TheOracleArt
TheOracleArt t1_j7fammi wrote
Reply to comment by Maldevinine in Pride and Prejudice to me is the epitome of romance novels but I recently found something about Elizabeth that I disliked by nyanyaneko2
'“In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.”
Elizabeth’s astonishment was beyond expression. She stared, coloured, doubted, and was silent. This he considered sufficient encouragement, and the avowal of all that he felt and had long felt for her immediately followed. He spoke well; but there were feelings besides those of the heart to be detailed, and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness than of pride. His sense of her inferiority, of its being a degradation, of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit.'
That's the most we get of his confession. I would note - her inferiority in this respect is the station of her birth - not of her as a person or her mind. Class structures in Britain dictated everything back then. We don't know what he lists as her positive qualities, because we know nothing of the actual speech he gave her, just that her station and family are an obstacle that he feels he's valiantly overcome.
Then again, maybe you have a deeper understanding of what the stuck-up noblemen of the early 1800s would have detailed in a love declaration, more than someone like Austin who grew up during that time period.
TheOracleArt t1_j7f6m8d wrote
Reply to comment by Maldevinine in Pride and Prejudice to me is the epitome of romance novels but I recently found something about Elizabeth that I disliked by nyanyaneko2
I disagree. We never see inside Darcy's head, we only ever see his attraction through the propriety of social constructs during that time. Maybe the first time he saw her, he thought she had a banging set of tits and had to fight most of the night to try and get a better glimpse down her dress, but the social mores of the time would have branded him as an outcast for even the hint of such behaviour. Wickham is the type to happily shag anything that moves, and seemingly has no compunction about stealing away impressionable teenage daughters for a bit of fun before promptly abandoning them. But during social engagements, he has utterly perfect manners and never a hint of this side of him comes through, for all it was obviously present within him. That's because, in that time period, unless you were fabulously (royalty level) wealthy, to do so would be a social death sentence.
TheOracleArt t1_j6obu3u wrote
Reply to comment by Kousaroe in My mentor John Hughes taught me how to write. Then he plagiarised my work by speckz
Having just read through it, it's a hard one to explain. It's the blurry line of where inspiration stops and plagiarism starts. It's easier with writing and books, being able to compare one written text to another and note the similar sentence structures, phrases etc.
The author mentioned here did plagiarize, but it almost comes across as reusing someone's anecdote, to me anyway. I've alluded to people I know; their mannerisms, their backgrounds, their stories etc in my writing (not that I'm published, it's just for fun). When an anecdote is told orally and then you rejig it to fit a character or narrative in your story, most people wouldn't view this as plagiarism. We know of lots of authors who have used real-life people and their experiences as the basis of their novels. With already published text though, well, it's a far more clear-cut case. The question is whether it's done knowingly, maliciously, as a homage or just by genuine unconscious osmosis of others' works.
I don't know where this author falls. I would say that the text is far too similar to be some unconscious thing. Seems like the blog writer doesn't know either.
TheOracleArt t1_j6mjlq3 wrote
Reply to comment by cfcnotbummer in I just finishes Of Mice and Men! by VravoBince
I often wonder if Stephen King got his inspiration for Percy from the Green Mile from that guy. They're really similar and trigger that same visceral hate.
TheOracleArt t1_j6mjfe9 wrote
Reply to comment by DarthSamwiseAtreides in I just finishes Of Mice and Men! by VravoBince
The only book my mum had ever enjoyed reading was "Little Women" (she's in her 70s btw). I think that she was genuinely put off from reading when she was at school because of the book choices. Anyway, one holiday I had "Of Mice and Men" with me and was reading it. We're at a pool and there's nothing to do (this was before mobile phones) so she picks up the book and figures why not? Cue my mum sobbing next to the pool and then being utterly devastated at dinner that night. "Why couldn't he just take Lenny and run?" She prefers sudoku for her relaxing time now.
TheOracleArt t1_jdm0w9g wrote
Reply to comment by ManOnTheMun25 in 5 N.Y. Schools Evacuated After Bomb Threats Over LGBTQ+ Book by wdcmsnbcgay
This is a book aimed written for and aimed at late teens and is supplementary sex education for gay kids because, funnily enough, the practice of safe gay sex is not taught in schools the way straight sex is. When I was at school (many moons ago) we learnt about straight, penis-in-vagina sex, the anatomy around this and what safe sex precautions to take. There was nothing covering this for gay sex. Now you may say "well, gay sex is a minority, so there's no point covering this." Well, if it's not covered in normal educational classes at school, it should be addressed elsewhere. Gay kids shouldn't be the ones just left to "figure it out" and possibly be taken advantage of or not be properly prepared the way sex education tries to prepare and warn straight kids.
This book was written to address that. So yes, it shows a diagram of the male body and erogenous zones and mentions that the prostate is an erogenous zone....cause it is? Are you equally shocked and appalled that in normal sex education, they note that a penis is also an erogenous zone too? In a book educating about gay sex...they're going to talk about the functions of gay sex. I'm not seeing how it can be anything else but homophobia that you're clutching pearls over the idea that a book might acknowledge that the prostate is a well-known erogenous zone. Would you equally freak out about a sex education book mentioning the clitoris?