Sielutonlampikana - Hi

microdosing on catharsis by watching a fictional character or persona i relate to have an emotional breakdown until my chest starts to ache from the amount i've repressed

Translating Period Dramas for Today

I finally got around to watching Little Women (2019) directed by Greta Gerwig and there was a scene that felt very familiar.

When Amy March is giving her speech to Laurie, talking about how marrying just for love isn't a practical option for her, it reminded me a lot of Charlotte Luca's words to Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice (2005).

"So don't sit there and tell me that marriage isn't an economic proposition, because it is. It may not be for you but it most certainly is for me." - Amy March

"I'm twenty-seven years old, I've no money and no prospects. I'm already a burden to my parents and I'm frightened. So don't you judge me, Lizzy. Don't you dare judge me!" - Charlotte Lucas

Both are from more modernized versions of period dramas where the book is written by an author that was actually from the time period.

Both feel like the characters are anachronistically defending themselves against modern day feminists, saying "Don't judge me! I'm making the smartest decision I can given my opportunities in society in this time period!"

Which is fair I guess, but it feels out of place. Maybe a woman from that time would say that, but they wouldn't have been defending themselves as much against our modern-day sensibilities of "Marry whoever you want! It's completely your choice! Or don't marry at all! You can do whatever you want with your life!"

It feels like an attempt by modern producers and writers to translate the period drama character's circumstances to a modern audience.

But it still feels weird.

Book!Charlotte never seemed like she was defensive. She was just like, "Hey this is who I am, Lizzy. I got a sweet deal and it works for me."

It's like modern period dramas are afraid to be period dramas. Granted, I do appreciate the little bits of expositional dialogue that helps explain historical things to the audience that they might not know, like how Longbourne can only be inherited by the next male heir, but I wonder if there's a better way to translate stories to audiences today without characters having to give speeches about how you shouldn't judge a woman for lack of agency when the patriarchal society of that time period has left her little to none of it. (Still a fair point though.)

What do y'all think?

hold on i have a take that’s going to upset people

Kummakivi (odd stone) has stayed balanced on top of another rock for 11,000 years. located in Finland.

AU where instead of trying to cure her infertility Yennefer just goes around saving random people’s lives and invoking the law of surprise bcos she figures sooner or later it’ll net her a baby. she hasn’t got one yet but she has amassed about 2 dozen dogs so she’s doing pretty well for herself.

He’s on an adventure 🌧️🐱

Anyway with anti-sodomy laws back on the discussion table I'm going to repeat that you can personally be squicked out by the consensual sex someone else has, but saying that their consensual sex between willing, active, adult participants should be illegal and is indicative of some sort of moral failing is L I T E R A L L Y a major facet in extreme homophobia and absolutely has gotten people killed.

You don't have to like their business but as long as everyone involved in the encounter is saying yes, it's also really not your business.

This is the precident you are helping further by digging your heels in and saying 'but I think it's gross and makes them bad people'. This is what happened last time that was the reasoning for law, and what is being threatened to happen again.