Yaay - it’s 2024 and we enter another year filled with wonder and joy. Some of the stackers I read have expressed optimism that The Good Ship Woke is fast heading for the Iceberg of Reality.
I’m not sure about this optimism, but certainly some things are struggling to stay afloat. The celebration of mediocrity known as DIE has been somewhat more exposed than before. The gender borg’s screws are coming loose and more people are realizing just how broken it is. And the plucky prick of perfection is slipping off the raft into the depths as people lose even more Pfaith in their governments and their ‘health’ advice coercion
My prediction, and you should never pay attention to any of my predictions, is that in 2024 we’ll see a much stronger pushback against the ‘unsinkable’ climate consensus.
Reality has a way of asserting itself. Eventually.
We just hope we can help it on its way.
During the holiday festivities, me and daughter 2 loaded up the snack bowls and settled down to watch the BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell’s novel North and South. Written in 1855 and set around the time of The Great Exhibition of 1851 it’s a novel that explores the plight of working people in a grim Northern town in the UK and contrasts this with the imagined bucolic paradise of the South.
Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is set around 1800 during the Napoleonic wars and, in the BBC adaptation at least, we see a quite different world. It’s clear that there has been significant technological expansion over those 50 years between the settings.
The world changed. As it does.
Although Austen in P&P focused almost entirely on a very privileged section of society, her swipe at the ‘gender’ expectations of the day is interesting. In one scene the men are giving their explanation of what it is to be an “accomplished” woman. Elizabeth Bennet isn’t too impressed at their mansplaining.
Bingley, ever the good-natured optimist, begins by putting his positive spin on it all and trying to see the good in everything
“It is amazing to me how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished as they all are”
We learn that Bingley has rather low expectations as he goes on to explain
“Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens and net purses”
Darcy dismisses these impressive feats and requires more, eventually noting that
“I cannot boast of knowing more than half a dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished”
At this point, one of the women in the room leaps to Darcy’s defence. Must be some kind of internalized misogyny going on one assumes
“No one can really be esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved”
Darcy, not to be outdone, mansplains the last word
“All this she must possess, and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading”
I wonder if Dylan Mulvaney has read this list? Perhaps he’d be more convincing if he could only do a bit of embroidery.
Lizzie delivers the barb
“I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder at your knowing any”
Austen fails to mention one important characteristic; the ability to make good sandwiches. Although, to be fair to Austen, they had cooks to do this sort of thing for them in the circles she was writing about.
I was reminded of this shopping list of weird requirements when I saw one of Holly MathNerd’s recent pieces
Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall and so I can’t read her actual review, but I just had to check out the book a bit for myself. No, not to the extent of actually reading the thing. And you’ll see why in a moment.
The book is called “Their Troublesome Crush” and the description on Amazon is as follows
In this queer polyamorous m/f romance novella, two metamours realize they have crushes on each other while planning their shared partner's birthday party together. Ernest, a Jewish autistic demiromantic queer fat trans man submissive, and Nora, a Jewish disabled queer fat femme cis woman switch, have to contend with an age gap, a desire not to mess up their lovely polyamorous dynamic as metamours, the fact that Ernest has never been attracted to a cis person before, and the reality that they are romantically attracted to each other, all while planning their dominant's birthday party and trying to do a really good job.
Fuck me - can we go back to embroidery please?
I’m not entirely sure I know what demographic this book is aimed at, but I’m going to paraphrase my favourite woman superhero, Elizabeth Bennet
“I am no longer surprised at this book having only six readers. I rather wonder at it having any”
Although the world changed between Austen and Gaskell we can still recognise in their works the same themes of romance and attraction between the sexes - and some of the same societal expectations placed upon the sexes.
I simply have no idea what the characters are in Their Troublesome Crush, or what half the words used to describe them and the book even mean. It’s a kind of grotesque stuffing of every “representational” characteristic the author could think of.
What’s very curious, to me anyway, are some of the reader reviews. Representation, it seems, is really important to some modern readers:
Firstly, the representation really knocks it out of the park
This book was chock-full of representation, and it was honestly such a treat
For so long I have longed for representation like this in media, and this book such a delightful read
This book has delightful queer, Jewish, autistic, Demi romantic, and kink rep
I kind of get the representation thing. After all, if every movie was about a strong female kick-ass girlboss, I’d kind of like something with a guy in that sort of role - no matter how good the other movies are. But, primarily, I don’t watch or read stuff to feel represented.
Nor do I, consciously, “identify” with characters. I admire them, or detest them, root for them, or cheer on their downfall. I have almost nothing in common with Elizabeth Bennet - other than that we each have a head and two arms and two legs - and yet she’s one of my all-time favourite characters and also something of a role model.
The characters of Thornton and Miss Hale in Gaskell’s novel are a little more complex, but you can see exactly the same themes of pride and prejudice being tackled in North and South too.
But in Their Troublesome Crush I have no way to connect with any of it (based upon the description at any rate).
I wonder what Austen or Gaskell would have made of this modern romance? Almost everything in the brief description involves concepts and attitudes that would have been utterly alien in their time.
Austen and Gaskell would be amazed by the progress in technology since their day, but they would probably recognize enough elements of life not to be too overwhelmed by it all. I wonder if the same could be said of how ‘romance’ has changed?
I’m glad that things have loosened up since the prudery and reserve of their day, but might we have gone just a demi-romance too far, perhaps?
It’s possible that, as the activists claim, “trans” has always been with us - but I would take some serious convincing to believe that an “autistic demiromantic queer fat trans man submissive” has.
According to one reviewer it’s “Also a lovely example of non-sexual kink”.
What is one of those, I wonder?
I can see I have some learning to do in 2024.
Meanwhile, I’m off to Tinder to see if I can find me a “Jewish disabled queer fat femme cis woman switch”. Just out of curiosity, you understand.
Have a delightfully queer 2024 everyone.
I'm old fashioned, I guess. I liked it better when they were mostly in the closet. But, I liked it better when straights didn't do it in public either, so....
Is fat trans as bad for us as trans fats?