flyingskull | Wintersmith et al

Current Mood: ranty
Current Music: Thin Lizzie, who else? Good Irish-Jamaican stock like dada

Wintersmith et al

My very good and patient friend

baeraad in response to one of my many proddings wrote in his lj:

Oh man yes! :D I read it a few days ago. And from the moment I opened it until I got to the last page, I spent all my time doing one of two things; reading or walking briskly around my apartment trying to resist the urge to whoop and holler in a way offensive to my neighbours. :D

Oh, the characters! Oh, the plot! Oh, the grandeur seamlessly fitting together with the matter-of-fact realism! Oh, my complete inability to say anything on the subject without melting into a puddle of pure Fanboy! ^_^;;

I did remember to study the style, and I must admit it was interesting. There's a detail here, there's a detail there, and somehow it comes together into an entire world. This is definitely what I have to try for - no long descriptions, but a framework for the readers to fill out.

Oh, and I was very fond of the beginning. Not something to try in a stand-alone book, I think, but seeing as this is the third book in a series... we know pretty much what shape things will have, don't we? We know Tiffany is going to be exposed to the Discworld-witch version of zen philosophy, we know that there's going to be an antagonist who's more a force of nature than a person, and we know that there's going to be some kind of showdown where she's going to have to demonstrate what she's learned (the real Witch Trials aren't competitions, are they? They turn up out of nowhere, and the witch either knows her stuff or she doesn't, and if she doesn't, she's not the only one who's going to have to pay).

So here we get it right from the start - just how powerful Tiffany has become, and just how inadequate that is in the face of what she's dealing with. So all through the story, we know that this is where we're heading. We never have to ask ourselves if it's going to get worse before it gets better. We know that it will.

I also love the escalating scale of responsibility Tiffany has to take in each book. In Wee Free Men, the problem came from outside, and she was the only one who could deal with it. In Hat Full of Sky, it was her own desires made a mess of things, but they had to be triggered from the outside. In Wintersmith, it's her fault. Period. She didn't mean any harm, but she did something stupid, and now she's going to have to deal with the consequences before her world ends because of it.

First I don't think that beginning works only because it's part of a series, in fact I am quite sure it would work SMASHINGLY well in any novel. Think of it, imagine this is the first book by Pterry you've ever read. Wouldn't you want to read on to know what the fuck has happened and how and why and to whom and who the HELL is this girl? Me, I would and I'm sure I'm a pretty average reader when it comes to pant over a book and forget to eat at first reading. I come over all critiquy and things at the third or fourth reading, actually.

Then, I don't know you but Tiffany Aching is a heroine I love to dislike. I really do and I think that THIS is the measure of Pterry's real greatness as an author. Look, I'm not sure I can explain, but... well, you see, in a way the Tiffany trilogy is a kind of anti-Potter thingy. There you have your misunderstood but quite hefty hero ('kay, 's a heroine and am not spitting on that but please allow me), there you have your compeer nemesis who is nothing half as lethal as the real baddies (alright, not exactly baddies as such, this is Pterry, not some clichéd pen pusher) but who is snotty and things and you have other compeers who may not seem much, but in the end they are pretty good at things. See where I'm going?

Tiffany is... *takes a deep breath* ... complicated, which I love, and not particularly lovely, which is alright because she has THE quality that really makes her a hero: she takes the consequences of her actions. She's pretty cool, in fact she's way too cool in her own estimation, and here's where the Potter parallel comes in. And you know why I love Pterry so much - BTW I think Maya's getting there, slowly but if she keeps this last style of writing, she's definitely getting there - because he ain't afraid of presenting a not very likeable heroine and he never but never shirks on her bad - very really bad - qualities and he never sugarcoats things BUT anyone can see why she's the bloody heroine. Not because she's powerful, but because she takes responsibilities and fucking PAYS her dues. I don't know many writers who can do that, y'know? Keep the ethics and not fall into the 'loveable' hero pattern.

So what does one do when the hero/ine is not that likeable a person? :-D One gives a long hard look at the baduns and sees if there's anything that resonates there. And oooooooooh LOOOK! We have two!

I truly find Annagramma and Mrs Earwig lovely persons. YEP! I confess: if Granny weren't so... so... oh fuck so on THE EDGE all of the time I wouldn't love her so deeply or so much. The fact that Granny is never but never allowing herself Tiffany's kind of arrogance makes her own arrogance endearing. But my heart, in a way, would be with Mrs Earwig and her daring theory of combining male and female magic all the way and all the time.

Annagramma - Tiffany's Draco - LEARNS! Wow! A character who allows facts and experience to influence her way of thinking and acting! Wow! I mean. WOW. I mean she learns she is NOT redeemed. You see the utter awesomeness? And also Annagramma learns lots more than Tiffany, y'know? Because after all's said and done and after Tiffany's learned what it takes to re-define legends and anthropomorphic personifications, she STILL is going to join the dance AGAIN. Catch Annagramma doing something so stupid or being so absent-minded and caught up in the excitement of the moment to do something so stupid. See what I mean?

And I love Mr Wintersmith and his ice roses that melt in the warmth of a human hand and his ice palace of dreams. I love tragedies and all Tiffany's stories are tragedies, have you unoticed? Tragedies hidden in folk rhymes and ballads that are made clear and present. And any person who dares belittle the MacFleagles' triumph will know the extent of my wrath. Which, I hasten to say, is rather more Granny-like than anything else.

Well, this would have been too long a reply and also that thread was starting to get looooooong, so this is a mercy cut, or surgery operation.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, that's what I meant about that being a smashing beginning: it promises a lot and the book delivers even more than the beginning promised. But, as yo so correctly say, Pterry always does, doesn't he? *satisfied sigh*

I think Pterry is annoyed at JKR for her - let's be kind, shall we? - shaky ethics more than anything else. Also at her blatant hypocrisy. D'you remember her: "oooh, so that is what I was doing, wasn't it? Fantasy? Ooooooh, I never! I never thought I was! Oooooh!" That got up Pterry's nose but good.

I also think he didn't exactly sit down and say: "let's do a skit on that annoying wamn and her shit hero", but Tiffany is a problematic heroine who has some genuinely irritating traits. The point is that because she takes responsibility for what she causes, even if she is quite young, she is the only possible heroine in her stories.

Oddly enough what makes me dislike her a bit isn't that she's a brat, it's that she actually is never a brat. Mort was a brat, just to give you an example of brattishness in Pterry. Diamanda was a brat. Carrot is one HELL of a brat. But Tiffany? She's so serious all the time! It took a Hiver to make her let out her hidden brat. So, y'see, we all react to real characters according to our prejudices and it's all good, innit? Me having been a brat makes me like brats and look a tad askance at good solid serious people. Er... providing the brattishness isn't the only thing there. Brats that can't evolve into something more are just caricatures and not characters. But we agree on this don't we?

About Mrs Earwig more later.

Ah, late reply, and the other replies are likely to be later still... ^_^;;

D'you remember her: "oooh, so that is what I was doing, wasn't it? Fantasy? Ooooooh, I never! I never thought I was! Oooooh!"

I do, and it's kind of funny, given that she's using so many clichés from high fantasy. Besides, how do you not recognise a book full of wizards and magical creatures as fantasy? While I do regard JKR as a little dim, that seems to be pushing it... 0_o

Though, didn't you once tell me that Terry Pratchett doesn't write fantasy? ;)

Anyway, there's worse than Rowling. Remember Goodkind, my favourite verbal punching bag? =] He doesn't write fantasy. Nope. He writes stories about important human themes which incorporate some elements of traditional fantasy. Anyone who thinks his books are fantasy are clearly too immature and stupid to read them. =]

Diamanda was a brat.

Ugh, yeah. I remember she freaked me out. There is nothing scarier than a petulant teenager who might just be more powerful than anyone else around. =]

Carrot is one HELL of a brat.

He is? Certainly he gets everything he wants, but that just seems to, well, happen while he goes about doing the Right Thing. Wouldn't he be considered the most serious person around?

Me having been a brat makes me like brats and look a tad askance at good solid serious people.

(*laughs*) I see your point. I was one of those disgustingly rule-abiding, authority-respecting kids, myself, so I think I like good solid serious characters. =]

I think what I like about Tiffany is that she actually thinks about things. Even when she's fuming at some injustice, part of her is trying to figure out why she's being treated this way, and suggesting that perhaps it's more reasonable than she wants to think it is. That's kind of what I'm like, after all. I understand perfectly what Second and Third Thoughts are - though I only have Third Thoughts on my very best days. =]

But we agree on this don't we?

Yep. =]

Though, didn't you once tell me that Terry Pratchett doesn't write fantasy? ;)

Well, I think he uses Fantasy more than write it. I also put it very badly when I said that, because, clearly, he writes Fantasy just as Swift did, I mean, he's not slobbering around in 'magical reality modernism' or whatever it's called, is he? The difference, to me, is that he doesn't believe in Genre Fantasy Blather, he uses the 'world and a mirror of world' thing to break problems into component parts and show that they can be resolved with a bit of scientific thought, i.e. THINKING about what can be done and what the consequences are likely to be. You know, it's like you said in another post, methinks, about being a 'devouted' atheist, bit of a contradiction in terms there, you see? Pterry is an atheist and feels no need to be devouted about it, he's got a scientific mindset, not a believing one. Er... boy have I got off the original rails or not? Muddled, m'dear, that's what I am. Oh well...

As for La Rowling and beyond-the-pale Goodkind, they can say all they please, what they write is reactionary tripe that sells well in this our new MiddleAge world.

And going even more off-topic... isn't ALL fiction fantasy? I mean take thrillers or police procedurals for example. They ain't about the real world, no matter how apparently nitty-gritty they may sound, they're about a fantasy world in which things eventually MAKE SENSE, all of them. That's worse than magic, innit? Whenever has reality made sense? Yes, well, maybe a tiny little bit of it makes some sort of sense after a while, but ALL of it? All questions neatly answered and motives neatly laid out and people being ultimately knowable and predictable? Hello? It sounds even more irreal than magic, doesn't it?

Brats... yeah, maybe Carrot don't look like one, but have you forgotten Fifth Elephant? OR the fact that he drags Angua wherever he pleases AND demands she likes it too? There's a lot about Carrot we're not explicitly told, but we're made to see and it's up to us readers if we decide to kind-of-erase it or look at it twice. Bit like Jane Austen's novels: most readers blip over some very stark things she's saying because she makes it easy for them to blind themselves to them. But there's never ONE time in all the Watch series in which Carrot don't expect to have it all his own way, y'know? This spells brat and worse to me. Prolly takes one to know one... ;)

The difference, to me, is that he doesn't believe in Genre Fantasy Blather

I think I see the difference. You define a fantasy writer as a writer who cannot escape the strictures of stereotypical fantasy, yes? :)

a 'devouted' atheist, bit of a contradiction in terms there, you see?

I'm not so sure about that. Douglas Adams wrote that reading about evolution was a spiritual experience for him - it made him feel like he understood how everything fit together, like it all made sense. Just because it's not stupid it doesn't mean it's not religious - though I admit that there is a strong tendency in that direction... =]

Incidentally, I just finished that &"¤@#$&3# Blue Like Jazz. Now I kind of want to yell at the woman who made me read that piece of crap. May I ask you, as someone who's been a smart person in a dumb world longer than I have - do you have any advice about how to not let this kind of garbage go unopposed while at the same time not driving your well-meaning friends away by saying exactly what you think? ^_^;;

You know, all I really want is to put an end to this eternal chorus of "but if you just understood Christianity, you'd see how wonderful it is!". I do understand it, and the more I understand, the more I loathe it! >_< If I wrote a story in which I had a priesthood that preached that people were shit and would never be anything else, and that they should be grateful that the benevolent gods hurt them, because they deserved it... if I wrote that, people would be telling me how unrealistic it was, that my priesthood was a bunch of one-dimensional villains. And I would say, "uhm, have you been to church lately? This is what they're saying there." =]

But no, if I don't agree, then that's proof that I don't understand, because Christianity is fundamentally true and no one can possibly argue against it.

Sorry, I am going off on a very bitchy tangent here, but I felt the need to vent and I believe I know you to be sympathetic with this particular issue. =]

Anyway, devouted atheists... I agree that Pratchett would not call himself one. He'd say that a devouted atheist would be one of those people who "hate the gods for not existing," whereas he's very comfortable with it. But I'd say that that's a pretty good working definition of "devout" - that it's so much a part of your life that you don't have to think about it anymore. I've never really been a devout anything (though I'm getting there), which would explain why I've always been so loud about whatever I've been at the moment... =]

do you have any advice about how to not let this kind of garbage go unopposed while at the same time not driving your well-meaning friends away by saying exactly what you think? ^_^;;

Gift them with either of the following:

Richard Dawkins "The God Illusion"

Daniel C. Dennett "Breaking the Spell"

Incidentally read them, they're excellent. Dawkins addresses the 'spiritual' experience of discovering Science (Darwinism, which ain't a religion) as he was a personal friend of Adams' and admits he made a mistake not addressing the folly of using science as a religion substitute. Both rant against the privileges religious believers demand. All in all a very comfortable coze with people of a like mind about things.

I think I see the difference. You define a fantasy writer as a writer who cannot escape the strictures of stereotypical fantasy, yes? :)

Exactly, though I'd add 'who cannot escape in her/his mind...' It's not a literary stance, but a limitation of the mind IMO. All others are GOOD writers and the genre definition is a trite mental shorthand I can't be having with. :p

I don't agree on your definition of 'devout'. It actually means zealous, like a fundamentalist, a way of feeling so overpowering one wraps one's whole life around it. Actually I subscribe to Pterry's definition of a devouted atheist, y'know? Atheism is the absence of devotion. Ideas can be changed, facts should alter theories and so forth: there's nothing fixed or stable. That's why one doesn't think about it normally. One would think - and seriously - about it if some FACT would cast doubts on it; one thinks about it when discussing it with other people - as I'm doing now - or writing a book or something like that. Otherwise why think about it? Whereas religion demands that you think about it the whole time, IMO.

Richard Dawkins "The God Illusion"
Daniel C. Dennett "Breaking the Spell"

Oooh. (*makes note*) I'll get them. It's always such a pleasure reading about sensible people's views. And the opportunity is so rare. =]

And Krystle can damn well read them too, yes she can. I read two books that she told me to read, after all, and that was a painful experience that tarnished my soul with excessive amounts of anger and malice. Fair is fair. ;)

Ideas can be changed, facts should alter theories and so forth: there's nothing fixed or stable.

There is a problem with this, though. Quite frequently, new facts appear that do not seem to fit whatever theory you hold to. But just because it doesn't seem to fit it doesn't mean that there's no explanation of the fact under the theory - you may just not have thought of it yet.

This is perfectly scientific thinking. Scientists ultimately abandon a theory that attracts too many contradicting facts, yes, but first they try like hell to find some variable that lets it all make sense without having to change the theory - or, as a second choice, they try to change the theory just a little, so that it's essentially the same but accounts for the contradiction.

Like... you're an atheist. If you saw an angel walk through the room, would you immediately become a Christian? Or would you assume you had been halucinating? The second, I think. The world is full of seeming contradictions, so you don't get anywhere by giving up on a theory at the first sight of trouble. =]

What I'm saying is, atheism is a smart theory based on the facts and religion is a dumb theory based on cultural habit, but they're both theories, and you can be committed or uncommitted to them (though religion demands rather more committment - refuses to be questioned at all, in fact). Someone who's never considered religion because he's never bothered to ask the big questions isn't what I'd call a proper atheist. More an atheist-by-default. And one who's going to turn in a heartbeat the moment some missionairing twit starts lecturing at him. =]

So I'm going to be stubborn and insist that you can indeed be a devout atheist. :) Though "devout" is perhaps an ill-chosen word - I didn't mean to imply fanaticism. But I would say that Pratchett et all clearly believes in science, in atheism, in humanism, not just in the lukewarm way of most people, but in the sense of genuinely believing that this is the best thing we've got going for us, and what's more, that this is enough.

Perhaps rather than to say "devout," I should talk about "comfortable" atheists?

Whereas religion demands that you think about it the whole time, IMO.

You're right here, I admit - that is a difference. Atheism lets you get on with your life in peace, whereas religion demands excessive amounts of "waaaah! I'm still not virtious enough!". =]

Say... if I were to say, "I'm not an atheist, I'm a philosopher," would you consider that to be two unrelated statements?

Well to clarify the first thing and answer to the last in one fell swoop: Dawkins is a scientist: he practically invented Neo-Darwinism with his breakthrough book "The selfish gene". Bennett is a scinetific philospher, or better, an exponent of the philosophy of science. He clearly knows that philosophers can be religious persons or atheists, depending on the philosopher and on which view of philosophy they subscribe to. So, yeah, read him and see why I'd consider them two utterly unrelated statements.

When I said that theories can be (and must be) changed by facts I meant exactly what you're saying, y'know? First contrdictory fact, you see if there is a way you can twitch your theory to include it, but always accepting that the fact doesn't fit if you want to think scientifically. If I saw an angel (and let's not forget that if the angel was Aziraphale, I could not realise I'd seen one), I'd test myself for hallucinations but I wouldn't dismiss it with a NAAAAH! because it threatens my beautiful elegant theory. Actually I think I'd go for 'it could well be an alien and that's how religions started' as a tentative theory first, but if it was an angel, I'd have to revise my theory and start gathering data from it by interrogation and tests. Doubt the angel'd like it, but that is sceince for you. :p

I agree with the rest too. Atheism is where you arrive when you think seriously and scientifically about the God question, IMO. It's certainly not cowardly agnosticism or lassez-faire ignorance. And yep, 'devout' is an ill-chosen word, though if you were aiming for a paradox to illuminate some underlining reality, it worked wonders.

Dawkins is a scientist: he practically invented Neo-Darwinism with his breakthrough book "The selfish gene".

That sounds familiar. Wasn't he mentioned in the last Science of Discworld book?

So, yeah, read him and see why I'd consider them two utterly unrelated statements.

Ah. (*nods*) I read a book last week that treated "philosopher" and "atheist" almost like they were synonymous, so I certainly understand what you mean. =]

How should I put it, then? I don't care if my god exists or not. More to the point, I know he does, because I can feel him in my head all the time. But if he doesn't exist outside my head, what of it? He's been very useful to me, and if believing in something gives me practical benefits, I don't really care if it's true or not. =]

But I think that means I'm not a scientist. They should care about what's true, shouldn't they? Then again, there is such a thing as positivism, which as I understand it means that you can hold to any theory you want as long as it accurately predicts the future... =]

let's not forget that if the angel was Aziraphale, I could not realise I'd seen one

Hehe, yeah, angels are sneaky buggers who likes to travel undercover. But let's say an honest one, possibly even with a fiery sword and stuff. =]

Actually I think I'd go for 'it could well be an alien and that's how religions started' as a tentative theory first

(*laughs*) Yeah, that's a good point. There really isn't any chance that any religion's going to turn out right, is there? It perplexes me that they don't understand this. Atheism (and let's for a moment forget that I just admitted myself not to be a proper atheist) isn't about thinking that science is right about everything. It's the pretty safe belief that God isn't suddenly going to part the clouds, stick his face down and go "FOOLED YOU!". =] It's the assumption that the answers to all the question we're facing are going to be of the same general sort as all the answers we've found so far.

Personally, if I saw an angel walking through the room, I'd start thinking about things like energy constructs and latent clairvoyance and self-hypnosis. And then I'd feel really insulted, because, why an angel, for Pete's sake? I'm a good sinner! I've earned a proper devil! =]

Doubt the angel'd like it, but that is sceince for you. :p

I'm sure it'd suffer through it with angelic patience. Unless it was a warrior angel, in which case it'd smite you with angelic impatience. You never know with these things, some people figure angels has to be good and sweet and pure and wonderful and others figure they need to be filled with righteous wrath so they can smite atheists, heathens, heretics, infidels and people who snore during sermon. They're bound to get sort of schizofrenic. =]

Er... boy have I got off the original rails or not?

That's usually where the most interesting stuff is found. :D

And going even more off-topic... isn't ALL fiction fantasy?

This is certainly what fantasy freaks such as myself tends to argue. =] The implication being that fantasy is thereby more honest than normal fiction, because it admits it's all invented. But that's mostly just something we say because we feel put upon and feel the need to launch a counterattack... ;)

Seriously, though, yeah, all fiction is fantasy. And personally, I kind of prefer writers who acknowledge that. I love it when authors who normally write fantasy write something realistic, because that tends to have the same... glow, the same... playfulness as fantasy, but because it's realistic you don't have to suffer those damn elves and dwarves that everyone's sick of by now. =]

I mean, fantasy is all about attaching emotional significance to things, and you can do that without magic. In fact, it's probably better done with things that are perfectly mundane and contemporary. If you want to write modern myths, why do it with an archaic setting?

Worth pondering for my own writing projects, actually...

All questions neatly answered and motives neatly laid out and people being ultimately knowable and predictable?

Heh! Yeah, that's probably the defining quality for storytelling. And even with journalism, really. It's all about people trying to answer the question, "okay, so what was that all about?" =]

Brats... yeah, maybe Carrot don't look like one, but have you forgotten Fifth Elephant?

Good point. Maybe the reason why Carrot doesn't look like a brat is that most of the time, everything automatically turns out as he wants it to. No need to be bratty then. And of course, if you're used to getting what you want, you don't deal too well with things not going your way... =]

Bit like Jane Austen's novels: most readers blip over some very stark things she's saying because she makes it easy for them to blind themselves to them.

I did notice a few occasions when she seemed to be poking fun of the underlying assumptions of her own fictional world, though I'm sure I've missed most of it... But, in that famous opening sentence of "It's a truth universally acknowledged that a wealthy bachelor is in need of a wife," (misquoted because my mum stole her copy of the book back, darn her ^_^; ) do I perhaps detect more than a slight hint of "the bachelor's own opinions on the matter are entirely inconsequential"? =]

I did notice a few occasions when she seemed to be poking fun of the underlying assumptions of her own fictional world, though I'm sure I've missed most of it... But, in that famous opening sentence of "It's a truth universally acknowledged that a wealthy bachelor is in need of a wife," (misquoted because my mum stole her copy of the book back, darn her ^_^; ) do I perhaps detect more than a slight hint of "the bachelor's own opinions on the matter are entirely inconsequential"? =]

"It is a truth universally aknowledged that a single man in possession of a fortune must be in want of a wife." And notice how you remembered it as 'in need' while she wrote 'in want' which is crueller as it doesn't refer to the single man's needs (i.e. he needs companionship, someone to manage the house to make him comfortable, heirs, tec.) but to his desires and wishes and that's even more intimate.

She wasn't poking fun at her own fictional world, though, she was satirising the real world she lived in: society's assumptions and push to make everyone conform to the existing norms. She writes about a claustrophobic society (hate the burgeoisie)that demands - and obtains - total submission of its members. Note that Bingley himself knows he will have to get married to someone sooner or later. He's actually lucky to fall in love with someone he can marry in the novel. And Darcy is doubly so lucky, he's much more hemmed in than Bingley. Poor creep Wickham is not so lucky and Charlotte is even less lucky. Okay, got sidetracked again, but you get my drift, I hope.

And notice how you remembered it as 'in need' while she wrote 'in want' which is crueller as it doesn't refer to the single man's needs (i.e. he needs companionship, someone to manage the house to make him comfortable, heirs, tec.) but to his desires and wishes and that's even more intimate.

Ugh. Ye gods, yes. It sounds hauntingly familiar. And put like that, it carries on right up until today, except for the fact that being broke is no longer an excuse not to get married, because these days getting married means combinging two incomes. =]

Not that I object to the idea of getting married, but I also don't object to the idea of not getting married, and I feel that people object very strongly to the idea of me not objecting to the idea. ^_^; You'd think a country with one of the world's largest number of single households would be a bit more open-minded on the subject, wouldn't you? =]

She wasn't poking fun at her own fictional world, though, she was satirising the real world she lived in: society's assumptions and push to make everyone conform to the existing norms.

While realising my ignorance on this subject and being fully prepared to being proven wrong, I would say that Ms Austen was nevertheless a part of that claustrophobic force. Her stories reinforce the "truth universally acknowledged" - not only is a good marriage necessary for a happy ending, some sort of marriage is mandatory. That's why I would call comments like that self-ironic rather than ironic - her created world mirrors, not the real world, but the world as her contemporaries (and she herself?) see it.

Still puts her ahead of a lot of other authors, past and present, though. =]

Poor creep Wickham is not so lucky and Charlotte is even less lucky.

Lifetime with Lydia. Now there's a horrible thought. What's the Phantom and "an eternity of this before your eyes" in comparison? Honestly, this is punishment disproporitionate to the crime! =] Okay, maybe not, because he almost condemned an entire family to poverty so that he could get laid, but still... =]

Not sure about Charlotte. She seems to have gotten all the best parts of spinsterhood while still being supported financially. I'm sure you can put up even with Mr Collins a few hours a week as long as he pays the bills and leaves you alone the rest of the time. =]

Okay, got sidetracked again, but you get my drift, I hope.

I think so. :)

Well, she died a spinster, y'know? So she may have been reinforcing, but she certainly didn't obey the dictates. But you're right, the fact is that her writing is so layered and works on so many planes that's difficult to see exactly what her underlying aim was, which was exactly how she wanted it. She wanted to be published and was quite good at taking in her publisher and her readers. If you read her Juvenilia, you'll see she used to write very cruel parodies of existing literary conventions and even threw in a bit of slash to poke fun at the wilting lachrimose heroes of Romantic Novels.

Charlotte has to fuck Mr Collins, y'know? Or better, to be fucked by him while laying still and thinking of God as he surely wants her to do. She also has to go to that infernal woman's evenings and listen to her husband shamelessly brown-nose her, also she has to follow ALL of that woman's advice because her husband would make her do it. She has to go visit the poors and sick of the parish because that was what being a pastor's wife was all about. And she has to listen to him prose on and on and on and on and live with him. What makes you think he'd live her alone at all? She would have to go to church with him and he'd have nothing else to do but write aeons long sermons, potter in the garden according to whats-her-face's orders, and bother his wife. POOR Charlotte, it's a form of suicide by marriage. At least Lydia can get her own back on Mr Whickam, she's as promiscuous as he is and has a temper and a tongue to rival his. And wait until she breeds... O the horror, the horror!

BTW someone has written a sort of sequel to Pride and Prejudice and I ordered it out of curiosity..

Can't you just see Harry as Elizabeth and Draco as Darcy?

*pokes at friend with uncouth slash*

Oh and Golden Snot Ginny as Whickam? MBWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Hmmm... fun. Lessee... Neville is Charlotte, Ron is Jane and Hermione is the bookworm sister. Luna is Kitty and Lavander is Lydia. McGonagall is Mr Bennet, of course but who is the monster Mrs Bennet? C'mon, play this game with me...

Charlotte has to fuck Mr Collins

(*shudders*) There is that, I admit.

She also has to go to that infernal woman's evenings

Hehehehehe... True, Hyacinth's got nothing on Catherine de Burg. Still, sooner or later Mr Bennet's bound to croak, and the Collinses gets to move quite some distance away from her... much to one Collins' disappointment and the other's delight, one suspects. =]

What makes you think he'd live her alone at all?

Uhm, because she said she only ever saw him at dinner... or was that just in the movie? ^_^;

And wait until she breeds... O the horror, the horror!

Oh dear, yes. Never mind a lifetime with Lydia. A lifetime with Lydias! Poor Wickham, I wonder how long it'll take before he starts eyeing his militia rifle with some temptation. =]

*pokes at friend with uncouth slash*

Okay, let's see. Mrs Bennet? Hagrid. Loud, annoying, without social skills and completely oblivious to how that lack affects others, always demanding that they give room for his temper, intent on having everything his own way and certain that that way is the proper way which everyone else should also embrace.

Slughorn is Mr Collins, I suspect. Well-meaning, self-indulgent, self-important, and not nearly as charming as they think they are.

Hmm, I can't think of anyone for Catherine de Burg except granny Black, which is a pretty dull choice based on the fact that they're both class-concious and yell at people.

What of Bingley? Kind, stupid, genuinely charming... Is there anyone in HP who's dumb without making one want to smack them over the head? I can't say I can think of one, I kind of want to smack even the supposed clever people over the head... =]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Wintersmith et al

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject