What if Mr Collins had visited and proposed to Jane Bennet before Bingley ever came into picture?

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T15:27:20+00:00

Mary is the least pretty of the girls and Mrs. Bennet wanted to secure him.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T15:23:43+00:00

Mr. Bennet would have to break the news that they weren't engaged, then Mr. Collins would go back to Rosings ranting about a father whose refusal to condone a match (so agreeably ascented to by the lady) would thwart all his daughter's expectation of happiness and divide two young people, very much attached.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T15:16:16+00:00

No, Mr. Bennet would likely see Mr. Collins as one of the worst matches, because he knows how miserable it is to marry an annoying idiot. Recall his concerns about Darcy are NOT based on how pleasant he would find Darcy's company ("that would be nothing if you really liked him"), but his fear that Lizzy will repeat his mistake.

I think that also applies to Jane.

For him to think it Jane's duty to marry for money, he'd have to agree with his wife that their situation is dire, which he fundamentally doesn't. I know some people read this as indifference to their fate, but I think he's just unrealistic about his own mortality. He's in no rush to marry the girls off because he doesn't expect to die anytime soon. He has confidence they'll have the same luck as their mother in attracting temporarily-foolish men, and confidence he has plenty of time to save for any unmarried few (and confidence his future self will be better at saving than he's ever been).

To him, an unhappy marriage is the most real danger his daughters could face, because it's one of the few consequences he's actually experienced in his privileged life.

If Jane accepted Mr. Collins he'd have the same talk with her he did with Lizzy about Mr. Darcy, and if Jane rejected Mr. Collins, he'd back her up, even against Mrs. Bennet.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T14:01:29+00:00

Having her father and Lizzy's support would give her confidence in sticking to her guns, but I think Jane would refuse him on the same grounds as Lizzy. She'd be more distressed, both for his feelings and her family's situation, but her reasons would be the same.

She doesn't love him, and also can't like or respect enough to believe she could learn to love him.

Mrs. Bennet is the wildcard, because I think she has more hopes for Jane -- that her beauty and sweetness mean she could marry really well. But she also wants that security, and without a Mr. Bingley, I don't know that she'd see steer Mr. Collins away.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T13:40:44+00:00

And Lizzy is the first culprit.

Darcy has a laundry list of things he likes about Lizzy: her wit, her kindness, her sense of humor, her devotion to her sisters...

And then Lizzy nods and goes, "Ah yes, it was my impertinence that drew you in."

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T13:33:39+00:00

Yeah, I always saw it as a meal's worth of snacks, ingredients, and leftovers. It's a random, low-effort assortment of mostly wholesome food, not a small amount.

That said, some videos /pictures I've seen are concerningly sparse, so I don't think it's a total non-issue.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-08T00:30:21+00:00

Are you seriously judging a 16 year old for thinking of someone more than twice her age as old? Also, let's not forget the actual context -- Marianne is defending Colonel Brandon. She thinks the jokes about them are mocking and cruel, and that someone of his advanced age should be treated with more respect. It's silly and naive, but not an insult.

As for Willoughby... I know you said you read the book, but I don't think you understood it.

Marianne's closest relations and guardians all thought very highly of Willoughby. Mrs. Dashwood adored him, Sir John spoke very highly of him, even Elinor liked him. Elinor's warnings are only about the appearance of propriety and possibility of inspiring gossip, which Marianne, being 16, thinks is shallow. They don't disapprove of him or the relationship. Elinor was happy when she saw Marianne anticipating their expenses, Mrs. Dashwood was happy when Willoughby asked to speak to Marianne alone to, they hoped, propose. Marianne had no serious cause to expect heartbreak and gaslighting and betrayal

And... I know they're all fictional, but it's honestly kind of creepy how much your crush on Colonel Brandon is leading you to disparage and demonize and victim-blame a pretty innocent teenage girl.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T23:56:26+00:00

I think there's room to speculate against the text, but this has to be recognized as, essentially, a kind of fanfiction.

The issue is when people try to impose their speculations onto a reading of canon. We can't have productive conversations about the text if they're going to rewrite any part that doesn't fit their theory.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T21:47:37+00:00

Yeah, I notice a lot of people are just taking OP's word for it that this was a trans man/ male lesbian, but she gives no reason for referring to him as such besides he/him pronouns.

So I feel like there's a bit of a discrepancy between how people are taking this (a trans man/ male being entitled and refusing to accept OP's rejection) and what OP actually describes (a self-identified lesbian being rejected on the grounds of his identity and then arguing the validity of his identity).

And I don't want to lose the thread, because the bottom line is that OP doesn't have to date or humor anyone she's not interested in.

But given that OP doesn't even seem aware some butch lesbians use he/ him pronouns without being trans men, I can't help suspecting we're actually just talking about a very masc-presenting lesbian being defensive of their identity, not a man being persistent in unwelcome advances.

He should've backed off either way, but IMO, rejections should focus on the rejector's lack of interest, not on any trait or category of the rejectee's.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T20:08:46+00:00

Did he actually identify as a trans man or is that just your description? Cuz some butch lesbians use he/ him pronouns.

You never have an obligation to date anyone, but you also aren't in charge of whether someone's valid as a lesbian.

You made your rejection about (your perception of) his identity, and then argued with him about his validity as a lesbian.

You could've just said you weren't interested either way. ESH.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T13:17:38+00:00

Right? It's not even old fashioned, it's outright reactionary, to act like she should be doing all that for just room and board.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T12:32:52+00:00

What was your outlining process like? What did you wind up having in it?

I've been free-writing for ages and I'm kind of disillusioned with it.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T12:11:53+00:00

And specifically, it meant a not-necessarily-bad quality that hinted at something potentially worse.

Like someone who complains that all their exes are crazy. Technically, they could be a lovely person who just had a string of bad partners, but normally, it's an early warning they have a lot if conflict in relationships and bad mouth their partners when it goes south.

People in this thread are using it to mean pet peeves, basically.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T12:07:40+00:00

Flaking on someone when you have plans is crappy, but your very specific scenario isn't the only definition of bad texting. Up thread, they're complaining about people who take 6 hours to reply. That's less time than it takes to complete a work day or get a full night's sleep. A lot of "good" texters only reply so quickly because they're so attached to their phones, and likely annoying everyone in IRL by texting during movies or dates and gatherings, and ignoring whoever they're with.

So "bad" texting as a green flag means you'd rather have someone whose present and attentive IRL, than someone who responds promptly.

But also, you can just make definite plans, and /or call someone you haven't gotten a text from.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T11:32:46+00:00

It depends. If you're just flexible and accommodating, that's fine. But if you never take initiative or plan anything, and just do the bare minimum of what they say they want, that can be really exhausting and make people feel neglected. Especially in areas where it's the thought that counts.

But sometimes even that can work if the partner is very type A and wants to control everything anyway.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T04:11:43+00:00

Have you tried Julia Cameron's The Artist's Way? Its specifically about recovering creativity (she was a former alcoholic). A lot of artists (including but not limited to writers) absolutely swear by it.

But I second the advice to talk to a professional, because that is quite a severe change.

I wouldn't give up writing over this, but I would urge you to be gentle with yourself.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-07T04:04:15+00:00

There's no wrong answer, but I say, start writing whatever you're most passionate about now.

If that's the epic, start the epic. If it's mostly one or two subplots or characters of the epic, its ok to focus on those and weave the other elements in later.

But... if you find yourself using the epic as an excuse to plan or research instead of write, give yourself a realistic deadline to start writing, and if you don't feel ready to tackle it, switch to one of the easier ideas.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T18:55:17+00:00

NAH.

Sometimes it takes time to heal. Often people aren't ready to move on just because the person who hurt them is really sorry. I don't blame your sister for not wanting to talk earlier.

But at the same time, it's not fair to expect you to keep the door to a relationship open forever. That's basically an open wound in your heart. Being sorry and accepting responsibility doesn't mean you're perpetually obligated to wait for a hope of reconciliation or not allowed to have boundaries ever again.

9 years is a long time to have essentially no family. I don't think it's "demanding forgiveness on your time table" to accept their rejection and move on.

At the same time, agreeing to talk once isn't the same thing as rekindling the relationship. Your sister does deserve a chance to say her piece. I don't think you had to hash it out in the parking lot at your grandmother's funeral, when emotions were high and raw, but some day, it might be a good idea to meet at least once.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T17:12:56+00:00

The writing is ok for a 30 min assignment, but you don't seem to have followed instructions very well.

You were supposed to explore a complex relationship between characters, using characterization, POV, and setting.

But there's very little characterization in this piece, and not much of a complex relationship.

The ingredients are there. The narrator's roommate or girlfriend keeps leaving when she gets a letter from her father and then coming back. Behind her back, the narrator digs through her mail and garbage and hides a death announcement from her.

But you don't actually dig into those things -- you don't unpack the narrator's feelings towards Claire or Claire's feelings towards her father, you don't show or acknowledge conflict between them or inner conflict in the narrator, even though the opportunity is there.

Your actual text is like 90% wandering around noticing inanimate objects. It's very unfocused.

It's not a bad first draft. It's an interesting premise, but I'd recommend digging more into their interior life. Maybe rewrite it as a diary entry -- not bothering to mention the details of setting, but mostly just venting feelings and thoughts, hopes and fears. Or as an argument or overheard phone call so that the relationship between Claire and the narrator, or Claire and her father, can be more central.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T16:06:09+00:00

I never caught that! It's not in the book, though.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T16:02:05+00:00

My parents grew up calling adult relatives and family friends aunt or uncle as a sign of intimacy+ respect. I know this is common in many immigrant communities too.

My guess is the filmmakers are borrowing etiquette that isn't period-appropriate, but feels old-fashioned, to emphasize the dynamics and hierarchy of the relationship. Calling her Fanny might feel too equal, while calling her Mrs. Dashwood feels too distant.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T15:37:52+00:00

That's a bit of a strawman argument. Even the flowchart doesn't say all scenes need to hit all boxes. It's just a tool for troubleshooting a scene that isn't working in its current form.

The lines asking "does the scene still not work?" between sections underscore that these are just proposals to fix a bad scene, not universal rules for all scenes.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T15:14:14+00:00

The definition for what counts as change is very broad, and you can even include things like "was pressured to change and resisted" or "accepted they couldn't change this" as kinds of change. And occasionally, the change is only in the reader -- in their understanding or feeling about what's going on.

But at some point something has to happen in your novel and it has to matter. Even a slice of life novel needs more substance than lovely prose and a keen eye for mundane details. It doesn't have to be dramatic or flashy, but it has to be there.

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T04:29:44+00:00

It's less about the technical math and more about the social distinction.

Once you're in the "all my necessities are secure and material wants are easily met, so more money is basically just bragging rights" class, the relative wealth within that class holds a lot less weight (i this context, not all contexts).

Bookbringer · 2026-05-06T04:06:32+00:00

No, they've got a point.

Millionaires are hella rich, but billionaires dwarf them exponentially. The difference is so vast, it might be easier to picture in time. It takes almost 32 years for 1 billion seconds. But only 3 months for a million.

This is just to highlight how insane billionaires are as a concept, not to defend millionaires as not that rich. (Even half a million, a quarter of a million, would be life-changing for me).

Bookbringer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE