#which *is* problematic and *can* lead to rudeness or folly

[alighted-willow]

Genuinely, sincerely, what is so bad about being hyper? Because I fail to see a fault with it.

So long as you're respectful of others,

So long as you keep your wits about you and can readily apply yourself to whatever endeavor you intend,

What is so abhorred as to prompt needless, unproductive ridicule?

Sincerely,

- An irate cryptid who wishes people would stop telling her to "calm down" whenever she gets comfortable and happy.

#Rant #a small one but still #ADHD #ADHDer #hyperactivity #actually ADHD #Honestly the closest issue I can think of is impulsivity #which *is* problematic and *can* lead to rudeness or folly #but hyperactivity itself? #the obesity rates in the U.S. are so high and you want me to be SEDATE? #Why? #It makes no sense #In terms of oddity and failing to mirror those around you I suppose it does; folks prefer uniformity and are programmed to decry outliers #But that makes it no less *rude*. #*Don't* stare at people #*Don't* ask invasive questions #*Don't* make derisive remarks #this is basic social etiquette

[princesssarisa]

Guess what? I just reread Pride and Prejudice from cover to cover for the first time in years.

I wanted to answer the character asks I was sent about Elizabeth and Darcy with the characters as fresh in my mind as possible, so instead of just skimming the book for favorite quotes, I gave it a full reread.

Before I answer those character asks, here are some general opinions of what stood out to me.

I can safely say that this book isn't a "problematic fave," at least not where Elizabeth and Darcy's romance is concerned. I never thought it was, but now I know it isn't. I'm sure you've all heard me say that while I love Disney's Beauty and the Beast, I think it's a problematic fave because it does portray a raging, selfish bully as someone who can change into an ideal love interest. But not so Pride and Prejudice. Darcy is cold, stern, and sometimes rude in the first half of the book, but he's never, ever a bully. Almost all of his verbal "battles" with Elizabeth are outwardly polite on both sides (their only really angry argument is after his first marriage proposal), which helps this book to appeal even to people who don't usually like the "bickering leads to love" trope. Nor does he change to please Elizabeth: his off-page character development takes place when he never expects to see her again. Nor is he necessarily more flawed or more changed in the end than Elizabeth herself. I'm not entirely sure why this story is known as the quintessential "woman changes man" romance when their character development is so clearly mutual.

Elizabeth is not, in any way, shape, or form, a Mary Sue. Why some people call her that is beyond me! If they read only the first half of the book, I could understand it: if you don't know the ending, the first half does read as "Most of these characters are jerks, idiots, or sweet but all too naïve, and witty, perceptive Elizabeth cleverly judges and mocks them all." But the second half deconstructs this viewpoint, as Elizabeth realizes that she hasn't been much wiser than anyone else and that her vanity has clouded her judgments. It's ironic that in a book about the unreliability of first impressions (even the original title was First Impressions), the first impression of the heroine is all that some people remember.

When I first read the book, I thought only Mrs. Bennet was the bad parent in the Bennet family, and that Mr. Bennet was the good parent with his humor, his perceptiveness about his wife and younger daughters' silliness, and his love for Elizabeth. But now I can see the mean-spiritedness in the way Mr. Bennet judges and teases his wife and younger daughters, the fact that he prefers to laugh at the younger girls' follies instead of giving them any real guidance, and the fact that he carelessly spent his fortune instead of saving to provide for his family after his death. But again, I think this ties into the theme of deceiving first impressions: in the first half, we're set up to view him as the likable, sensible parent in contrast to his wife. It's only after Elizabeth confronts her own flaws (which are similar her father's and clearly influenced by him) that she's forced to fully acknowledge her father's flaws too. This is no defense of Mrs. Bennet, though. It's valid for her to be anxious to see her daughters all married before they lose Longbourn and its income, but she's still an obnoxious, silly person who only makes their prospects of marriage worse. They're both bad parents in different ways.

When I started my reread, I was especially curious to see if I would agree or not with one specific complaint I've sometimes heard: namely that Austen shows "internalized misogyny" by portraying so many of the female characters other than Elizabeth and Jane as silly, snobbish, and/or gold diggers. My answer? No, I don't think it's internalized misogyny. The male characters are no better; they include an equal share of snobs, fools, and boors (plus one rake). The women just stand out because there happen to be more female characters than male. I think Austen was mocking people in general, not specifically mocking women.

That's all for now.

#jane austen #pride and prejudice #literature #thoughts