Today I understood why Mr Bingley is important for ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ Of course I’ve heard that he’s Mr Darcy’s foil and he helps us see that Mr Darcy lacks manners. And probably we need him to see a man whose character trait is quickly deciding to leave a place and who might never come back, and who also - I don’t know - can easily get under the influence of his friends.
And I have always seen him as a very insignificant side character, and I never understood why there was even a need for him; like why Jane Austen of all people would write such a lacking(?) side character. He is not really a commentary on something. He’s just fickle.
And was there even a need for Mr Bingley & Jane’s love story? They’re basically 'love at first sight, destined for each other’ and they look quite out of place among the other three couples – Elizabeth and Mr Darcy, Lydia and Mr Wickham, Charlotte and Mr Collins – that are all a commentary on love and society.
Today I understood that had there been no Mr Bingley Jane would’ve married Mr Collins out of obligation as the eldest sister and that would have been a very different book that didn’t feel like such a happy story by the end of it (my Mom calls it a fairy tale), had only one of the sisters (Elizabeth) landed herself a love match.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there is an undercurrent to Jane’s story that is about her being an angel and that their love with Mr Bingley is a dream that rarely comes true, I don’t know. But still, apparently Mr Bingley is not as inconsequential a character as he has always seemed to be.
Sorry to highjack your post with an essay, but there’s actually a common misconception here that I really want to breakdown.
One of the things that it isn’t easy to notice these days is that Jane and Bingley actually are a commentary on love and society in exactly the same way the other couples are. It just isn’t as obvious because the expectations and discussion over how people are meant to behave when in love has vastly changed in two-hundred years.
Jane exemplifies a common standard for young gentlewomen of that era: be demure (but never cold), friendly (but not too friendly), reserved about your true emotions (but always pleasing to everyone), appear grateful for every civil interaction a gentleman offers you (but never seeking or desperate for them), etc. She’s beautiful, yes, and unfailingly kind, but her 'perfection’ for contemporary readers would’ve gone far beyond that.
Because in many ways, Jane is the perfect gentlewoman. All those impossible virtues of good sense and perfect goodness and eternal gratitude and elegant grace are united in her. And in the Jane and Bingley love story Austen asks the question of how that behaviour, however generally admirable, can function in reality and then explores some of the drawbacks.
We actually see Charlotte allude to this directly in chapter 6. When Lizzy is happy that “Jane united, with great strength of feeling, a composure of temper and a uniform cheerfulness of manner which would guard her from the suspicions of the impertinent,” Charlotte famously rebuts:
“It may perhaps be pleasant,” replied Charlotte, “to be able to impose on the public in such a case; but it is sometimes a disadvantage to be so very guarded. If a woman conceals her affection with the same skill from the object of it, she may lose the opportunity of fixing him; and it will then be but poor consolation to believe the world equally in the dark. There is so much of gratitude or vanity in almost every attachment, that it is not safe to leave any to itself. We can all begin freely—a slight preference is natural enough; but there are very few of us who have heart enough to be really in love without encouragement. In nine cases out of ten a women had better show more affection than she feels. Bingley likes your sister undoubtedly; but he may never do more than like her, if she does not help him on.”
This exchange isn’t just iconic (and, in my opinion, a mark of Austen’s genius for all it conveyed), it’s a debate about society and its ideals vs the reality in practice. Since society has changed readers tend to see it purely as a commentary on Jane/ justification for why Darcy interpreted her the way he did/ foreshadowing for Charlotte’s own choice, but it wasn’t only that. It was calling out some downsides to women being perfectly composed at all times when the man they’re in love with is a decent guy who cares about things like 'whether his affections are welcomed’ and isn’t so self-centred as to not have doubts over how someone who doesn’t reveal much might actually feel. It’s actually a testament to Bingley’s character and general concern for others that he doesn’t just assume that 'of course she likes me, she’s polite and friendly to me,’ when doubts are raised. You know who wouldn’t have doubts? Arrogant and self-centred people whose priorities aren’t others and think only about what they want. Though not directly said in the text, the Jane and Bingley temporary break-up does call into question whether behaving in this admirable way might actually push away the most considerate and thoughtful suitors.
And though I know modern readers are very prone to judging Bingley harshly for not returning quickly to Jane, keep in mind we live over two centuries later in a far more individual-focused society with different values. In the text Lizzy, who we all know has no qualms about being angry at others, ceases to be mad at Bingley almost as soon as she receives Darcy’s explanation. He’s not condemned by either her or the text for being persuaded that Jane was indifferent to him, and Lizzy actually comes to believe it’s understandable.
I think another thing we’ve lost with the passage of time is just how bad the Bennets could be seen as. While Mr Bennet lives they’re rich, top 0.2% rich for England in that era, and yet the daughters will have next to nothing for their class/upbringing and weren’t taught many of the housekeeping/economic skills they’d need for a realistic future. I’ve talked more in depth about what they should have been saving according to contemporary accounts and done some maths here and here but the gist is they should’ve easily been six times as rich as they are. Let’s not forget the lack of education too. I said it in one of those posts, and I’ll say it again, if you knew a top 1% family who were constantly flirting with bankruptcy and 2/5 of their children were barely educated you wouldn’t be wrong for thinking there were some serious problems in that family. Then there’s the social vulgarity/silliness, but that translates much better to modern audiences so I won’t go into that anymore than to say that decorum was a BIG DEAL back then and who you were 'connected with’ could very literally affect your standing in society. Darcy and Bingley’s sister’s were snobbier about it than they should’ve been, but the core reasons for concern were actually valid. Even Lizzy very quickly saw the justice in Darcy’s logic once presented with the facts so bluntly.
Bingley noticed these things, as everyone sensible did, but he’s just too generous a person for that to matter enough to stop him from wanting to marry Jane. It was only being persuaded that she genuinely was indifferent to him that made him put aside his hopes.
We should also keep in mind that it wasn’t just randoms who were doing the persuading, it was Bingley’s best friend (who is used to believing himself an authority on others - a flaw he has to overcome in the course of the novel) and his sisters (whom everyone considered close friends of Jane and who would’ve seen her more than Bingley). Their motives were jaded by prejudice but for many contemporary readers these would’ve been the most reliable advisors anyone could have in matters like this.
Given the delicacy of the subject it’s not like he could directly ask Jane herself until the actual proposal, or even begin acting more markedly and hope she responds in kind (the impropriety of which is similar to what we see with Marianna and Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility). Even when Lizzy knows Bingley liked Jane, knows that Jane still feels the same and suspecting that he does too, she doesn’t so much as think about giving him a hint when she sees him again in Derbyshire. It simply wouldn’t be proper, it’s up to his intimates to speak with him about it. So, if Bingley wanted an outside opinion Darcy and his sisters were it; and, on paper, they’re very good advisors on the topic of whether Jane liked him.
In most situations it would be a massive character flaw to think 'I don’t care what all my closest family/friends/her friends say, I’m going to persist in thinking this girl likes me against their advice.’ Keep in mind they knew each other for six weeks and he’s never even been alone with Jane. His sisters have though. There’s also a commentary in there on the moral pitfalls of influencing someone at all (which is explored in far more depth in Persuasion) but Bingley is never called wrong by the text or characters for not jumping to the assumption that his friend’s being an arrogant snob and his sisters are bitchy snobs. A rich man who recognises he can be wrong is a good quality even today, and if we think in contemporary terms (and remember he’s only 22) I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable that he was persuaded.
Which brings us to his whole personality: Bingley is in many ways a perfect gentleman socially. Charming and civil to everyone, uniformly good-tempered, and other than offending one or two young ladies by not asking them to dance, commits no social sins. He’s also praised for being friendly and obliging - the latter being another trait which, as Jane Austen does with Jane’s praised traits, gets explored via its weaknesses. Arguably the novel is one long exploration of the weaknesses of various traits, most notably those in its title, but this is already too long for that tangent.
Bingley’s also very new money. Outright called the first gentleman (remembering that that word meant something very specific about education, dress, behaviour, poise, etc in that era compared to today) of his family, and his father was in trade. In a time where the middle merchant class was still establishing itself as worthy of being treated with respect by their 'betters’ (and the mere fact of Darcy’s close friendship with Bingley is the first clue that he’s not as arrogant and snobby as Lizzy believes) his perfect upholding of an amiable ideal is a commentary in itself. Especially when we see Lady Catherine and Darcy, with their impeccable bloodlines, commit social faults arguably equal/worse to Mrs Bennet (herself not born into the gentry class and a negative example of social mobility to contrast Bingley’s positive example) and Mr Collins. The highborn character who does embody appropriate social graces, Colonel Fitzwilliam, is interestingly not landed himself and needs an occupation.
Modern readers, without such a class based society which focused on social graces, are also less understanding of that 'obliging’ aspect of Bingley’s personality. But this was a time when, generally speaking, the richer and more important you are the more likely you are to get what you want and everyone else fell into line. It was so common that it wasn’t even really critiqued heavily by Austen, some people were rich and had the means to do as they wished through money or social credit, and others followed if they wanted to be involved at all. We see this casually mentioned when Colonel Fitzwilliam says “I am at [Darcy’s] disposal. He arranges the business just as he pleases;” which also helps us understand that the Colonel probably didn’t have the income to own his own carriage or easily rent one to travel (which was EXPENSIVE). That context, of rich men not only ruling the world but also getting to decide what other people (in the Darcy/Colonel Fitzwilliam case, even older and higher-born people - and Bingley was younger and new to the gentry) do in their leisure time through virtue of their wealth, is the context we need to view Bingley in. Though Darcy was undoubtedly more important Bingley was still 2-2.5x richer than Mr Bennet and thus everyone else in the neighbourhood excepting his friend - and yet far from being the standard rich man who began dictating the social scene and choosing what to do without consideration for others, he was obliging. He matched what others were doing, had consideration for them, participated as though grateful to be invited instead of entitled to it. His obliging nature is part of what sets him up as a true gentleman and far more worthy than others who only adopt some of the social graces and miss how it’s meant to apply to their whole character.
His personality is actually a very interesting study in what makes a gentleman a gentleman, and argues that the real qualities which matter have nothing at all to do with connections or family history. It’s also an analysis of what obliging personalities can fall victim to, even when they’re sensible, as Bingley is said to be. His whole character ties in directly (as does Wickham’s more overtly) with Darcy and Lizzy’s own journeys with true gentlemanlike behaviour and character. It’s just not in a way which is at all easily noticeable to modern eyes without a background understanding of the society he functioned in, nor is it something directly depicted in the adaptions.
Anyway, sorry for the hastily typed essay and I hope I’ve convinced you that Bingley and Jane are an exploration of love and society just as the other couples are, and also a rather pointed social commentary on behavioural standards and changing class lines through social mobility. For all that Jane Austen’s writing feels comforting and sometimes quite verbose, she actually fit an immense amount of commentary and meaning into every aspect of her books. Jane and Bingley are absolutely no different.
I love a good hijacking of a post, especially when it’s as thoughtful and grounded in historical knowledge as this one is.
We’ve been shown Prythian is dangerous from book one. Creatures were luring Feyre. Rhys literally beheaded fae and put their heads on spikes to threaten Tamlin not to mention the fact that you can’t see the bogge which is terrifying in itself. There’s a lot of other dangerous things in Prythian. Yet Tamlin stopping Feyre who hadn’t yet learned to control or use her new powers and was traumatised and newly fae from patrolling with him and Lucien is a huge problem for some people but Nesta being locked up because she was using alcohol as a coping mechanism and sleeping around (like the IC but apparently that’s different) is not the same because she had 10,000 steps to climb down (who can actually walk down 10,000 steps realistically?) and it was to protect her. Right ok. I don’t see how that makes sense.
Warning: Mild tangent.
I strongly believe it won’t even be a debate whether Nesta was ‘imprisoned’ in HoW if the readers had any proper spatial sense.
I am an Indian raised as a Hindu in my home country. We find a hill/mountain in our lands, we carve a temple on it. At the highest peaks. The strenuous journey is a form of purging and meditation and a sign of sincerity of your prayers and devotion, well anyway that doesn’t matter here.
We actually have a real temple atop a mountain with 10 000 steps. It’s called Dattatreya situated at ~3 300 ft and you can find more details here on the journey itself and how much prep goes into for ONE trip. You cannot complete this journey in one day and it is not advisable as such. The path itself is split into two so the visitors could rest and replenish. Moreover the photos you might find are the structures built as part of more recent renovations to some degree in order to ease these climbs.
The most common misbelief is that since the steps are built in, it must be easier than hiking or rock climbing, two activities that have become widely popular in the western world, when it isn’t a right comparison.
The temple I recently visited had roughly 600 steps at an altitude of 350 m. This number is for the modern stairway that is similar to those in your common residential buildings. But the older ones must round up to much smaller count and they are coarser, jagged with sharp, rough edges. Imagine 2-3 steps collapsed together under high pressure and that’s how high each one would be.
(I don’t have my photos of those steps or the winding path with me. If I find them, maybe I will post them later. This is the view from the peak of the hill I found on google. This is just 350 m which should be around 1 000 ft.)
Statistically, the uphill trek is much safer compared to downhill and anyone who’s climbed these paths will attest to this. The biggest problem of upward path would be retaining your strength and though the downward one feels easier and exerts least energy, it is dangerous as you are more prone to tripping and falling to death. It isn’t the same as rolling down a curved rocky surface with serious bumps. Remember the ragged steps we talked about? You will get injured one way or another. You have no idea how high the death rate is for these hills with steps.
I usually take the death trap stairs as I find it an exciting challenge. I am of average build by Indian standards and have decent stamina. It was a long time ago but if I am right, it took close to 30 mins to climb those 600 steps for me. Now can y'all do the math for 10 000 steps or shall I do it for you?
And here we are talking about a woman who is malnourished from self-inflicted starvation and been self-sabotaging for a while, clearly dealing with depression and a form of PTSD.
What’s unbelievable is that the injuries she sustained from the fall and the fall itself are described so vividly and yet people don’t get how brutally she was hurt. Nesta almost died. It isn’t an exaggeration, but a very, and I cannot emphasis this enough, likely outcome in this scenario.
But hey, it’s just 10 000 steps if she really wanted to get out. Babe, you don’t even hit 5k on your daily steps on levelled ground.
And I will forever hate Cassian for laughing at her when she reached the house again. Yes, it was abuse. He was revelling in how 'humbled’ she was by the failed attempt when she barely survived. He heard her fall! And still didn’t help because he needed her stubbornness and resolve broken.
And I will also forever hate Feyre for this. She was manipulated, okay. But she is twenty and has common sense? Just cause she is a daredevil who is jumping at every chance of death, it doesn’t mean everyone else should suffer like she does.
My point is what the IC did to Nesta is far worse than what Feye accuses Tamlin of.
Can someone explain to me the logic of Rhysand working with Amarantha, and why I’m supposed to find it brave and selfless?
Seven High Lords on the continent yet none bowed low enough to work with her—except one. Rhysand sold himself into her slavery, turned himself into her pet dog and committed countless crimes in her name for fifty years, murdered children and innocent people in her name. All to protect Velaris—a city nobody even knew existed. Is it selfless or just plain stupid, to sell your soul for a city no one was even looking for?
Explain to me the logic in this. Please. The other High Lords inarguably had more to lose: families, bloodlines, entire courts instead of just one city. Velaris and its citizens are no more deserving of the blood Rhysand spilt to protect it than Adriata or Artemisia or any cities of Dawn, Spring, Winter, or Autumn. Yet, not a single other High Lord bowed to Amarantha’s whims. They were her hostages, but they were never her slaves. Unlike him. Three High Lords and their bloodlines wiped completely off Prythian in their defiance of her, yet somehow it’s Rhysand who is deserving of praise?
Was it bravery or cowardice that led him into her service? He had enough time and magic to erect a shield around Velaris, to wipe clean everyone’s memories of the Inner Circle. That’s more than what everyone else had, when they were all stuck hostages Under the Mountain. That’s more than what Tamlin got with his fifty year curse, when he had to send countless men over the border to die in his defiance of Prythian’s wretched self-proclaimed High Queen.
Power? Freedom? What exactly did Rhysand do with those little movements Amarantha allowed? He didn’t rule, didn’t orchestrate a rebellion, didn’t find intel on how to take down Amarantha from the inside. In fact, he seemed more than content to sit on his ass like everyone else while Tamlin tried to break the curse. So what exactly did those countless moments of hurt and pain and trauma bought Rhysand, hmm? Nothing more than anything else the rest of Prythian got.
Night was a dumpster fire because both Hewn City and Illyria were given too much freedom. Velaris was locked away as it had been for 5000 years. And Rhysand a mass murderer and a criminal, on top of being Amarantha’s consensual non-consensual sex slave too.
So really, what exactly did Rhysand’s whole deal with Amarantha do, beyond making him miserable?
Enough Goncharov. I want to see more discussion of revolutionary 1928 film The Dancing Cavalier starring Don Lockwood and Lina Lamont (and the uncredited voice of Katherine Selden)
I want more discussion of S. Morgenstern’s original unabridged version of The Princess Bride. It’s so irritating that it’s now literally impossible to find anything other than Goldman’s abridgement. And this is presented as a good thing! Some of us like complicated social satire, William! Yet all that brilliance has been thrown out so we’re left with only the parts that are comprehensible to a ten-year-old boy! Absolutely maddening!
Wait wait wait Katherine Selden was in that movie?! How did I not recognize her voice, I tracked down so much grainy footage of her role as Wilma in A Night of Music when I was a kid just to hear her high notes in the bridge of Winter Song! *sigh* I guess I need to go watch The Dancing Cavalier again, it’s been ages since I’ve seen it. I just remember that green dress Lina Lamont wears in the second half, I want it so bad.
No yeah the crediting situation around The Dancing Cavalier is SO weird.
Apparently at the time it came out you could barely AVOID knowing she was in it? It was a massive scandal on opening night because apparently everyone was REALLY invested in Lina Lamont (who I’ll admit I’m not really a fan of in other things, but then I don’t watch a lot of silent film and that was her niche), and the revelation that she wasn’t the one talking OR singing absolutely torpedoed her career. Wild that lipsync controversies are as old as film with sound.
BUT, on the other hand, Katherine Selden wasn’t formally credited anywhere in the film itself. I have a vague impression there were contract complications with her or Lina Lamont or both? But the upshot was, even though it literally launched her career, she’s not “officially” in it. And so, nowadays, it’s really easy even for people who love Katherine’s voice and old films to assume it’s actually Lina Lamont singing!
Look, I’m not going to defend Lina Lamont’s actions, because she really did try to screw Selden out of getting any recognition for her work. However, she was trying to survive in a rapidly changing film landscape that seemingly had no use for actresses with unconventional voices. If you’re only familiar with her from The Dancing Cavalier and the few comedies she did in the 30s, it’s worth going back and watching a few of her silent movies to see what she was like as a leading lady. Most of them are lost media now but The Royal Rascal is really good and actually has a very sweet love story. Plus Don Lockwood got to swordfight and we all like that lol
Okay but who would win in a swordfight? Don Lockwood or Manny Patinkin?
I don’t know how much of a swordfight that would be seeing as Don Lockwood would LITERALLY dance around Mr. Patinkin. Mandy definitely knows his footwork and timing though, I’d love to see him in a musical- Hell, why not adapt all the nonsense behind The Dancing Cavalier as a sort of Musical Mockumentary?
Ive seen people be like in modern fantasy like “oh the pritagonists can just look up spells on their phone how do you solve that”
Imma be honest most people who go on recipe websites and book every recipe they see don’t even use them lmao why would with be different
Given how terrible most recipe websites are i can only imagine how bad spell websites would be
Having to navigate someone’s entire life story of how they became a witch in order to get to the part where they actually talk about the gods-damned banishing ritual
the number of ‘easy 3 step spell to fly’ that at best do nothing, and have a good chance of doing something very bad to you is non zero
Three words “BuzzFeed Spell Hacks”
five minute witchcrafts
Can not emphasize enough that there are IRL articles about spells and witchcraft that read like that. It would not be that much of a stretch to go full recipe blogger.
Me in the dungeon, typing into Google: “How to cast a light spell”
Remembering that time I waded through “This is my family’s super-secret can’t-miss light spell! When my grandmother was a child in Lithuania, she had a pet pony named Brambles” only for the spell to call for six candles and a bottle of holy lighter fluid
Delete delete delete delete
Me in the dungeon, typing into Google: “reddit how to cast a light spell”
Trying to figure out if the “moon fed rosemary” is really an important part of the spell or if regular rosemary will work and the author is just trying to get me to spend $19.99 plus shipping
Nesta wears revealing clothing when she doesn’t want to, only to be objectified by Cassian, the same way she was by Thomas, her parents and the entirety of human society, based on their views of women. Especially when there’s no point to it. The priestesses seem to be allowed to wear robes when they start training, and Cassian even tells them straight that he doesn’t care what they wear.
Then, one of the most confusing things to me, is the court of Nightmares. Mor wears revealing clothes to piss off her parents, Amren, I’m pretty sure, just wore whatever she usually wears, and Feyre… She just likes the more revealing style, ig? Like maybe she sees it as fancy dress or something, idk. But the rest of the women wear more modest clothing.
Mor specifically dresses to make a statement, that statement being a ‘fuck you’ to her parents, and the women she abandoned when she was saved, while also opposing the culture of the place she was raised in, showing her distaste for it. But, from what I can tell, that culture is similar to human culture in many ways, especially for women.
So, in that case, the fact that they act like it’s a mandatory dress code to dress somewhat revealing, knowing Nesta values her modesty just never sat right to me.
This, to me, seems like blatant disrespect for humans and their culture, despite what Rhysand says, and they do it in many other ways too, not just with clothing. I have exams going on right now, but after that, I might go more in depth into the way human culture is treated by the NC, if that’s something anyone wants to read about.
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
