⠀ ͟ ͟ ͟ ͟✿͟ ͟ຼ͟ ͟ ͟ ͟ ❀ Orchid PNGS . 🍈

I love the duality of Jane Eyre & Crime and Punishment because I can read both in a very serious philosophical/religious view while analyzing the literature thematically and admiring the poetic storytelling/character building and masterful writing by Brontë and Dostoevsky that strikes me to my core.

Then I can take these exact same two books and view them as a silly goofy, feel good comedic reads. Taking the same exact characters I just wrote an essay on analyzing the complexity of their layers/hardships and now I’m calling them drama queens, babygirls and poor little meow meows. The duality… the duality!!

Her father says her name harsh and angry and firm, divided into four syllables, O. PHE. LI. A, never shouting, and that is somehow worse. 

Her brother says her name quick, like it’s a slur, o phe lia, the syllables blending and blurring together, like he cannot wait to stop. 

The boy who once defined her whole world told her that Ophelia sounds like Ō filia, which means Oh, Daughter in Latin. 

Latin is a dead language, and she is no one’s daughter, now.

Okay, whoever wrote this, I wish I wrote it. Bravo, my friend <3

Just found Hugh Grant’s Reddit AMA from 2014, featuring such gems as “I love to kill” and “I will pour almost anything down my throat”

Source: Hugh Grant Reddit AMA

i like to believe that ophelia’s madness gave her a kind of meta knowledge of the plot— that she saw the tragic ending coming, knew that hamlet’s indecision would be his hamartia, that she realised gertrude and claudius were both poisoned with corruption from the beginning and instead of the customary funeral goers laying flowers at a grave, it was Ophelia— mad, at death’s door, about to die in less than 2 scenes— who handed flowers to the king, queen and protagonist as if the dead girl was mourning the living

“His mind was indeed my library, and whenever it was opened to me I entered bliss.”

– Villette, Charlotte Brontë

That Hamlet post reminds me, people blame Romeo and Juliet for "getting everyone killed", but the text itself very specifically blames the lords Capulet and Montague. If you want to get to the nitty gritty:

Mercutio got himself killed. Romeo was very specifically trying to not have a swordfight, and Mercutio decided to start one because he thought Romeo was being a pussy. Tybalt actually killed him, but if you're talking about who "got him killed," that was Mercutio fucking around and finding out.

Romeo killed Tybalt. This is the one death that I think you can reasonably lay at Romeo's feet. If he had run off with Benvolio and got the Prince's men, Tybalt would have been arrested. That said, if my best friend (no matter how stupid) was killed right in front of me and the killer told me that friend sucked and so did I, I cannot guarantee I would do differently.

Lady Capulet said she hired people to kill Romeo. He beat them to the punch on that, but I think it should be pointed out.

Romeo killed Paris in self-defense. There's a lot of different ways you can play this, and Paris did think he'd broken in to vandalize the tomb of his girlfriend, but once again Romeo specifically begged someone not to fight him and that wasn't enough.

Romeo killed himself because he thought Juliet was dead. Friar Lawrence had a stupid idea and Juliet followed through on it because her father was going to force her into bigamy (and arguably marital rape), so if anyone "got" this to happen it was Lord Capulet.

Juliet killed herself because her husband was dead, her cousin was dead, her parents had turned on her, the woman who she thought of as a second mother abandoned her, and she was in a room with one guy stabbed and another guy poisoned right as the law was about to break in. Once again, I don't know what I'd do in her situation.

My Shakespeare professor said that Romeo and Juliet is the only Shakespeare tragedy not caused because of anyone being evil- Lord Capulet and Tybalt (and Mercutio) are dicks, but they're not Iago or Richard III. None of them wanted the play to end in a pile of bodies. You can't even point to one specific act and say 'that was the specific action that caused all of this.' It's a surprisingly modern (as opposed to mythic) play in that regard.

wax seal stamp pngs ♡

The biggest consistent lie that Pride and Prejudice adaptations tell (yes, even the one you like) is that Mr. Darcy is stiff, diffident, joyless, whatever.

That is not the personality of the character in the book. The dude is consistently described as smiling in the first half of the novel. In fact, I would guess he's the smiliest of Austen's heroes, or a close second to Knightley or Edmund Bertram. He's not "chatty", but when he engages Elizabeth he's usually described as doing so with a smile on his face. Combine that with the arch exchanges they have, his proposal becomes way less shocking.

Him actively resisting the attraction he feels is what makes his behavior obscure to the characters in the novel who suspect his partiality (so, Charlotte.) Caroline Bingley can see his interest immediately and actively try to sabotage it by fanning the flames of disapproval. The fact that Elizabeth doesn't see his growing feelings for her is meant to be proof of her prejudicial attitude in regards to him, not...evidence that he's a socially awkward weirdo.

I guess this is one of those adaptational choices that people just decided to make to en masse because we no longer live in a culture where there's so much formality, politeness and reserve in manners that it's plausible for a woman to hate a man who loves her and them both to be so restrained they misinterpret one another.

The 1967 TV serial might be the only one where he actually smiles for the first half of the story (as he does in the novel!)

stamps ✉️