiful creature who's valuable because she's pretty, because if that was the case, her being a lovely figure posed to perfection in her slumbering mode would be enough...but the people of her universe value her so much more when she's alive and active and being her own person, that it ensues a fairy war, practically. she's also involved in every single plot, even if she isn't physically present. this is her movie and no one can take that away from her. but, just to restate, the fact that there's so much emphasis in aurora being alive and well is something that's so important

so, it's kind of a given at this point that every princess can sing, but i think the role that music plays in sleeping beauty is the most meaningful and well done? sleeping beauty makes much to do about its classical score and it skillfully combines realistic characters and storylines (like the fairies not knowing how to cook and clean, phillip being captured with no way out, the kings toasting to the impending nuptials of their offspring before getting into a quarrel centered around a misunderstanding) with the fantastical world of fantasy and opera. by giving aurora the gift of song, the narrative is creating a framework that explains her relationship to her singing voice in a way that's even more profound than that of ariel's connection with her singing. it explains why aurora sings more than she speaks and ties in perfectly with the thematic style of the operatic presence in sleeping beauty, which is that in the opera, instead of speaking about it, you sing.

OK but this scene of hubert's/his general plotline and character motivation that results from this is genuinely perhaps the best comedy disney's ever done? hubert is coming off of declaring war upon his best friend stefan, because he misunderstood stefan's caring for his own daughter as a snub against hubert's son. after challenging aurora's father to a duel, they quickly make up, before hubert hears phillip has arrived and rushes off to greet his son. there, the news is broken that phillip is actually in love with a peasant and that he plans to renounce the throne- which will actually cause a war- so that he can be with his beloved. hubert is convinced phillip is joking, especially as he happens to meet this mystery maiden on the date that aurora is set to come home- the most anticipated date for these past sixteen years in the kingdom- and his son is set to be a central figure in the celebration for the princess's homecoming! before he can reason with phillip, his son escapes, leaving hubert to be the one to break the news to stefan. heavy-hearted, as hubert tries to tell stefan, he keeps being interrupted by trumpets and the musical notes that are meant to accompany the princess in her debut to her country. then the fairies literally put hubert to sleep when he finally gets a chance to explain it to stefan and, when they're awoken from this fog like slumber, the first vision that greets hubert is that of his son and the princess??? the same son who said he had no interest in aurora, but was set to marry the peasant maiden. the whole thing concludes in a very charming "all's well that ends well" but i still think the whole "how am i ever going to tell stefan" dilemma, while continually being interrupted, and this king who declared war in 2 seconds flat and minced no words in being so short-tempered was suddenly at a loss for words and so hesitant and fumbling and nervous about this news his son sprung on him lol

one of the most haunting sequences in film is the one above. the three good fairies have endeared themselves to their mortal charge, even giving up their magic for her for sixteen years. their bond is so much deeper and meaningful than it would've been otherwise, as they probably would've blessed her at the christening and then only appeared in her life intermittently, at a distance. they clearly aren't close enough to humans to know too much about their customs, and their magic always gives them away as outsiders, which indicates they were always content to live in their own fairy-world. but then they give it all up for this baby, this child, and they change their entire world for her. she is their world, to the point where their sole purpose is protecting her, until that's all they can think about for close to two decades. they would do anything they could to make her happy, to give her a fighting chance at life. they're so protective over her- and the fact that they got this close to the finish line...only to leave her alone because they want to be respectful of giving her privacy as she's still reeling and processing from all the news they sprung about her at once. they were even discussing going to king stefan and attempting to convince him to let aurora out of the arranged marriage so that she could be with the boy in the woods. and this all leads to maleficent enchanting aurora to her demise. as the fairies place her in a bed for the last time, looking upon her in her princess form, all of the time they've spent with her runs through their mind. how this isn't their little briar rose anymore, but a princess who inhabits, not the woodcutter's cottage, but king stefan's castle. someone who will never be with them the way she once was ever again and who, presently, is dead for all they know. as they look upon their lost daughter, the faint chimes and musical notes of the celebration of her homecoming is heard in the distance. i could talk about this forever but it's just such a heartbreaking and sad but also eerie mood

in 2023, it's time king stefan gets his flowers. while, in the time period in which this film is set, it'd be totally realistic for a father to set his daughter up in an arranged marriage to further the prospects of his land, stefan displays an understanding that seems more contemporary than his counterpart, hubert. hubert doesn't think about prince phillip's feelings for a beat and concedes that the "children" are bound to fall in love with one another. meanwhile, stefan seems to display a much more well-rounded paternal instinct, even exemplifying a degree of care and concern for both aurora's emotional wellbeing and her consent. he urges hubert to calm down and remember that this might come as "quite a shock" to aurora and to not push all of these political arrangements upon his daughter before she's had a chance to react to them and digest them.

the duality of briar rose and princess aurora is so fascinating, but also the moments in which they overlap is more enchanting still. this is a fairytale that is meant to be archetypical, and aurora's enchanted slumber is meant to be symbolic for her transition from girlhood to womanhood. briar rose, the girl, is anxious about her future, the prospect of meeting her love and settling down and getting to the next stage of her life. she loves her guardians, but is frustrated at their inability to see and treat her as anything other than a child. she goes to sleep a scared, shy, unsure teenager and wakes up as a self-assured, mature, gracious woman- the princess aurora. she's a vision, descending the staircase on the arm of her beloved, and she paints quite the picture as she gracefully curtsies to her parents, the king and queen. yet, true to the girl from the cottage, briar rose takes over. unable to contain the love she feels, she bolts forward and rushes to embraced her lost parents. i love this because, for as calm as a character as aurora is, i've always been so mesmerized by the breathless excitement with which she speaks when she returns to the cottage. this is a girl that has more love inside her than she can contain and it renders her a beacon of light. her running into the arms of her parents, instead of resenting them for giving her up, putting her in an arranged marriage, or even pausing to question whether or not she should be so warm with these figureheads of state, is such a tender moment that i don't think i've ever heard anyone speak of.

i will never get tired of singing the praises of the three good fairies. this film placed three older, conventionally unattractive women at the forefront- without pushing forced hetero ships on any of them- and allowed them to be bad ass (ie saving phillip from the dungeon, providing him with the tools and guidance with which to defeat maleficent, coming up with all the plots and actions that propelled the plot forward), while reminding us that love and kindness is truly the most powerful force on earth and placing an emphasis on the strength and power of femininity. the entire transition, from them being business women in the kingdom essentially (this is more in modern jargon; them being the fairies who are invited to political organizations for their contributions and not knowing anything about things like cooking or cleaning or rearing a child) to learning how to raise a baby and the film ending with them beaming over the shining achievement of their assigned charge finally being safe and happy is...it's everything. how beautifully the film focuses on them and the relationship with their adopted daughter and how that's the driving goal in all of this is something that's been unable to ever be surpassed

I really disagree with anyone saying that Prince Eric had a wooden character in the animated Little Mermaid movie. His personality has always been distinct, he’s adventurous, he’s deeply connected to the sea, he resists royalty, he’s determined to marry for love, he’s willing to risk his life to save the men on his ship and even his dog. He’s always been compassionate, stubborn, daring, heroic, funny and romantic - it’s only because he was given a bigger role in the remake that this now seems clearer.

On Mother/Daughter Relationships

There’s a certain advantage to re-watching shows you liked in your teens as an adult, with adult clarity and adult world experience. And in re-watching the show, something I’ve found so intensely fascinating is that Gilmore Girls pretty much undercuts its own premise that it’s so famously known for. 

The show gets a lot of flack from critics about portraying the “friends first, parent/child second” vibe that Rory and Lorelai have as the ideal parent/child relationship. On the surface, this seems to be what the show is going for–Lorelai is adamant that her and Rory’s relationship is healthier, less toxic, closer, and all around better than the “I’m the adult, you’re the child” relationship that Lorelai and Emily have. But if you dig a little deeper, it’s interesting that the show doesn’t so much celebrate the “friends first” relationship type as much as it ruthlessly deconstructs it.  So, fun fact about me: in my first semester of grad school, I took a class on media and gender. My professor absolutely adored Freud–and I mean, actual Freudian analysis–and so my midterm wound up being about Gilmore Girls and a work exploring the developmental importance of mother/daughter relationships prior to the Oedipal stage, and how the first developmental task is to break the “oneness” with the mother in favor of a self with distinct boundaries so libidinal energy is transferred from the mother to the father for a successful completion of the Oedipus stage…blah, blah, blah. My thesis basically being that because Emily never allowed Lorelai to develop a sense of self away from her and her expectations, that Lorelai’s rebellion was to be expected and it explains a lot of her issues with her sense of self and her relationships with men/close intimacy. Also, fun fact: I got an A on that paper and my professor brought up Gilmore Girls in class frequently for the rest of the semester. And the only reason I chose Gilmore Girls was because I’d been binge-watching the series and it was on my mind. And my parents said fandom was a waste of time. Take that!  What I realized while writing that, however, is that some of the same reasoning can be applied to Lorelai’s relationship with Rory, and the results aren’t all that different. Now, let’s get rid of all of the Freudian junk, because, puh-lease, but let’s consider the idea that both the Lorelai + Emily and Lorelai + Rory relationships are defined by their boundaries–or rather, lack thereof. Emily’s involvement in Lorelai’s life is described is overbearing, because there are no boundaries, while Lorelai’s involvement in Rory’s life is seen is ideal, because there are no boundaries. Despite the narrative to the contrary, Lorelai sets up and almost identical relationship dynamic with Rory that Emily had with her. Except she’s not a WASP-y socialite involved with the DAR, she’s a Cool Mom, so it’s okay. Totally not enmeshment even though it definitely is. The show is seen primarily through Lorelai’s POV and we’re meant to take her side in most everything, even when it means she looks like a giant hypocrite. Throughout the series, Emily is hurt and offended that Lorelai hides important life events from her, like Lorelai breaking a leg in yoga or getting married to Christopher. But since the show has set up that Emily is overbearing, this is seen as good. Justified, even. Lorelai needs to set these boundaries in order to achieve independence. Meanwhile, Lorelai expects Rory to share everything with her, including things that most teenagers would like to keep private. And she is not just implicitly expected to, but outright asked to, such as when Lorelai asks Rory to let her know when she plans to lose her virginity. Which she does, even though it makes her (and Lorelai, actually) kind of uncomfortable. Any violation of this is seen as a betrayal of the superior mother/daughter relationship and is bad. When Rory actually does lose her virginity, the first thing out of her mouth is an apology to Lorelai for not discussing it with her first, even though Rory is an adult, living away from home, and her sex life is none of her mother’s business. And she apologizes for not indulging her mother’s overbearing need to be involved in every aspect of her life.  And what’s interesting is that while Emily and Lorelai’s relationship is definitely dysfunctional, Emily has a far easier time seeing Lorelai as an entity separate from herself with separate motivations than Lorelai does with Rory, because Lorelai views Rory as an extension of her and lives vicariously through her. Emily is criticized for having a set plan for Lorelai from birth until teenagehood, but when that goes off the rails, Emily adjusts the plan. When Lorelai leaves to strike out on her own (which is seen as good), Emily respects her decision to go no-contact and the first half of the series is Emily trying to have the relationship she wants with her daughter and granddaughter while working within Lorelai’s boundaries. Does she always get it right? No, and she’s got some massive blind spots (like literally everything to do with Christopher). And many of their fights are about the differing lifestyles and differing hopes and dreams, but in the end, Emily is the one who usually ends up conceding. Plot-wise, this is because Lorelai is the main POV character and her motivations are the “right” ones.  Contrast that with Lorelai and Rory’s relationship, which can charitably be called “enmeshed” but should probably be called “co-dependent.” It’s telling, from a story standpoint, that Lorelai named Rory after herself. Despite having differing personalities, Lorelai grooms Rory from a young age to not desire a life beyond the one already set out for her. Which, of course, includes a very close relationship with her mother. As mentioned above, Rory is discouraged from having normal boundaries with her mother. Why would she want them, if her relationship with Lorelai is so much better than Lorelai’s relationship with Emily? It’s totally cool that your mom is your best friend and that you want to spend all your time with her. It’s not weird and kind of concerning!  At the start of the series, Rory has exactly one friend her age, who also has an overbearing mother and a skewed sense of the world. Rory is nervous, indecisive, introverted, and far more comfortable at home than anywhere else. She uses her mother as an emotional crutch, despite being portrayed as the more mature of the two. She has very little confidence to make decisions on her own, using a combination of her mother and pro/con lists for even small things. Leaving for college is terrifying, and she laments to Lorelai that even she knows it’s weird that she wants her mother to stay with her in her dorm room. Again, the show plays this as endearing, instead of unhealthy. And Lorelai is no better. Again, both mother/daughter relationships are defined by a lack of boundaries, but as Lorelai has never been an adult without also being a parent, she, too, has no idea what to do with herself when Rory leaves. And part of this is because she has spent the last 18 years pushing Rory to be everything she could not be–either because she got pregnant at 16 or because her mother had a different plan for her. Emily’s expectations of Lorelai and Lorelai’s expectations of Rory aren’t that different, the difference is in the execution: as mentioned above, while Emily changes the plan when Lorelai does, even if she complains every step of the way, any change to Lorelai’s plan for Rory is a Code Red Alert. When Rory begins to rebel against some of the expectations placed on her after she leaves home, Lorelai behaves as though this is a personal betrayal and it almost destroys the relationship. Rory is not a person in her own right with her own feelings, desires, and goals–she is an extension of Lorelai, and if she doesn’t want to be what Lorelai wants her to be, then that means she doesn’t love Lorelai anymore and doesn’t want a relationship with her. Lorelai cannot alter her expectations in the way Emily can.  Interestingly, we see this co-dependency examined in a fascinating way when Rory moves in with Emily and Richard. Emily, in some ways, sees this as a “do-over” for Lorelai, but the fact that, during a moment of heightened emotion, she yells to Rory to “wait until your father gets home” (when she means Richard, her grandfather) says way more about Lorelai’s relationship with Rory than Emily’s relationship with either Lorelai or Rory. Even though Rory is, in almost every way, different from her mother in personality, Emily cannot separate the two. Because Emily’s relationship with Rory has always, always been on Lorelai’s terms and Lorelai’s relationship with Rory is highly enmeshed, even Emily has a difficult time seeing Rory as a separate entity, away from her mother. They are an unhealthy, codependent package deal, even though Rory, at this point, is in her 20′s and has been having an ongoing relationship with her grandparents for at least four years.  And we see the results very clearly. Rory’s rebellion in college and her feelings of being directionless in the revival stem directly from never being allowed to have agency over her own life or develop a healthy relationship with her mother. In my original paper, I theorized that some of Lorelai’s issues with men come from her relationship with Emily; any relationship that feels like it could mimic that level of intimacy sets of alarm bells and she pushes it away. Unlike Rory, who has a tendency to replicate the level of co-dependence in romantic relationships that she has with Lorelai and change her personality depending on the expectations of the man she is dating. It’s notable in the revival that Rory only regains purpose and motivation after someone else (Jess) enters to tell her what she should do. While I’m Team Jess and think he was definitely the best person to do this, because I feel like he was the only one of her boyfriends who really just wanted her to be her, it’s still frustrating that even at age 32 and years on her own, she lacks the confidence to make decisions about her own life.  And perhaps Gilmore Girls is not supposed to be this deep. But I do think it’s hilarious that for a show ostensibly about comparing and contrasting mother/daughter relationships, it ultimately concludes that mother/daughter relationships are kind of inherently dysfunctional and will screw you up in different ways. Let’s hope that half of any revival season two involves all three of them attending family therapy. 

Basic rules for analysing fiction, an incomprehensive list jotted down in a hurry:

yes critical analysis of media is super valuable but I think suspension of disbelief isn't practiced enough

"the beginning relied so much on fate/chance meetings/a bizarre set of circumstances that could have solved the conflict if avoided" babe that's an inciting incident

I am reading scholarly works about Jane Austen and having hearteyes about obscure details in the Pemberley chapters of P&P that indicate Mr. Darcy’s sustainable land management praxis.

Okay, let’s talk about Pemberley!

Austen, as a rule, doesn’t spend many paragraphs describing locations. There’s often information to be gleaned from their names (Sense and Sensibility is full of lurking references to sexual scandals and Mansfield Park to slavery), but Longbourn just means “long stream” or “long boundary,” Netherfield means “lower field,” and Rosings’ original owner was a redhead. Meryton, a pun on “merry town,” is kind of fascinating, given the installment of the militia and the threat to stability and serenity they represent. Partying and shenanigans. Possibly a Shakespeare ref.

Longbourn barely gets any description at all. From the get-go, everyone who lives there is obsessed with other places, with getting out (except Mr. Bennet, who never wants to leave his library, never mind the house). Lady Catherine deems it small and mildly uncomfortable, which is in keeping with the theme of confinement, but also it’s Lady Catherine talking. Netherfield can’t tell us much about Bingley, who is only a tenant. Rosings is expensively, ostentatiously modern and gaudily furnished, though it has a handsome park that Lady Catherine and her stifled daughter never set foot in but Elizabeth and Darcy both frequently escape to during their stays.

So it’s notable and wonderful that Austen goes out of her way to describe Pemberley as an old-fashioned, highly successful, working estate. Its practical old Anglo-Saxon name means “Pember’s clearing.” A pember is a man who grows barley. Darcy most likely still does. As Elizabeth and the Gardiners approach and tour the house, they notice and admire its beautiful surrounding woods, and then when they wander outside, the specific word Austen uses is coppice woods. A coppice is a woodland filled with tree species that grow new shoots from their stumps when you chop them down. Darcy probably has oaks on a fifty-year cycle as well as faster-growing species such as hawthorn and hornbeam for firewood, timber and cattle fodder. Coppice forestry is functional and sustainable, and provides habitat for beasts and birds.

Darcy is the anti-John Dashwood (Dashwood, srsly), the brother in Sense and Sensibility who inherits Elinor and Marianne’s childhood estate of Norland, whose wife immediately starts making plans to hack down trees (not even coppice trees, but big, gorgeous, venerable hardwoods) to make way for a folly. Jane Austen hated follies. Also, it ought to be noted that timber was so valuable in Britain at the time that estates often had inheritance clauses that detailed who was and wasn’t allowed to chop down what.

Darcy’s a food producer and land conservator, prefers nature over fussy, ornamental landscape design, his servants and tenants like him, he gives money to the poor… and… he’s a trout fisherman! He shoots, too, as do Bingley and Hurst and Mr. Bennet, but it’s a particular mark in his favour that Austen singles him and Mr. Gardiner out as anglers. It’s a pastime that signifies a taste for contemplation and quietness and appreciation of nature, as blissfully described in The Compleat Angler; or, The Contemplative Man’s Recreation, a hugely popular travel book first published in the 1600s and reprinted often for 18th C libraries. The plot of The Compleat Angler is about the conversion of a hunter (pastime of the ultra-rich) to a fisherman who learns to love the peaceful sport. We receive ample evidence elsewhere that Darcy is a man capable of swift, decisive action and formidable effectiveness. But at Pemberley, Austen takes care to show us how he’s balanced.

Most of the information in this post comes from Margaret Doody’s Jane Austen’s Names. 

I didn’t know any of this!  I always thought it was a bit odd how her viewing the estate changed her views of the man himself, as if it was about how big the place was.  Instead it was how he cared for the land / people.  Fascinating!  Completely missed that.

It’s literally his character reference! Most women at the time had to marry for financial security, yet marriage was horribly risky, because divorce was almost impossible. If you married someone you didn’t know well, and he turned out to be lazy, irresponsible, or abusive, you were stuck. 

This is why so many Austen heroes are mature, almost frumpy men the heroines have known for years. Local fellows with family ties. They don’t offer breathless romances; the happy endings they offer are happy because they are safe.

Darcy is not a local boy. Darcy is not a fully formed, baggable Austen hero when he proposes at Hunsford, not just because he’s rude af, but because Lizzy doesn’t know him well enough yet. She has no real way of knowing how he would treat her. Austen sends Lizzy to Pemberley not to dazzle her with Darcy’s wealth, but to provide her with good, hard evidence of his treatment of the people under his protection, including his tenants, his sister, and the intelligent, dignified housekeeper who has known him since he was a toddler.

Character references established, we may proceed with the romance.

(n.b. He doesn’t know her either, until she’s rejected him. He proposes, despite his giant pile of reservations, because he’s so horny for her he can’t stand it (at least, to his credit, he’s turned on by her brains as much as her hot little bod), but only after her refusal does he realize how completely he has failed to understand this woman or make himself worthy of her. He falls in love for real only after she has demanded that he live up to his own high standards. Refreshing, ain’t it?)