#inaccurate austen | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

indigovigilance · 6 months

Text

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony

What does your Anthony mean, exactly?

I feel like your Anthony and my Anthony are different Anthonies…

In 1941 we learn that Crowley has named himself Anthony J. Crowley (Aziraphale doesn’t pronounce the H but closed captions write it and Neil Gaiman hashtags #Anthony and also it’s Anthony the script book so I guess Michael Sheen is just doing a thing idk). I haven’t seen extensive discussion of this topic but I’m going to jump in with both feet.

I propose that Anthony actually has a double meaning; that is, Crowley chose this name for one reason, but Aziraphale believes he chose it for another.

(I cite as indirect inspo a wonderful Tumblr meta about how the ineffable blockheads have completely different interpretations of Jane Austen and how this informs their S2 decision-making).

Read or bookmark for later on Ao3 because this got away from me and now it's a 2,888 word meta on people named Anthony what am I doing with my life

~~~

First and foremost, let it be stated that there is no canon for when Crowley anti-christened himself Anthony. Neil Gaiman himself won’t know until he writes it.

Secondly, let it be known that I am not an historian nor a literary scholar of any kind. So people who actually know these stories may find themselves cringing at my surface-level summaries and inaccurate interpretations: I’m just piecing together what I could find easily. I invite someone else to revise and republish if they can delve deeper on these topics.

Part 1: Mark Antony

There is a bust of Marc Antony in Mr. Fell’s bookshop as of S1E1 modern day (2019) which is still there at the end of S2E6, where it features prominently in the center of a shot. In 2019, the bust is adorned with yellow ribbons; in 2023, it is naked. The flashback to 1941 doesn’t give a good view of the part of the shop where the bust would normally be located so I have no idea when the bust actually got added to Aziraphale’s collection. I’m going to assume, for argument’s sake, that Aziraphale acquired this bust after the Blitz. I’m going to further propose that he acquired this bust because he believes that Crowley named himself Anthony after Mark Antony.

Why would Aziraphale think that? Two reasons.

1) Mark Antony was the loser of a civil war for liberty

Mark Antony was a good and loyal Roman citizen, serving Caesar with distinction, even attaining the title of Master of the Horse (Caesar’s second-in-command). See additional metas on horse symbolism seen throughout S2. After the death of Caesar, however, Octavian and members of the senate turned on Antony, starting a civil war. You know, much like a certain someone we know that was involved in Dubious Battle on the Plains of Heaven.

Mark Antony was loyal to Caesar’s political mission, which was to establish a Roman republic, where the voices of the citizens would be heard through their representatives [a suggestion box, if you will]. But Antony’s defeat marked the end of the republic, ushering in an age of autocracy. Octavian, following his victory over Antony, crowned himself the first Emperor of Rome.

2) Mark Antony was a libertine, but also the loyal, ardent lover of Cleopatra

Mark Antony was an infamous, lascivious, debaucherous, womanizing lush. He was also Cleopatra’s lover and closest ally. Though Mark Antony could not often meet with Cleopatra, their affair was allegedly very romantic, and from afar Antony did everything in his power to support Cleopatra politically, expanding her territorial holdings even while they were apart for years.

So legendary was Antony's wanton hedonism that when he went to Athens, he was deified as the New Dionysus, mystic god of wine, happiness, and immortality. Religious propaganda declared Cleopatra the New Isis or Aphrodite (mythic goddess of love and beauty) to his New Dionysus. The ineffable emperors, if you will. [source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

Parallels arising after 1941:

After Antony had officially divorced Octavian’s sister, Octavian formally broke off the ties of personal friendship with Antony and declared war, not against Antony but against Cleopatra. Much like how Shax, after her S2E1 “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” proposal, threatened Crowley that if he did not assist her search for Gabriel, Hell would declare war not on him but on Aziraphale.

The legacy of Mark Antony, therefore, is one of hedonism, romance, fighting for a cause that you believe in, and losing that fight. It’s easy to see how Aziraphale drew the conclusion that Anthony J. Crowley took his inspiration from this historical figure.

Part 2: Antony & Cleopatra

How is this a part 2? Weren’t we just talking about Mark Antony and his relationship with Cleopatra? Hear me out.

Crowley has never expressed much interest in politics. Every time something of political import happens, he declares that the humans made it up themselves while also taking credit for it with Hell. This includes 1793 Paris and the Spanish Inquisition. If I forgot any, drop them in the comments.

But Crowley has a deep and pervasive interest in stories, especially romance stories. If he can keep the Bentley from turning it into Queen, he listens to the Velvet Underground. He watches Richard Curtis films (to the degree that he identifies them by director rather than by title). Though book canon is not show canon, it’s worth mentioning that his favorite serial is Golden Girls; while not a romance, it is certainly heartfelt storytelling at its finest and a homosexual staple.

We know, too, that Shakspeare stole a line from him, with an adjustment for pronouns:

"Age Does Not Wither, Nor Custom Stale His Infinite Variety”

Let’s first talk about Crowley’s context for the quote.

Picture it: the Globe Theater, 1601, the house is empty because it’s one of Shakespeare’s gloomy ones and an irritated young Burbage, in the role of Hamlet, is droning out his lines like he would rather be anywhere else.

Burbage: To be or not to be. That is the question.

Aziraphale: To be! I mean, not to be! Come on, Hamlet! Buck up!

Aziraphale looks at Crowley, grinning with delight. Crowley stares back at him, shaking his head slightly, but a smile tugs at the corner of his lip. He wants to be embarrassed, but cannot help being charmed.

Aziraphale: He’s very good, isn’t he?

Crowley: Age does not wither nor custom stale his infinite variety.

Crowley is looking up at the stage, and speaks immediately after Aziraphale has made a comment about Burbage. But is Crowley talking about Burbage? Does it stand to reason that age would not have withered, or custom not staled, this twenty year old (yet somehow jaded) stage actor?

I propose that this is a poetic inversion of the S2E1 cold open, wherein the Starmaker, looking out upon creation, says: “Look at you, you’re gorgeous!” and Aziraphale erroneously thinks the statement was directed at him. Here, even though Crowley isn’t looking at Aziraphale, I believe that Crowley is actually talking about Aziraphale when he delivers that iconic line. Unlike Burbage, Aziraphale is old, very, very old, and we know that he has a penchant for custom, wearing the same clothes and listening to the same music for century upon century. Yet here is this precious angel being a cheerful little peanut gallery of one, continuing to surprise the demon after all this time. Neither age nor custom has staled Aziraphale’s infinite variety.

When Shakespeare commits the line to a play written 1606-1607, a few years after this event, Crowley will recognize his own sentiment about Aziraphale issuing from Antony’s mouth about Cleopatra. The actual historical events will not have left much of an impression, but the immortalization of his own admiration of the angel in human romantic fiction will have.

It must be mentioned that Antony & Cleopatra is a tragedy, where the star-crossed lovers are kept apart by warring factions that demand loyalty to the state at the preclusion of each other.

There are also some (as far as I can tell) nearly copy-paste plot points from Romeo & Juliet about a misunderstood faked suicide followed by actual suicide and the lovers dying in each others’ arms. It does not have a happy ending. Anthony Crowley deliberately choosing his “Christian name” from this play embodies not only his deep love but his hopelessness that he can ever get the happily ever after he desires.

In Summary

Crowley was an admirer, in one respect or another, of Mark Anthony, though he relied more heavily on Shakespeare’s portrayal and reimagining of the character than Aziraphale gives due credit. Nevertheless, the difference…

Wait a minute…

What’s that?

Is that…

A piece of canon evidence that completely undermines my argument??

This screenshot will only be visible to Tumblr users (sorry Ao3), but at some point we get a good look at the Mona Lisa sketch that Crowley has hanging in his apartment. It is signed (translated from Italian) “To my friend Anthony from your friend Leo da V.”

The problem with this is, the Mona Lisa was painted 100 years before Shakespeare penned Antony & Cleopatra.

However, Neil Gaiman reblogged this transcription and translation, posing the hypothetical, “I wonder if Crowley knows what the A in A.Z. Fell stands for.”

Could it be that the Notorious NRG is jerking us around and sending us on wild goose chases? Absolutely a possibility. But. Let’s give a little grace for a moment, and assume that this comment was made in good faith. A bold assumption, I know. But humor me.

We know that Crowley and Aziraphale both knew Jane Austen, but from completely different perspectives. It stands to reason that Crowley knew da Vinci the scientist, but that Antonio Fell knew Leo da V., an artist with a heart that yearned for an unavailable lover. I’m just making wild conjecture that Lisa Gherardini (aka Mona Lisa), the wife of Florentine cloth merchant Francesco del Giocondo, was a love interest of da Vinci, but it could be true in the GO universe and would make for a great story.

Aziraphale also collects signed items from famous people; the inscribed books of Professor Hoffman to a wonderful student, and the S.W. Erdnase book, signed with his real name, come to mind. The Mona Lisa draft fits in much better with that collection of souvenirs than with anything in Crowley’s apartment. So it stands to reason that it could actually be addressed to Aziraphale.

There remains the question of how or why Crowley has it, but I won’t subject that to speculation here. All to say. Neil Gaiman’s implication-by-redirect is… possible. So let’s assume that it is the case, just for a moment.

If the Mona Lisa sketch is signed to “Antonio” Fell, then this allows the above theory regarding Crowley’s self-naming to remain intact. But it brings up a few questions regarding Aziraphale, not the least of which is: why did he name himself Antonio/Anthony?

Part 3: Saint Anthony of Padua

Anthony was the chosen name of a Portuguese monk, taken upon joining the Fransican order. Anthony rose to prominence in the 13th century as a celebrated orator, delivering impassioned and eloquent sermons. He is also associated with some fish symbolism, since he preached at the shore and fish gathered to listen. He was, incidentally, a lover of books:

Anthony had a book of psalms that contained notes and comments to help when teaching students and, in a time when a printing press was not yet invented, he greatly valued it.

When a novice decided to leave the hermitage, he stole Anthony's valuable book. When Anthony discovered it was missing, he prayed it would be found or returned to him. The thief did return the book and in an extra step returned to the Order as well.

The book is said to be preserved in the Franciscan friary in Bologna today. [source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=24]

This miraculous incident, wherein the thief not only returns a valuable book but also has a change of heart and returns to the bosom of organized religion, smacks of angelic intervention. But that is neither here nor there.

Saint Anthony is the Patron Saint of the Lost, and is prayed to by those seeking to recover lost things. What is “lost” in this context is usually an item, rather than a person or an intangible concept, however he is also “credited with many miracles involving lost people, lost things and even lost spiritual goods,” such as faith. [Edit: @tsilvy helpfully contributes that "Here in Italy Sant'Antonio is commonly not just the saint patron of lost things, but, maybe primarily, the saint patron of lost *causes*."] He died at the age of 35, and in artwork is typically depicted with a book and the Infant Child Jesus.

It’s a defensible position that the thing that gives Aziraphale the most consternation across the millennia is Crowley’s loss of his angelic status, and it could even be framed such that Aziraphale does not consider Crowley actually fallen, but rather simply lost. It is a fact that he finds difficult to reconcile and, depending on your reading of the Final Fifteen, the offer to restore Crowley’s angelic status is one that is so pivotal to resolving his internal conflict that he cannot refuse. If this conflict is so central for Aziraphale, perhaps he did name himself after a booklover and the patron saint of lost things, hoping that the name would carry with it some of the power of the blessing, and return Crowley to the light, and in turn, to him.

But wait.

Because I googled “St Anthony” to look for some images and….

St. Anthony of the Desert

I shit you not there are multiple St. Antonies and we’re going to talk about another one of them with respect to Aziraphale because this guy is bonkers. The story traces to the Vitae Patrum, yet another fringe biblical text and I cannot even get a quick answer on whether it is canon or apocrypha because it’s so fringe. Anyways. I think the best way to explain St. Anthony of the Desert comes from the wikipedia page on the Desert Fathers:

Sometime around AD 270, Anthony heard a Sunday sermon stating that perfection could be achieved by selling all of one's possessions, giving the proceeds to the poor, and following Jesus. He followed the advice and made the further step of moving deep into the desert to seek complete solitude.

[He] became known as both the father and founder of desert monasticism. By the time Anthony had died in AD 356, thousands of monks and nuns had been drawn to living in the desert following Anthony's example, leading his biographer, Athanasius of Alexandria, to write that "the desert had become a city." The Desert Fathers had a major influence on the development of Christianity.

Let’s all agree that this guy is not Aziraphale; this whole becoming an ascetic and living alone in the middle of a desert thing? Not his cuppertea. But St. Anthony is interesting not just for his decision to go into the desert, but what happened when he got there.

The Torment of St Anthony is a 15th century painting commonly attributed to Michaelangelo. It depicts demons crawling all over and attacking a hermit.

But the first round of demons are scraping the bottom of the barrel, practically the damned. Anthony’s journey continues and he meets another demon. Actually he meets two; a centaur, who is not very helpful, and then a satyr who is. It is much easier to find paintings of St. Anthony and the Centaur than of St. Anthony and the Satyr, so you don’t get an image, but I find the satyr to be a much more interesting character, so you get that story instead:

Anthony found next the satyr, "a manikin with hooked snout, horned forehead, and extremities like goats's feet." This creature was peaceful and offered him fruits, and when Anthony asked who he was, the satyr replied, "I'm a mortal being and one of those inhabitants of the desert whom the Gentiles, deluded by various forms of error, worship under the names of Fauns, Satyrs, and Incubi. I am sent to represent my tribe. We pray you in our behalf to entreat the favor of your Lord and ours, who, we have learnt, came once to save the world, and 'whose sound has gone forth into all the earth.'" Upon hearing this, Anthony was overjoyed and rejoiced over the glory of Christ. He condemned the city of Alexandria for worshiping monsters instead of God while beasts like the satyr spoke about Christ.

St. Anthony, then, is entreated by a demon to ask forgiveness from God upon the demons, and St. Anthony, seemingly, agrees to do it. He’s overjoyed to ask God to forgive demons. In connection to my analysis of the origins of the Metatron, and how Aziraphale and Crowley’s potential beef with him is that, as a human put in the exact same situation, he did the opposite, refusing to take the demon’s petition for mercy to God but instead taking it upon himself to confirm their unforgivability (yes that’s a word now) and damnation.

That seems like it would be pretty important to Aziraphale.

In Summary

I give up. I have no idea what’s going on with this show anymore. Here are two options each for both of our ineffable husbands to have given themselves the same God-blessed/damned name. You guys tell me what you think, I just have a pile of evidence and no spoons to evaluate it.

#good omens #good omens 2 #good omens meta #crowley #aziraphale #ineffable husbands #anthony j crowley

191 notes · View notes

misscrawfords · 9 months

Text

I'm reading Pride and Protest by Nikki Payne, a modern retelling of Pride and Prejudice and I'm struggling.

I actually find what Payne has done with the characters and setting really interesting and there are some touches I really like, especially turning Mary into Maurice - an "activist" who changes his activism regularly and lectures others on what they should be doing. (Any interpretation of Mary that isn't "misunderstood, shy, nerd girl who isn't-like-other-girls and is actually just like me, a misunderstood, shy, over-looked nerd girl" gets a positive vote from me.)

However, I really very much dislike her interpretation of Darcy (Dorsey) and Elizabeth (Liza)'s relationship and that is... kinda crucial!

It's waaaaaay over sexualised. Like, I get this is a romance book, but, like, I'm reading along enjoying the story and plot and then suddenly Dorsey is thinking about burying himself in Liza's breasts and I'm like "wooaah!" It's like it's impossible for the author to show them having feelings for each other without it being explicit and I find that out of place both with the source material and with the rest of the narrative.

Secondly, it is sexual... immediately. It commits the cardinal sin of saying "Darcy and Lizzy were hot for each other from the start and all the tension is ~ s e x u a l tension". The 2005 abomination does this too with the near kiss in the rain. And pretty much every single P&P inspired enemies-to-lovers narrative out there does it too. The problem is... this is a really, really inaccurate interpretation of the original book. Darcy is, admittedly, attracted to Elizabeth very quickly. Something that he manages to show not at all to anybody. Only Caroline Bingley, who is intensely interested in Darcy's romantic feelings, spots it. Later on, arch observer Charlotte and good friend Col Fitz also suspect something but by this point in Rosings Darcy has given into his feelings and is trying, albeit terribly, to court Elizabeth. Not that she notices. Darcy is completely able to conceal his sexual attraction to Elizabeth from everyone who isn't thinking about Darcy sexually. He is not quite so able to conceal his romantic interest later on. But crucially, at no point does Elizabeth notice a thing. She has LITERALLY NO IDEA. This is because Elizabeth has no concept of Darcy as a romantic prospect for her at all. She laughs at thinking what a good match he'd be for Anne de Bourgh, a probably sexless in appearance invalid. She doesn't hate him in a ~sexy~ way, she just really does not like him and does not consider him as a romantic option.

If Elizabeth is aware that Darcy has the hots for her, this changes the dynamic completely. If she is actually attracted to him in the first part of the story, that changes the dynamic completely. And both of these changes alter and potentially cheapen Elizabeth's character. If she is aware on some level that Darcy likes her and is interested in her, then she ends up looking like an idiot when the first proposal comes around. Or she ends up looking coy and like she is actually flirting with him. Yes, there is banter but Elizabeth is not consciously flirting or trying to attract him! Elizabeth spends the whole first part of the novel with a crush on Wickham. Austen is perfectly capable to showing to the audience without needing modern explicit language that a character has the hots for another character. Elizabeth fancies Wickham, not Darcy! As the meme goes, Darcy and Elizabeth are experiencing two very different kinds of tension! That's part of the comedy. And if Elizabeth is aware that she is attracted to Darcy, it just becomes a different story, and a less interesting one. Elizabeth becomes yet another romance novel heroine who likes the "bad boy" and tries to persuade herself not to, until the tension is sooooo strong and she ~snaps.

But one of the major points is that Elizabeth doesn't like bad boys! She falls for (well, crushes on) Wickham because she thinks he's good. She dislikes Darcy because she thinks he's bad. She only starts to consider Darcy positively when she understands and sees for herself the truth of his character. That is what she finds attractive, not him being a buttoned up jerk! "One has all the goodness, the other all the appearance of it." That is central to P&P's story and its message.

Unfortunately, in the aims of writing a "romance" novel, Pride and Protest gives us heaving busoms and erections and almost-kisses and therefore completely destroys my interest in Dorsey and Liza's relationship at the same time as well as finding it just a bit tasteless because it feels like there are two stories going on: an interesting exploration of how the context and characters of P&P would work in a highly politised and racially diverse modern USA - and a very generic romance novel story which doesn't do either Darcy and Elizabeth justice. A shame.

It does make me wonder about how to update Austen's novels in terms of sex. Because obviously one of the major changes between the 1810s and now is that having extra-marital sex is totally normal and people date and break up without social repercussions. So unless you are setting the update in a community where that is not the case, you've got to deal with sex being freely on offer. I guess there are different ways around it but I think if how you deal with sex means that the fundamental beats of the narrative and character development are changed, then something's gone wrong somehow. And I feel that Elizabeth's total obliviousness to Darcy having any positive feelings towards her at all until the moment he proposes to her is a crucial part of the plot and a source of unending humour.

#pride and prejudice #pride and protest #modern retelling #jane austen #fitzwilliam darcy #elizabeth bennet #darcy x elizabeth

93 notes · View notes

werewolfetone · 1 year

Text

Stupidest argument people make in favour of not putting any poc in their period dramas is "oh but we can't have anything but white people in our movie without it being historically inaccurate" because yes the fuck you can you just have to make a movie about something other than jane austen knockoff no. 264

#sorry i saw a post & it made me mad #period dramas #racism #jory.txt

148 notes · View notes

oscar-is-wild · 10 months

Text

Mansfield Park (1999) might be a fairly dated and inaccurate Austen adaptation, but Henry Crawford is literally the hottest man on this planet

#mansfield park #Mansfield Park #Jane Austen #austen adaptations #fanny price #henry crawford #english literature #pride and prejudice #sense and sensibility #emma #persuasion #northanger abbey #also why does edmund look so ugly #he looks like he plays rugby #or like oliver wood with sideburns #also henry crawford looks like enjolras that's probably why i think he's hot

43 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 1 year

Note

Oh darling fandom grandma, do you have any current recs for some good fiction books? Something kind of like Tamora Pierce's tortall books? (sorry if you haven't read those books, was the only series that I could think of to reference)

Perhaps surprisingly, I have never actually read any Tamora Pierce books, but I am going to categorize this request, hopefully not inaccurately, as "imaginative, diverse, feminist/female-centered fantasy." In which case, you are in luck, because that is also My Jam, and I have the following enthusiastic recs, many of which are doorstopper-size and should keep you busy for a while:

The Daevabad Trilogy by S.A. Chakraborty (City of Brass, Kingdom of Copper, Empire of Gold). Set in both 18th-century Egypt and the magical djinn kingdom of Daevabad; complex and morally grey female main characters; lots of garbage men; all characters are people of color; political intrigue, magic, sass, adventure out the wazoo, and Muntadhir al-Qahtani my most beloved, I NEED MORE PEOPLE TO READ THESE BOOKS

The Rook and Rose trilogy by M.A. Carrick (only the first two books are out: The Mask of Mirrors and The Liar's Knot). A lush Venetian-inspired fantasy setting, a con-artist female main character, family intrigue, political manipulation, complicated plots, exploration of colonization and cultural appropriation; MORE PEOPLE LIKEWISE NEED TO JOIN ME IN SHIPPING REN/VARGO/GREY;

The Bone Season series by Samantha Shannon (The Bone Season, The Mime Order, The Song Rising, The Mask Falling): set in an alternate-history future England with sci-fi, telekinetics, fallen angels, a ruined Oxford, underground resistance groups in London, a badass female main character; generally one of the most imaginative spec-fic series I have ever read;

The Priory of the Orange Tree, also by Samantha Shannon; I recommended this book in a separate post recently because I love it. Tons of historically-inspired settings, lots of female, queer, POC characters; ASOIAF-style political intrigue and dragons without the Male Author grossness;

The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud (The Amulet of Samarkand, The Golem's Eye, Ptolemy's Gate, plus prequel The Ring of Solomon). This series was formative for me as a teenager, all right. F O R M A T I V E. If you have not read it you need to do so right away, and I don't care how old you are. Stroud absolutely rips the British Empire to pieces, dismantles the Special White Boy fantasy trope, explores slavery and imperialism and cultural genocide, and is also both incredibly funny and incredibly heartbreaking in the course of three YA books.

The Jasmine Throne by Tasha Suri; lush female-led epic fantasy set in a fantasy world based on ancient India; supposed to be the first one of a series so there are more to come;

Uprooted and Spinning Silver by Naomi Novik; retellings of fairytales with a cast of diverse female characters, especially Spinning Silver which is a reimagining of Rumpelstiltskin in an Imperial Russian-inspired world with a Jewish main character;

The Parasol Protectorate series by Gail Carriger (Soulless, Changeless, Blameless, Heartless, Timeless); set in steampunk Victorian London with vampires and werewolves; badass female main character; Absolutely Everyone Is Queer; like Jane Austen crossed with P.G. Wodehouse;

Anyway, there are possibly more that I could think of, but these are what came to mind after an initial perusal of my own bookshelves, and should be enough to get you started. Happy reading. :)

#rhymeswithtessa #ask #book recs #bookblr

190 notes · View notes

ridleymocki · 2 years

Text

So I finally watched Netflix’s Persuasion and yes, I pretty much hated it, but not for the reason you’d expect. My Austen-loving friend and I set aside a whole night for this. We watched three films as follows:

Appetizer: Persuasion (2007) with Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones

Main course: Persuasion (2022) on Netflix with Dakota Johnson and Cosmo Jarvis

Palate cleanser: Emma (2020) with Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn

Watching things in this order really threw some things into relief. Now, obviously as an adaptation Persuasion 2022 is inaccurate in ways people have already explained. There are significant disparities between the film and the source text (Anne’s a wine lush now?). There are also egregious anachronisms in costuming, hair, and makeup (through pure oversight the side characters end up being the most historically accurate). But, that aside, in my writerly opinion this isn’t even a competent stand alone film. You know the whole rule of “show don’t tell”? This film is fundamentally incapable of following that rule. Everything its told -- verbally, explicitly, almost condescendingly -- to the audience.

There seems to be a fundamental lack of trust in the audience, and our ability to interpret visual cues like facial expressions and tone of voice. There literally is nothing in this film that is conveyed subtly on good faith that people will understand what’s going on.

This is a faith that Austen herself and previous adaptations had in abundance. A key theme in much of Austen’s work is that because of social mores and the rules of propriety, people couldn’t just say what they meant, but had to obfuscate and convey intention through subtlety like double-speak, tone, facial expressions, etcetera. Think Darcy helping Elisabeth into the carriage in Pride & Prejudice (2005). Emma (2020) also does this particularly well; a good example is when Mr Martin runs after Harriet to advise that the road is flooded and she should take another route - meanwhile their facial expressions are full of an aching longing and pain, and while he’s talking about roads he’s really saying I still care for you even though you rejected me. And the Sally Hawkins Persuasion (2007) spares no amount of film in showing longing, yearning looks between characters, while Hawkins does something I would call ‘lung-acting’ where she conveys emotion merely by how she struggles to take a breath.

Netflix’s Persuasion wouldn’t know subtlety if it hit it over the head. The writers, for example, presume that we need not only the image of Anne crying in the bathtub to understand that she is sad and anguished, but that for proper comprehension we also need Anne telling us directly how awfully terribly sad she is (and this is one of the better parts of narration she has).

The choice to have Anne talk directly to camera, in some misguided attempt to replicate the charm of Fleabag, means that Johnson spends much of her dialogue in pure exposition which is neither interesting nor necessary. Plot points that could be made obvious from making the characters actually, you know, interact are substituted with sweeping faux-prophetic explanations of Anne’s relationship to others from her own mouth.

Moreover, other characters make a particular point to express how wonderful Anne is, verbally and very on-the-nose. I can’t direct-quote because I can’t bring myself to watch it again, but Louisa, Mr Harville, Mr Elliot and others all verbally extol Anne’s virtues in a rather heavy-handed attempt to convince the audience that Anne is really, truly, a very good and clever woman. But the thing is, you don’t need that if your character is behaving in a way consistent with those aforementioned virtues. Because then we can just see it. Show, don’t tell. And fundamentally, Johnson’s Anne Elliot does not behave consistent to how others describe her.

In the 2007 adaptation with Sally Hawkins, we as the audience see her exhibit deeply capable and compassionate behaviour, so that when characters later on sparingly praise these characteristics in her, the audience already agrees with it from the evidence of our own eyes. By contrast, the Netflix adaptation alters some fundamental points at which we see these virtues displayed.

When Little Charles falls from the tree, this is how it plays out in the book: “ Anne had every thing to do at once; the apothecary to send for, the father to have pursued and informed, the mother to support and keep from hysterics, the servants to control, the youngest child to banish, and the poor suffering one to attend and soothe; besides sending, as soon as she recollected it, proper notice to the other house, which brought her an accession rather of frightened, enquiring companions, than of very useful assistants.”

Ron Bass and Alice Winslow (the writers of the script for the Netflix adaptation) have Johnson’s Anne peace-keepingly agree to miss the party and watch over the boy purely to diffuse Mary’s complaining. Then, she gets drunk on a windowseat overlooking the party, presumably while the child himself is asleep downstairs. She opens the window and yells out to Wentworth, ducking down below the window when he hears and looks over. She accidentally knocks over a gravy boat in her inebriated stumbling and the gravy drips onto her head where she sits hiding on the floor.

This disparity between book and film is not just a quibble about wanting the source material accurately honoured. It is a problem because through making this change to the plot the narrative loses the characterisation of Anne that it fundamentally needed in order to be coherent. The audience requires scenes of her deftly handling the crisis with little Charles’ fall in order to validate Anne’s characterisation as capable, good in a crisis, level-headed, and strong. We need to see that this is the case, not merely be told it is so.

For another example, the case of Anne and Mrs Smith is treated thusly in the book (skip to tl;dr if you cbf): “ Anne had gone unhappy to school... and Miss Hamilton... had been useful and good to her in a way which had considerably lessened her misery, and could never be remembered with indifference... ”

And also: “She was a widow and poor. Her husband had been extravagant; and at his death, about two years before, had left his affairs dreadfully involved. She had had difficulties of every sort to contend with, and in addition to these distresses had been afflicted with a severe rheumatic fever, which, finally settling in her legs, had made her for the present a cripple. She had come to Bath on that account, and was now in lodgings near the hot baths, living in a very humble way, unable even to afford herself the comfort of a servant, and of course almost excluded from society. Their mutual friend answered for the satisfaction which a visit from Miss Elliot would give Mrs. Smith, and Anne therefore lost no time in going. She mentioned nothing of what she had heard, or what she intended, at home. It would excite no proper interest there.”

and: “ Anne found in Mrs. Smith the good sense and agreeable manners which she had almost ventured to depend on, and a disposition to converse and be cheerful beyond her expectation. Neither the dissipations of the past--and she had lived very much in the world--nor the restrictions of the present, neither sickness nor sorrow seemed to have closed her heart or ruined her spirits.”

Tl;dr: Mrs Smith is Anne’s old school friend who is widowed and poorly. Despite being of significantly higher social status than Mrs Smith, Anne goes to visit her in Bath on the pretense it will raise Mrs Smith’s spirits and doesn’t tell her family about it. Anne rekindles an affectionate friendship with her, even admiring her for her optimism.

But... Mrs Smith is erased from the Netflix version.

Again, this is not a quibble about accuracy, it’s about whether the text can actually function coherently.

In losing Mrs Smith, we lose everything that this friendship contributes to the text. We lose the understanding that Anne values the qualities of other people’s characters over their social status or wealth (particularly when we contrast her like for Mrs Smith with her dislike for Lady Dalrymple). We lose that insight that she has this mentality contrary to the values of the rest of her family who are insufferably social-climby -- i.e.: unlike them, Anne’s not a snob. To wit, we lose the evidence that Anne’s rejection of Wentworth eight years ago was definitely not for classist reasons, as here she is having a social connection to a poor and disabled widow without a care for their class difference. We also lose the second example (along with Wentworth) of how Anne’s affection for someone can be long-running and endure many years without contact, and thereby, how in this respect her character is constant and loyal despite the logical conclusion from her mistake eight years ago and Wentworth’s suppositions.

We as the audience not only need these things, the other characters need it, too, in order to judge Anne’s character as highly and praisingly as they do. The showing of these qualities in her through her actions legitimises all the conclusions other characters make about her, and helps those characters and the audience both to comprehend how and why the plot plays out as it does, with Anne and Wentworth’s eventual reconciliation.

The absence of this observational evidence from the Netflix adaptation means that the other character’s insistence on Anne’s virtuousness is compensatory. It aims to do what the movie visually and narratively has not provided. I can only presume that the writers realised they were writing-out these character-building moments in favour of snappiness and comedic scenes, and sought to reinstate Anne’s integral characteristics through dialogue.

But, it doesn’t work.

We end up with characters doing one thing and saying another. And I as an audience member felt particularly patronised for having all the authorial intentions spelled out to me.

And so, even if I put some mental blinkers on and pretend the source material doesn’t exist. Even if I pretend the anachronisms in the worldbuilding, dialogue, costuming and plot are deliberate and considered a-la Bridgerton. Even if I try to the see the merits of the film for themselves (I thought Cosmo Jarvis was quite good and wish he was in a better version, and Mia McKenna-Bruce was kind of delightful as Mary in a way Mary never is). Even with all that, the Netflix version is not a functional text. And it’s not bad because of any of those other reasons, it’s bad because of that. It’s badly written. It condescends its audience. And the facts of the events don’t match the testimony of the characters. It just, makes no sense.

#persuasion #netflix persuasion #dakota johnson #jane austen #pride and prejudice #persuasion 2022 #emma 2020 #austen

313 notes · View notes

imanerumpet · 2 years

Text

WHY are people getting mad at Jane Austen fans for hating on Persuasion 2022 because it is completely inaccurate? Like this is the same reaction you had when they screwed up the Percy Jackson movies. Just because your interests may be more mainstream than those of Austen fans doesn’t make ours less valid

#jane austen #persuasion 2022 #persuasion netflix #persuasion #netflix persuasion #percy jackson #i hate people

192 notes · View notes

lordisitmine · 4 months

Text

TTNBD BLOG: PART TWO

Welcome once again, to the extended author’s notes! That’s kind of how I’m thinking of these posts. This post covers the details of chapter two of the story, (chapter 3 on ao3 if you’re just looking at the numbers), entitled What a Tangled Web We Weave. So, spoilers if you haven’t read that yet.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY

In this week’s retrospective, I’d like to talk a little bit about historical accuracy. If you’re anything like me, you like watching and reading a lot of things that take place in past eras. If you’re like me, you hate when something- be it a phrase, an outfit, a hairstyle, or a reference to people/events- is egregiously incorrect to the time period being portrayed. Big anachronisms drive me crazy.

However, there’s a level of inaccuracy that I don’t actually mind- if it helps better the story without taking me too much out of the fantasy, or if it adds something to the setting while not detracting from the believably- I’ll allow it. Basically, what I’m saying is that, like a lot of other aspects of writing/art, historical accuracy is about finding the right balance. Or, getting as close as you can to the target of perfect. With fanfiction, I think the margin is even wider- I try not to take this medium too overly seriously, especially when I’m reading and enjoying something someone else has written. I’m a little tougher on myself, though I hope not too tough.

I like to call what I do “movie-accurate”. A lot of my favourite period films have things in them that just aren’t correct, but because I love those movies so much, and because the overall vibe is close enough to what I know about history, I let it slide.

For example, in the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice, the hairstyles of the young women, as well as some of their dress styles are quite off from what women’s fashions were actually like at the time in which the novel/movie was set. The 1995 BBC miniseries adaptation is far, far more faithful in terms of aesthetics. However, the 2005 film is incredibly beloved by a lot of Jane Austen fans, despite its inaccuracies! Because it’s a fucking good movie, which sells the characterization and romances so well that you can sort of excuse the “dumbing down” of the details. It’s one of my favourite period films, and films, period.

Obviously there are bad movies that don’t even try to be accurate, but when I say “movie-accurate” know that I’m talking about the good ones.

During the course of Though the Night be Dark, I’ll be making a lot of references to/descriptions of outfits and hairstyles, because I’m pretty sure I was a fashion designer or personal stylist in my past life, but not all of them will be totally accurate to the years 1899/1900. That goes for stuff like technology, too- it won’t ever be over-the-top (i.e. they’re not gonna have television in the year 1900) but if you notice stuff that seems just a little out of place, know that I felt it was necessary to fudge the numbers, so to speak, in pursuit of the characters, the romance, and the story itself.

This same sort of “movie-accuracy” applies to the settings. I’ve never been to Paris or London in my life- I’m broke and there’s a whole ocean in between me and Europe. I do my best to research and reference actual places and landmarks, but if you do live in either of those places and what I write seems fantastical or inaccurate, I am sorry, believe me. Please forgive me, and do your best to imagine these as like, imaginary versions of these places.

I don’t know why I’m defending myself- most people probably don’t mind, and some probably don’t notice things like this. But it’s important to me to be as accurate as I can be within the scope of my ability, and it’s important to me for people to learn about my process if they want to. I digress.

CHAPTER TWO: WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE

Sometimes I pick titles because they’re references to things, and the words/themes of the things in question closely fit the character and the story. For example, To the End of Everything is a lyric from the Adam Lambert song Sleepwalker, which was on my SebaCiel playlist back in 2014 when I was first writing it. It fit the story of the end of Ciel’s life, and the end of his contract with Sebastian, and it’s such a nice set of words to say out loud and look at on a screen.

The first chapter of this fic, A Far, Far Better Rest, is a reference to the final line from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. Two cities, London and Paris, both of which are the settings for TTNBD. Not a super deep reference, but there’s a reason for it.

What a Tangled Web We Weave is also a reference to something- part of a famous line from am 1808 poem Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field by Sir Walter Scott. It’s set in the time of Henry VIII and tells the romantic and ultimately tragic story of some rich guy and his affair with a woman. The full line is what a tangled we weave/when first we practise to deceive.

I picked this title for three reasons: one, because it has the word web in it, and Claude is a spider demon. Two, because it’s about lies, and lies are the basis for some of the upcoming conflict in this story. And three, and most chief among the reasons: it sounded cool.

What can I say. Sometimes I write/use things are deep and profound, and sometimes I just use things I think are kinda neat. I try, as always, to strike a decent balance.

Alright, let’s break this chapter down.

We started off with a remix of a scene from the second season of the Black Butler anime. It’s a little infamous, to be sure. I’m speaking of course about the scene where Alois shoves his finger into Hannah’s eye socket! I know that in the original scene he doesn’t actually pull out her eyeball, but I wanted to go whole-hog, I think it’s just extra insane and I wanted you to know what kind of Alois Trancy character I’m playing with here. He’s an adult here, whereas he was a kid in the anime- I don’t know, I just thought the increased level of brutality suited him.

I pulled actual dialogue from the scene and repurposed it, which I love doing and have done many times in my fanfic writing career (side-eye at my Supernatural fics). I wrote it from Claude’s POV because I love that outsider POV in a scene. I also wanted to establish his thoughts and feelings about Alois right off the bat.

Cards on the table: I haven’t watched the second season of the anime in a very long time. I watched the first few episodes some time last year I think??? When I was deciding to write this story, just to get a feel for their characters/relationship again. I’ve seen them portrayed in fanon as everything from a toxic couple to a couple who are more actually in love, like Ciel and Sebastian- I very much don’t see that for these two. Their tension is different, and in the context of this story, it’s been years, and that tension is heading towards a boiling point.

What I’m saying is that I’m sorry to any real die-hard Alois and/or Claude fans in advance if I do stretch them too far out of the OOC allowance margins… but also no I’m not hehehehehe.

Claude mentions Alois reading penny dreadfuls. Penny dreadfuls were these cheap little serialised fiction zines you could buy for a penny, hence the name. Every volume was like, an 8–16 page chunk of a story. The dreadful part comes from the fact that they were highly sensationalised and sometime salacious stories about murder and highway robbery and pirates and stories of real-life criminals doing heinous murder and such- sometimes sold at public executions! Overall, these things weren’t considered Proper English Literature. Which of course meant that they were VERY popular. Mostly in the early to mid 1800s. As far as I know, they started to lose ground in popular culture by the turn of the century, but they existed, I think they were cool, and therefore I can include a reference to them!

Penny dreadfuls weren’t really about romance or sex but they were super popular among young people, and the idea of Alois reading trashy romance novels in general is just hilarious to me. And like I said, I just really wanted to reference something so undeniably Victorian.

And yes, for the purposes of this story, he does in fact know that Hannah is a demon. Did he know that in the anime? I think maybe he did, but like I said, it’s been a while, and I don’t remember. I could go back and watch it again, but I don’t want canon to mess up my fanfiction. Anyway, the fact that Alois knows Hannah is a demon will become relevant and important as the story continues, so I won’t say too much more about it.

Back to Paris- it’s time for more Lizzy content! There’s quite a bit of that in this chapter. Originally, this chapter and the next one were originally just supposed to be one chapter, but the whole thing got too long/had a natural breaking point in my mins, so I split it up.

These parts of the story are more difficult to write- they involve the OCs a lot, and there’s lots of things to establish. It’s hard to do that without getting to in the weeds or being really clunky, but on the other hand, I can’t forget that anything outside of canon references is in my brain and no one else’s, so I have to make sure to cover the important stuff.

This is my first time writing F/F romance! That’s not quite true. I’ve been writing original stories with F/F romances in them for years and years- this is my first time writing an F/F romance that other people are actually going to read. Thankfully, being a lesbian, I have actual experience falling in love with women, so I have lots of real-life stuff to draw from. I didn’t realise how much of my own past and current crushes and preferences wormed their way into the Lizzy/Sybil dynamic. I’ve read posts before about how romance/sex scenes are always revealing of the author’s preferences/feelings/kinks, and I was like “not me haha I am Unknowable” but I guess I can’t say that anymore oops.

When it comes to labels for fictional characters, I don’t like to use them/talk about them unless it’s been explicitly stated in canon. For example, I would never say a canon bisexual character is exclusively gay, that would be bi erasure and we don’t do that shit here. This is especially relevant when it comes to time periods where terminology was different, and labels hadn’t been invented yet/didn’t mean the same things.

I’m trying to write Lizzy in a way that the reader can interpret any way they want! If you want to read her as bi or as a lesbian, that’s fine, I have no hard opinion on the subject! I think it makes a lot of sense that she’s bi, I think that there’s a case for her being a lesbian who’s had to deal with some hardcore compulsory heterosexuality.

However, Sybil is my character and therefore I do get to say what she is, and she is a lesbian. Stone cold homosexual. Again, not that it matters, I just like saying it.

Lizzy and Sybil’s romance isn’t a full-on slow burn per se, but I’m really enjoying building it up here brick-by-brick. At this point, she and Lizzy have been friends for a long time and already know each other really well, so the “to lovers” part can kind of come into play early, but I’m not going to give it all away at once- where would the fun be in that?

Let’s talk about Verity. Madame LaChance if you’re nasty. Verity, of course, means truth, and la chance is French for luck. I kind of wanted her to be straight up called “Lady Luck” but that was a bit TOO hokey, even for me. I wanted there to be an auntie-like side character, and I said to myself, what if there was a character who was like, all the good, lighthearted parts of Grell and Madame Red without any of the “oh btw I’m insane/also a serial killer”. I thought it’d be funny if she was sort of a go-between, having friendships with both Sybil & Lizzy as well as Ciel & Sebastian without any of them being aware of it. She became a bigger part of the story than I’d originally intended- she sort of stole my heart, maybe she’ll steal yours too.

She’s a little mysterious, but I can promise you she is a normal human. She’s just very… unique, I guess you could say. No more spoilers.

I’m being sort of vague about the club and what it’s called and what it looks like, there’s a lot more about it in a future chapter, don’t worry. Also, Madame refers to Ciel as Monsieur Phénix and Sebastian as Monsieur Corbeau. That’s French for phoenix and raven respectively. Stage names. Code names. C'est très dramatique. (No, I don’t actually speak French, beyond some very basic words and phrases.)

I hate to admit it, but I felt woefully out of my element while writing this part and I'm not 100% happy with how it came out I knew I wanted to have some reason to show Sebastian and Ciel going about their day-to-day lives, but I was also struck by the lack of, like, drama or action so far in the story. I fell back on the old adage of “write what you know” and had the boys not solving crime per se (there will be time for that later) but perhaps avenging somebody. I don’t think Ciel will ever give up his vengeful nature, whether its on his own behalf or someone else’s. And for Sebastian, it’s just bad business, and we can’t have that, can we?

There are a whole two paragraphs from Little Women by Louisa May Alcott in this next scene. I don’t know if that book is meant to be sad, but it made me terribly melancholy when I read it as a kid. Also, there I go again referencing literature. I pulled the same trick in next week’s chapter too, which I didn’t even realise I was repeating until I’d already done it. Oops.

“-And nobody saw Beth wipe the tears off the yellow keys, that wouldn't keep in tune, when she was all alone. She sang like a little lark about her work, never was too tired for Marmee and the girls, and day after day said hopefully to herself, "I know I'll get my music some time, if I'm good."

"There are many Beth’s in the world, shy and quiet, sitting in corners till needed, and living for others so cheerfully that no one sees the sacrifices till the little cricket on the hearth stops chirping, and the sweet, sunshiny presence vanishes, leaving silence and shadow behind.”

I wanted Lizzy to be reading aloud in this scene and this reference jumped out at me when I was trying to think of books that existed at the time and that characters this age might have access to. Beth of course is short for Elizabeth, and Lizzy’s arc in this story is about her becoming her own person in a lot of ways, or like, realising who she is, and this quote about Beth feeling like she’s in everyone’s shadow and only exists to do things for other people seemed really appropriate.

There’s a little more insight into Simeon- I drew the photograph described in the scene so you could get an idea of what Simeon looks like. I really like writing Simeon. He’s such a Good Dad. I mean, he’s bound by his word to be a good dad, but he really loves Sybil so much and wants her to be happy. But there’s also so much going on beneath the surface. I know most of you have figured out his true nature by now, but I hope that I still have the ability to surprise you in the long run when it comes to him.

Once again, thanks for reading! Comments and questions are always welcome, and I’ll see you all again next week! Special shout-out to vandorttranslations, who is translating this story into Russian as we go! It will never not be amazing to me that someone feels strongly enough about my work to undertake such a task!

-lord_is_it_mine

#lord speaks #kuroshitsuji #fanfiction #black butler #sebaciel #writing #my writing #behind the scenes #ttnbd #tteoe series #ttnbd blog #commentary

8 notes · View notes

yoonoclock · 2 years

Text

head & heart | myg + jjk

PROLOGUE

❝yoongi had your heart and your soul. however, after following the poor guidance of family, that bond was broken. years pass before another man walks into your life…reminding you what it felt to be in love. a man who surprises you more than you realize — jeon jeongguk. but all of that begins to falter upon the return of yoongi. what should you follow? your head or your heart?❞

• pairing: captain yoongi x female reader | knight jeongguk x female reader

• genre: angst, fluff, royalty au, fantasy au

• warning(s): nothing besides angst from a broken heart

• word count: 864

• note: i have returned after a long writing absence to bring this fic series. there’s no posting schedule because i have a busy working schedule, but the goal is at least once a week! this is inspired by the jane austen book, Persuasion. also thank you to @agustdef for reading this over for me!

PARTS

prologue | part one | part two | part three

Y/N,

I have sat in turmoil when facing the force that is my affection for you. I am consumed by the waves of love that ignite a new hope within me. From our first encounter, I imagined you to remain at my side for eternity. How I contemplated what that could mean for us. What it could mean for you. It seems you have come to that conclusion on our behalf.

The love that we shared…was it not reciprocated? Was I a mere glimpse in your journey? Perhaps I should have seen what lies directly before me. Disdain.

Am I so far beneath you that such a love is out of pity? Y/N…I am at a loss. I am in mourning of the life you fulfilled in me. Whenever you met my gaze, I saw the flames burst in your eyes. There is no act when it comes to the ways of the heart. However, I am discovering that I was delusional. You do not love me.

My status is laughable. Surely. I have no prospects aside from my service to my king. I am poor. This is not a shocking revelation because you were well aware prior to romance. Our relationship began as acquaintances in good humor. Did you seek me out of common courtesy?

I beg you not to answer this. I fear the response.

Y/N, I am wholeheartedly shattered. I see that wealth and assurance in the stability of material goods is what decides who holds your heart. Forgive me for clinging to yours so tightly.

This shall be the last you hear of me. I shall not burden you further.

Once your beloved,

Yoongi.

You had read that letter in agony as you crumbled to the ground. Tears poured down your cheeks and onto your gown that reached above your collarbone. The consistency in which they fell was to be expected. The loss of love warrants such a thing.

It was no surprise that this is his response after you had torn his heart from his chest. Why are you so broken over this letter? Because of how inaccurate it is of your true feelings.

Yoongi is the man you yearn for. Every piece of you is healed in his presence.

And yet, here you are processing the consequences of your own actions. You followed the corrupt advice of your family to protect yourself and your future. At a time when kingdoms are in the midst of tensions, it’s crucial that those of nobility are assured of their destiny. To them, Yoongi did not offer the stability required.

Painstakingly, you were persuaded by their persistence.

Where does that leave you? Shattered.

It’s in that moment you felt the urgency surge through your veins. You pulled yourself upright to run towards the entrance where he had delivered the letter. Pushing past the guards, you stumbled over the stones in hopes of seeing his figure before he had vanished entirely.

Frantically you searched for him. Why did you bother? It’s not as if anything could be fixed at this moment. The path had been divided the second you uttered those words of pain.

And yet…a piece of you hoped to see him one last time. To give you something tangible. Not that it would help.

Soon enough you realized it was far too late. In defeat, you felt the weight upon your chest increase. You ceased all movement as you dwelled in the dark of the night. All that remained was the dim glow of the moon behind the scattered clouds. For a brief second you heard a distant echo of a horse. Instantly your eyes fixated in that direction for any signs of him.

Scanning over the shadows of the landscape, you capture the silhouette of Yoongi upon his gallivant steed. At this distance you failed to notice any defined features. What was clear to you is his stillness. He waited. He waited for you. Now that you appeared he did not hesitate to continue on his way in the opposite direction.

You, once again, sank to your knees.

There is no comfort to be found. No one to blame. You fell for your family's words as if it was the deciding factor for everything. Rank and power should not be the source of persuasion. Unfortunately, it is the main source for your identity.

You reflected on the memory of Yoongi. The way he would keep you in his embrace so tightly as you studied the lapping waves at the shore. His warmth radiated a peace within your soul that could not be described. Being by his side, so deeply in adoration, allowed you to believe that nothing evil could ever trespass.

Yoongi would trail his lips along your hairline and leave feathered kisses every few centimeters. Even in this moment you closed your eyes to cling to those scenes as if it were a live action play. Just the thought of it caused goosebumps to spread along your skin.

Then the curtains fell. The final act reached its end.

Now you are alone. Broken..

“Yoongi…” you brought the paper to your lips. “I will always love you.”

#btswritingcafe #bts angst #bts scenarios #bts fanfction #yoongi angst #jungkook angst #yoongi x reader #yoongi x you #jungkook x reader #jungkook x you

108 notes · View notes

ellynneversweet · 2 years

Text

Copying this in full from Edward Austen-Leigh’s memoir, because it’s delightful in its ‘how very dare you make such a claim about my beloved aunt, I am here to destroy you with Facts And Dates,’ especially as it comes after several extracts of letters from Jane shortly prior to her death addressed to her clearly much adored nephew, ‘E,’ whom I assume was Austen-Leigh himself. (I confess I’m not sure which Miss Mitford offended him so much, because the dates aren’t right for it to have been one of the infamous sisters, but presumably a relative because uh, it’s a small world?)

Postscript printed at the end of the first edition; omitted from the second.

Since these pages were in type, I have read with astonishment the strange misrepresentation of my aunt’s manners given by Miss Mitford in a letter which appears in her lately-published Life, vol. i. p. 305. Miss Mitford does not profess to have known Jane Austen herself, but to report what had been told her by her mother. Having stated that her mother ‘before her marriage’ was well acquainted with Jane Austen and her family, she writes thus:‘Mamma says that she was then the prettiest, silliest, most affected, husbandhunting butterfly she ever remembers.’ The editor of Miss Mitford’s Life very properly observes in a note how different this description is from ‘every other account of Jane Austen from whatever quarter.’ Certainly it is so totally at variance with the modest simplicity of character which I have attributed to my aunt, that if it could be supposed to have a semblance of truth, it must be equally injurious to her memory and to my trustworthiness as her biographer. Fortunately I am not driven to put my authority in competition with that of Miss Mitford, nor to ask which ought to be considered the better witness in this case; because I am able to prove by a reference to dates not possibly have known what she was supposed to have reported; inasmuch as Jane Austen, at the time referred to, was a little girl.

Mrs. Mitford was the daughter of Dr. Russell, Rector of Ashe, a parish adjoining Steventon, so that the families of Austen and Russell must at that time have been known to each other. But the date assigned by Miss Mitford for the termination of the acquaintance is the time of her mother’s marriage. This took place in October 1785, when Jane, who had been born in December 1775, was not quite ten years old. In point of fact, however, Miss Russell’s opportunities of observing Jane Austen must have come to an end still earlier: for upon Dr. Russell’s death, in January 1783, his widow and daughter removed from the neighbourhood, so that all intercourse between the families ceased when Jane was little more than seven years old.

All persons who undertake to narrate from hearsay things which are supposed to have taken place before they were born are liable to error, and are apt to call in imagination to the aid of memory: and hence it arises that many a fancy piece has been substituted for genuine history.

I do not care to correct the inaccurate account of Jane Austen’s manners in after life: because Miss Mitford candidly expresses a doubt whether she had not been misinformed on that point.

Nov. 17, 1869.

#call out posts 1860s style

79 notes · View notes

anghraine · 2 years

Text

It’s the middle of the night here and I’m rambling, but I think one of the issues with the Netflix Persuasion is that it seems too strict an adaptation to get away with the scale of its changes.

A lot of people have pointed out that the plot of Persuasion is contingent on a) the social context and b) Anne’s and Wentworth’s specific personalities and relationship. In particular, if you substantially alter who Anne is as a person, the plot wobbles, and the dynamic between the leads becomes baffling. So at that point, you need to also substantially overhaul the plot (and perhaps the setting) to account for the changes in character, or the tension and the basic logic of the story get sucked out.

At that point, it’s easy to end up with something that is too fundamentally divorced from Persuasion to even market as an adaptation of Persuasion. But it’s also possible to continue to engage with the source material in a looser and more indirect way that is still interesting and substantive, like the oft-cited Clueless.

If anything, I tend to prefer adaptations that do this over allegedly faithful ones, because I think the “fidelity” approach often gets caught up in minutia while losing sight of core characterization and themes. Moreover, because adaptations ultimately have to change and add things (esp w/ an author who slides between scene and summary as often as Austen) the contrast between borrowings from the source and new creative material is often extremely glaring.

Personally I have major issues with adaptations frequently characterized as faithful—obviously I can rant about the 1995 P&P or the Peter Jackson LOTR movies all day bc of that reliance on reproducing some aspects of the text in minute detail and then hollowing out a lot of the nuance in the source material in a way that I find reductionist and less interesting. I don’t think loose adaptations are beyond criticism (I certainly do have some issues with stuff in, say, the 2005 P&P and 1999 MP), but I tend to have a bit more charity for them because often they’re interacting with the text in a different way that I find more compelling.

Like ... my favorite TV show is not strictly an adaptation of a particular text, but it overlaps because it’s a historical drama with a very loose approach to the history it’s representing. That show is Showtime’s The Borgias. (And fwiw I despise the supposedly faithful Borgia: Faith and Fear.)

The Borgias is artistically uneven (S3 in particular drifts between spectacular and trash fire) and historically inaccurate, but in a way that still engages with history with clear purpose. Generally the approach is something like “okay, what if the historical propaganda was true, and also was cool, actually, and we strung that stuff together with other things we made up to construct a straightforward plot.”

So like, if you look at something like Juan Borgia’s siege of Forlì in Season 2, which is absolutely critical to his arc in S2 and ultimate downfall, there’s the simplistic response of “that’s inaccurate, he never did that.”

And strictly speaking, it’s true! Historically, he didn’t! So why is it simplistic?

Because the whole thing with him fleeing battle in a cowardly way and getting mocked did happen historically, but it was a different battle against a different family in a different location that didn’t have anything to do with the “ten more sons” thing. So it is engaging with an actual historical event in a way that simply listing “Juan Borgia’s attack on Forlì” as an inaccuracy doesn’t fully account for.

But it’s even more complicated than that, because Caterina Sforza’s defiant response to Juan in the show is actually taken from the historical record, but (allegedly) happened in a completely different conflict that occurred when historical Juan was ... like, ten. So the real question is not “why did they invent the ‘ten more sons’ thing?” it’s “what are they trying to achieve by fusing together these different historical accounts?”

On top of that, it’s worth pointing out that the historical rumor that Caterina refused to negotiate with the declaration that she had the means to make more sons quite possibly never happened, at least in that way, and was spread to make her look unwomanly, a heartless mother etc and part of general misogynistic propaganda against her. So maybe it’s still inaccurate at its core.

But the question for me is, what is the show doing with that narrative? And I think what’s really interesting is that Juan, a Borgia, is clearly “the bad guy” in this scenario, and the show is pretty clear that Caterina is deeply upset as a mother, but too hardcore and intelligent to play Juan’s stupid torture games. Her defiance is framed not as something that de-legitimizes her but as, while painful for her, very deeply cool. So, ultimately the rumor is turned on its head to make her more, not less, sympathetic and admirable.

You don’t even have to like the reinforcement of that particular myth about Caterina, but just dismissing the set piece as inaccurate because Juan Borgia didn’t actually attack Forlì leaves out a lot of how the show is interacting with the historical record. The defensive “it’s not history, it’s just a show, and it works for the show’s story” also leaves out a lot of how the show is engaging with the historical record, though I think it’s worth talking about how the siege of Forlì does or does not serve the show’s story as well as how it’s participating in historical narratives.

At any rate, loose adaptation can engage with source material in kind of messy, complex ways that the accurate vs inaccurate dichotomy fails to really capture. This form of engagement is not inherently a good thing, but I think it highlights the ways in which it’s important to look at what an adaptation or historical drama or whatever is trying to achieve through its approach to its source material, whether we think that’s a worthwhile goal, and whether it actually succeeds in accomplishing it.

The issue with Netflix Persuasion isn’t just change = bad, blahblah Austen purists whatever, but that the purpose and results of a lot of its changes seem to reflect a contempt for both its source material and its modern audience without really saying anything very interesting about either. It’s in this weird zone between “went too far” and “didn’t go far enough” that mostly just results in something that trades on Austen’s reputation, but is mediocre as an adaptation of her novel, yet doesn’t seem to be particularly compelling in its own right as a separate piece.

#anghraine babbles #long post #austen blogging #austen fanwank #persuasion 2022 critical #political shenanigans and codependent siblings #magnificent bastards of the vatican #adaptation #andrew davies critical #anghraine's meta #also thinking of the 1980 p&p and how it's both more and less 'accurate' than the 1995 and certainly worse tv #but which i like a lot better because even when i disagree w/ its takes on the characters i find its approach to them /interesting/#like the ott unpleasant mr bennet is not exactly my reading but i think it's an interesting choice #where virtually every other adaptation softens him from the novel

73 notes · View notes