I meant to post this with the linkspam

[anghraine]

I got an excellent response to my "but he's a MAN" post wrt Darcy. Nearly two months ago and reading it still restores my faith in a benevolent universe ;)

Comments

[anghraine]

Thanks!

Darcy is my favourite character of all time, so I'm extremely tetchy about his mischaracterization. And it's so inescapable, ugh—so many of the subtle (and even not-so-subtle) aspects of his character get lost in this fanon generic romance lead.

It's amazing to me, honestly, that a lot of people (including critics!) skate over what Mrs Reynolds says about his treatment of her, the servants, the tenants, the poor, and focus near-exclusively on his treatment of the moderately wealthy. While of course his evolving relationship with Elizabeth is central, Austen puts a very strong emphasis on the "what he's always been like to these people" side of it. She dedicates an entire monologue to why the opinions of dependents say more about someone's character than what anyone else thinks!

It's like, if someone's boss offers first rate insurance and retirement plans to all employees and a year's paid maternity/paternity leave and generous raises and gladly cooperates with unions and gives advances when employees are struggling and donates heavily to reputable charities and provides for a hospitable, comfortable working environment with weeks of paid vacation—there's a point at which "abrasive and pretentious when we're all hanging out" would seem much less important. Not insignificant, particularly in potential relationship terms, but it certainly takes "might be a nasty person at heart" out of the cards altogether. He might be too grating to live with or fall in love with, but it establishes him as intensely but unobtrusively kind. And realizing the importance of that is a major part of Elizabeth's development, so ... urgh.

Er, that was all ranting agreement! But thank you :)

[rj_anderson]

It was an excellent rant! And you're welcome. :)