All Saints Day - (what even is it?)

(source)

Today is all saints day. Not many people know about it, which is kind of ironic because Hallowe'en is a huge thing all over the world and Hallowe'en means 'Hallows Eve.' Like Christmas Eve is the day before Christmas, Hallowe'en is the day before All Hallows Day - otherwise called All Saints Day. Now this is not a post bashing Hallowe'en. I don't celebrate it, and I do think it can be celebrated very wrongly, but I also think there are aspects of the Hallowe'en celebrations (such as dressing up as movie characters! Guys, that's fun) that are innocent. I get that it's a good excuse to have a party and to dress up and eat nice unhealthy stuff.

However, today it's All Saints Day and well, speak of underrated holidays.

Hallowe'en is often celebrated as a day of the dead. All Saints Day, you could say is the same. Although in a complete flipside! While Hallowe'en is a festival which delights in the dark, All Saints Day is a day in which we remember and look back on and respect those people who have died. It is a sort of remembrance day. I have never actually thought about it this way till I wrote it down like this, ha. Neither have I ever really 'celebrated' this day - not with parties and dressing up. It's not about that. It's about remembering the saints, and thanking God for the good things they have done.

That's not just Abraham and Noah and Sarah and the God-honouring folk in the Bible. It's also my Opa who died before I was born; my Great Grandma Winifrid; any other God-serving person we can think of - all the people who have followed God in their life time. 

I was thinking yesterday, how huge God presence is.Take the Bible and you can see how drastic the changes are that God makes within people. Rahab was a prostitute. The Apostle Peter was first called Simon - meaning listen - and then Jesus came and he got a new name, Peter - meaning rock. Just by looking at the names you can see how Jesus used Peter; I think that's funny! All the apostles were simple, young men. Levi was an unliked, perhaps unfair, taxcollector. The classic, most drastic example might be Paul - he went around killing Christian families - thousands of them and then, bam, three days later he was making Christians. Speak of a powerful God! I could go on - Esther went from being a poor girl to saving millions of Jews. Joseph went from the pit and the prison to the second highest place available in Egypt. Mary was a young girl who suddenly got the news that she was going to give birth to the Son of God!

Like I said, it's not just the Bible. God's been with us always. The Apostle John wasn't his last saint! :-) When I hear stories of my ancestors I often think about how strong their faith sounds! And people like Florence Nightingale, David Livingstone, Eric Liddle... they've all shone for God in their turn.

Let's remember these people today and to God be the glory! :-)

Why I often like flirty(ish) characters in movies.

This is going to be a hard post to write, because no, I don't approve of flirting. Well, if there's a mutual serious love, then flirting is fine. And one can show signs of affection by mildly-flirting-define-flirting, I think, to a certain extent. But to bat your eyelids at strangers and all that jazz - I see it as shallow and unladylike behaviour. So bear that in mind - I'm not telling you that I approve 150% of what Lydia Bennet and those girls do. No sir.

However, there is a quality in those girls that I very much admire.

Their smiles. Their cheerfulness. The way they make other people smile. The way they make fun of themselves.

That I admire a lot. They're so happy - and genuinely so. Of course, between you and me, they are often happy for a ridiculous reason (Lydia: "Oh look, there's Denny. HAHAHA.") but they smile a lot, they make the best of situations, and they find hilarity in ridiculous things, which I just plain LOVE. Of course, there are times in which one ought to be serious, but there are sooo many time when one should just laugh and dust things over with a cheery spirit - and those 'flirty' girls in movies often possess that quality. And I like that. I love watching it. (Which is why I enjoy watching Lydia Bennet a lot + Julia Sawalha is amazing.)

Also, they easily make fun of themSELVES. Which boyyy, more people should do. Sometimes one should just laugh at themselves; because we're all such hilarious things, if you think about it. We're bits of skeleton and bits of skin and we all stand and talk and sleep and put things in our mouth??? I mean, that's hilarious. Laugh at that.

Of course, as I said before, there are times to be serious, and to take each other seriously. Like, if your friend comes to you with tears in her eyes and a heavy heart, you shouldn't go, 'HA HA, funny, water droplets coming out of eyes.' I mean, that's plain mean. But there are so many times in our lives when we could make situations so less awkward, or so less boringly serious if we just didn't take ourselves so terribly serious the whole time. (I suddenly realise I'm basically quoting this Mind the Gap episode.)

I like that. Lydia Bennet doesn't take herself seriously ENOUGH (duh, at all) but I do admire her personality to a certain extent. Cynthia Kirkpatrick is a spoilt girl with ridiculous hairstyles, but she doesn't take herself too seriously the whole time ("You know enough of me to know me capable of that!") and I like it. Rose from Downton Abbey is pretty boy-crazy (which is annoying) but she's so happy and cheerful that the whole room laughs with her (well, not always, but you know what I'm trying to say here.) And that, dear people, is an admirable quality to possess.

And Trixie from Call the Midwife - she's flirty ("... how do you know I'm not dazzled by your gaze?") and she's always talking about boys (just... stop) - but I really really love her. She's so happy and colourful, and she has such a warm, warm heart. I love Trixie. (Also, her FASHION sense is just ridiculously gorgeous.)

So lets be cheerful and interesting and lets not take ourselves too seriously the whole time. But lets also keep that sensible-ness and take ourselves serious enough to make good decisions. :-P Basically what I'm trying to say with this post: I often like the flirty-ish characters in movies, and here's why. Explained. The end.

On deep posts and Easter day.

I rarely write deep posts. Like, stuff about God - my faith - or even things like what I think of controversial subjects. (Ha. It looks so dangerous and thrilling in italics.) It's not that I'm ashamed to declare these things - or what I believe. I'm not ashamed at all; I'm super proud to be a Christian. But there are two reasons why I rarely talk about these things.

1. I don't like talking about controversial subjects. I just don't. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings; I don't want to cause even minor squibbles in the comment section. I want this blog to be a peaceful place where the extent of the discussions are Pride and Prejudice 1995 vs Pride and Prejudice 2005 discussions (haha). I like reading posts about controversial subjects - and I don't mind reading hefty comment discussions on other blogs now and then (I enjoy reading different opinions) - but I don't like writing them. 

I don't quite know why... maybe it's also because very often I don't quite know what I think on these subjects - and then I'm afraid I'll write something I don't mean to write, or that'll write something which one day I'll disagree on. Or if I do have a decisive opinion on a subject, I don't want to come across as a ohh-I-know-it-all-and-I'm-just-really-right-on-this. I don't like writing posts like that, and I feel I can't, either. It's hard. 

(And seriously, why would you all be interested to know what my brain thinks on every subject? Sometimes one shouldn't 'say everything what I think on every single subject.' :-P)

2. As for writing posts about my faith - I want to write them, but I always feel I can't. There have been so many times when I've clicked on 'create new post' and wanted to write out my love of God, and share beautiful Bible verses with you - but I always feel like those posts, when I do attempt to write them, don't go deep enough. My faith has grown over these past months and years - and I love God, and I always want to learn more and more about Him - but it's such a big, huge thing, that I find I can't quite express the extent of my feelings and thoughts on it.

But now, with Holy Week, Good Friday and Easter coming on... I want to say that it's amazing. I know some of you don't celebrate Holy Week - but I personally don't know March/April without it. For me, it's a time to really sit still and think about what Jesus did for us - and how His resurrection is a foreshadowing of what is to come. Good Friday is a quiet sombre day - and then Easter day just bursts in jubilations. (I can't write down this paragraph properly. Ha. I told you I couldn't!)

All that is to say - I often grin and ramble about stuff on this blog. Movies, books and the like. But I know there are things more important than that. I want you to know that I know that, basically. :-) 

Have a good week, guys, and a very happy Easter! He is risen indeed. Hallelujah!

For the P&P05 lovers.

As you all know by now, Pride and Prejudice 2005 is not my favourite movie. In fact, it drives me crazy and it makes me weep and it makes me want to rip some of my hair out. (Wow, talk about dramatic post openers, guys.) I call it Pride and Pyjamas, I bash it, I once wrote a long negative post about it and I know not what. I have learnt that there are many who share my opinion. We will talk about it together in the comments, basking in delicious, malicious mutual dislike. We will laugh about the hairstyles, gossip about The Swing Scene and snort about the pig in the house. And well... not going to lie, I enjoy those conversations.

But there are also those who love P&P05. And yesterday, when I was replying to all the lovely comments on my last post, 6 Period Drama's I do not like, I suddenly realised, 'Wow. Those poor P&P05 lovers. These endless people who bash one of their favourite movies must really kind of hurt their feelings.' I imagined me being in their situation - me reading so many blogs laugh at my favourite movie, and say that it isn't Jane Austen. I don't quickly get upset about stuff like that, but I can really imagine this overload of P&P05-haters being very Tiring for P&P05-lovers.

Well, let me say something I Think. People's brains work very differently. There are many people who love P&P05, and there are many people who hate it. And the people who hate can be a bit harsh, and I try my hardest not to. See, I think it's fine to bash a movie - but when it goes to an extent that the movie-bashers bash the lovers-of-the-movie TOO, then I think it goes too far. I apologise if I ever wrote something like, 'If you like P&P05, you're not a true Janeite.' Or if I wrote, 'If you think P&P05 is a true adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, you're stupid.' I really apologise, because that's just mean.

I  don't see P&P05 as a true adaptation of Pride and Prejudice - I don't see it as Jane-Austen-like. But that doesn't mean that the same goes for other people. People interpret stories and characters differently; that's just the wonderful thing about this world of ours. The colourful diversity of everyone's brains ranges from A to Z, from 1 to a 100. We are all different; our brains all churn and dazzle differently. Some easily overlook historical accuracies, others weep at the mere thought of a regency lady in a Georgian corset and wind-blown hair. Personally, I can't fully understand how some people can love P&P05 so much, but that doesn't mean I have to tell them that they can't, ha. 

So, my dear P&P05 lovers, this post is for you. Keep on loving that Keira Knightley version - keep on falling in love with Matthew Macfayden's Mr Darcy - you can have him. :-P Stick together, you guys, and brush off zee unpleasant comments. I hate P&P05, but I definitely do not hate you guys. Let's do a group hug.

As for my fellow P&P95 lovers - WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. :-P Let's wink and bash the movie together. It's fun.

On why I don't like 2005 P&P

Ladies and Gentlemen, today I am here with a very controversial subject. (I will win it, by the way, the debate-to-come in the comments. Just warning ya.)

I have doubted and postponed the writing of this post, because I know I have some followers - who I wuv just as much as the others, of coursey-course (I am not an encourager of favouritism, you see) - who really are excruciatingly fond of this two-thousand-and-five Pride and Prejudice. So please, don't get upset by my little opinion of no real true consequence. I just want to do a rant. Because, I'm dreadfully sorry, I do. not. like. This version. At all.

Now. Allow me to put the record straight. I am NOT one of those people who believe you can only love one version. Nonsense. I can prove people-who-think-that-of-me wrong by pointing out the example of Sense and Sensibility. I love, love both 1995 and 2008 equally. There. See? It's just that that coincidentally is not the case with Pride and Prejudice. I've seriously TRIED to like the 05 version. I promise. I watched it TWICE, for Pete's sake. But I just DON'T GET IT.

But first, because I always encourage positivism (I'm afraid you won't see much in today's post), I will tell you what I DID like.

1. The music. Really. It's SCRUMPTIOUS. I have nothing whatsoever against the music.

2. Jane, if she wouldn't have had such a very MESSY hair-style 90% of the movie, was very good. I love Susannah Harker's Greek, kind, sweet look, but, after the messy-hair-complaint, I have no further complaint about Rosamund Pike's Jane. She was very sweet, very beautiful, so darling. I love both Janes dearly.

3. The scenery was very lovely in some scenes.

That's all I can think of for the time being. Let's go to the real part of the post, shall we? Are you sure you're ready? Okay. I suppose now is as good a time as any.

Let's start with Keira Knightley's Lizzy, shall we? Now, I'm not a Keira Knightley hater or anything, mark that. I just DON'T think she's Lizzy. She just... *splutters helplessly*... ISN'T. Thing is, when I see Keira Knightley, I see something like this, not something like this. I see a kind of fashion-model, a teenager of the 20th century with the side bangs and so-obviously-make-upped-face. She's beautiful, but she just doesn't LOOK Regency.

Also, SHE shouts instead of making discussions in an at-least-tolerably ladylike manner. Also she GOES OUT IN TOWN WITH HER HAIR DOWN. And in the fields in her night garb. Now, for those times, that was positively shocking. Sounds weird? Well, it was. It WAS positively shocking. Times have changed since Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice, dear readers. Society behaved differently. 

And that's the PROBLEM with this P&P! It's so ridiculously... modern. This Elizabeth Bennet continually reminds me of those teenage girls walking along the shops. I can see her pixie cut under her always-messy wig throughout the movie, and I almost expect to see flip-flops when she lifts the hem of her dress. Most of the time she looks like she's just tumbled out of her bed - which, don't get me wrong, could look charming, but which was SO not HOW-IT-WAS-ISH for those times!

Pride and Prejudice 2005 is the least Period Drama-ish Period Drama ever. There I said it.

OH PLEASE. This looks like a Youtube Ad advertising Nivea cream or something like that. Or someone trying out special camera effects. This is just NOT Jane Austen. 

Dear people, do these things come in to your mind when you think of Jane Austen? - Messy Hair? Night-gowns!!? Swings? Pigs? Elbows on the table? Whispering in Church? Shoulders slumping down? Georgian gowns? Well, if those things come to your mind, fine. :-) But personally I don't think of these things and That's also why this P&P bothers me.

It's like everyone is wearing their pyjamas the whole time. I DO beg your pardon, but I must tell you. Our family calls this P&P 'Pride and Pyjamas.' We do. My brothers came up with it, and I have to say I thought it exceedingly fitting and I call it by that myself.

Look. LISTEN TO THIS. Remember that scene where Mr Darcy comes and gives Lizzy the letter? Well, that's supposed to be the one where Mr Darcy gives it to Lizzy during a stroll in the woods, right? Nope, ma'am, NOT in this version. Here it's the most VULGAR thing ever - Mr Darcy just COMES IN the room (without knocking or 'exuse me's or the maid introducing him - he just opens the front door like that), in the late evening, while Lizzy is WEARING HER PYJAMAS (this, for that time, was really - oh, I wish you'd understand - really just not exceptable!) and hands her the letter. WHILE SHE'S WEARING HER PYJAMAS.

And remember that scene where Lady Catherine comes and gives Lizzy a good talk? Yeah, it's supposed to be the stroll in the garden, right? Nope, ma'am, it's in the middle of the night, while everyone is in their night-garb. Lady-Catherine! One of the MOST important, respected people! She goes to the Bennet's in the NIGHT, and faces a family with loose hair and night-gowns?!!! Oh, PLEASE. Like this is accurate. I really can't watch it.

Why is everything in the night? Why can't there be some scenes with TIDY rooms and NEAT hairstyles? 

Look, research has been done and it has been factualized that the Bennet family would have been able to afford eleven servants. And listen to me, the Bennet sisters had no jobs like women have now, so it is only natural for them to have the time to do their hair beautifully everyday! Please! People complain sometimes that the Bennet sisters in 95' Pride and Prejudice look too 'perfect' and coiffed every day. But really, if you had eleven servants in the house and no job, wouldn't you have the time to do your hair every day and to look good and pretty every day? Especially if you went into town?

I am very upset.

SERIOUSLY.

It's the last scene that pains me the most. (The pain is real. Dare ye not laugh.)

So this is how it goes, right? Lizzy goes out (not in the daytime, of course, in disastrously messy hair, of course, and in her nightgown, of course, this is nothing new) into the fields (insert misty-ness and sunset-ness for romantic effects) and VIOLA, coincidence everyone, Mr Darcy appears magically, with his messy hair and his unbuttoned-things.

Myself, I can't take that. How did they know they were going to meet in the same place? Like, did they message each other on their phones? (Oh no, this is a Regency movie. Sorry. Forgot for a minute.) (*snort*)

Why did the movie makers make everything so... steamy? Mr Collins, he gets a dull unromantic room with a big roast of beef. Mr Darcy, he gets rain and sunsets. Not fair, right? In the book and in 95 P&P the proposals for both men are in similar places. No suddenly-they-dance-on-their-own-in-an-empty-ballroom. No almost-kisses after the first proposal, either. (Seriously?!! They ALMOST kissed after that angry conversation in the rain! Like, Lizzy EXPECTED one?!!)

And when they dance at the ball in Netherfield, they made it all steamy and slow and staring-in-each-others-eyes-y. That's not how Jane Austen wrote it. It was a curt and so not romantic. In this P&P even Lizzy (who's supposed to be rather monstrously disgusted by Mr Darcy, remember? She doesn't LIKE him, remember?) she GAZES bewitchingly in his eyes.

And talking about the world 'bewitched.' Where does THIS come from?!! This quote: 'You have bewitched me, body and soul?' This is just... I'm not even starting. 

Oh look, Miss Bingley forgot to put on her dress.

And there are millions of other things. I'm so sorry. I won't cover them all, because I can make a huge unhealthy rant out of every little scene. I'm horrific, I know, and I feel very bad on your (that is, if you like P&P'05) on your part. (Seriously, pulease don't get offended.)

But because I've started, I must finish. Here are a few more mini rants:

1. Mr Darcy. He doesn't look like a man who owns 10000 a year. Nope, ma'am. Why did they make him look all sloppy? He looks like a farmer boy, a bit dressed up, maybe, but that's all. I really can't stand it when men have bad haircuts. He looks scruffy and bored and 'AH-I-don't-care' and 'Poooor-me'-ish the whole time. He doesn't like the slightest bit proud, either. This should be called 'Humble and Pyjamas', not 'Pride and Prejudice.'

2. (Also, Mr Bingley's hair. Not even starting. Mr Bingley was just a weirdo. A puppet of some sort, almost. His 'laugh' HAUNTS me in the night.)

3. Also, they made this P&P look like it was set several years earlier. Some people wear Regency things, but most of the people wear Georgian garb. Even my older brother, who normally NEVER notices anything fashion-wise (he's that kind of chap) commented that this P&P isn't Regency, it's Georgian. It's like they didn't know which one to choose, so they made it a mix. They allowed some girls to wear Regency things but gave Georgian garb to all the rest. Make Up Your Mind, please.

4. Mr Bennet looks like a pirate. Benjamin Whitrow's Mr Bennet is just SO superior.

5. Everyone has messy hairstyles practically all the time. I know I've talked about it already, but I had to mention it again, because that's one of the things I dislike the most. I think they might have forgotten that combs existed in the Regency (Georgian) era. Poor them. One must think the best, after all.

6. Mrs Bennet wasn't funny. My opinion solely then.

7. Same goes for Lydia. I didn't think she was funny. Of course, the girls here LOOKED more like teenagers (also because they acted and looked more like teenagers do now, in 2015) but I didn't get the taste of the brilliant characters.

8. Charlotte Lucas was good, but it made me wince to see her and Elizabeth run and giggle like Lydia and Kitty in the ball room. I doubt very strongly that twenty-seven-year-olds would have done loud giggling and RUNNING in the ballroom. (Oh yes, that's also a reason why I don't like this Lizzy. She behaves like Lydia and Kitty half of the time. And her giggles are weird. (Must have been influenced by Mr Bingley, I suppose.))

9. My one last big point I'm going to cover is this - the movie's, what's the word for that? - setting? - was weird. Sometimes it went REALLY slow, filming the scenery and the grounds at Pemberly, and Elizabeth Bennet's eyes (seriously, we KNOW you have eyes, Elizabeth Bennet) and the swing in the muddy front yard very slowly, veeeerrry slowly. And then SUDDENLY we go back to the story - whoooosh, whoosh, zam, slap. People talk very fast, everything tumbles over each other.

Pride and Prejudice is a super complex story. You can't jolly well squash it into two hours or less. Or maybe you could, but not if you spend quarter of the time filming eyes and romantic effects. I think so strongly, at least.

10. Also, the fact that you can see Keira Knightley's pixie cut in MANY of the scenes drives me a bit crazy.

I'm sorry.

I just don't like this movie.

*runs off*

*edit* Go read this post here if you're a P&P05 lover. I have something to tell you.

The Stereotype Busters: Oldest Sisters

WHAT-HO! (now and then I really have to use that word to start off a blog post. Today was one of those 'now and then's.)

Dear folks, do all of you follow Melody's blog? (You can find it here.) Melody's blog is one of my uber-favourites in this highly entertaining blogging world, mostly because practically ever blog post is centered around Jane Austen, which, y'know (or y'should know) is always a good idea. Anyway, Melody has started this thing called 'The Stereotype Busters' in which anyone who wishes to (which could very well include you or you or you) may write rants against those annoying pecsy stereotypes around the world. Because Stereotypes ANNOY us, right? (So head over to this post for information, if you're interested, and all that.)

Now, the Stereotype I'm going to prove the contrary to, are those 'Oldest Sister' Stereotypes. Yes, there are several, when it comes to that. Oldest Sister stereotypes rile me to no end, mainly because I am the oldest girl in a family of ten, and I feel I must defend myself. Heehee.

I'm going to talk about three Older-Sister-Stereotypes, but I'm going to focus most on the last one, because it's the one that irritates me the most. Please bare with me.

__________________________________________________________________

FIRST // THE STEREOTYPICAL PERFECT AND HELPFUL OLDER SISTER

Dear Jane Austen, I love you to itty-bits, but Jane Bennets do, frankly, not exist. At least not in my world.

So this older sister Stereotype sometimes gets paired with me. *Snort* No, not because people think I'm perfect. But because people assume that, because I'm the oldest girl in a large family, I spend the whole day changing diapers, cooking, cleaning, and being a 'second mother.' (Ugh I HATE that phrase. 'Second Mother.' If someone calls me that EVER again, I'm going to collapse in a frensie of fury.) (I am happy to say, though, that fewer people call me that now I'm older. But I got pestered with the entirely irritating phrase in my younger years a lot. *Shudder*)

That's an Very Annoying Older Sister Stereotype, people. That older sister who never complains.  That older sister who literally has no life aside from working at home and being a 'second mother.' That older sister who ends up being the old maid in books because she was too busy helping at home. YEAH, THAT.

But then, there's also the complete contrary...

__________________________________________________________________

SECOND // THE VAIN, BOY-CRAZY STEREOTYPICAL OLDER SISTER

Now we also have a completely different stereotype! Oh goodness, where do these all COME from? (I will make them disappear.)

You know what kind of stereotypical older sister I'm talking about now, don't you? That kind of 'going-out-of-the-house', 'I'm-OLD-enough', 'make-up-crazy', 'high-heels-primpy', '1000-boy-friends-at-the-same-time' kind of older sister. Sometimes slash rather often that kind of character gets shoved to the youngest sister (as in the case of Pride and Prejudice), but I've seen or read more than enough books or movies where the older sister is like this.

Often, such as in 'Cheaper by the Dozen' and 'Sound of Music' it will be the case of a slightly sheltered family, and the oldest girl will rebel by doing something like wearing a daring dress or cutting their hair or secretly going out to visit the telegram-boy. You get the point. Rebels and rather without-a-head-ish kind of girls.

Seriously, like, ARE there stories without vain oldest sisters? (Yes, there are. Of course.)

I find this Stereotype rather annoying, because, I admit it (there, don't say I don't tell you everything!), one of my worst fault is being rather... well, I am sometimes a bit vain. I do care what I look like. Don't most girls? But I'm not the stereotypical vain older sister at all - I'm kind of 'Meg March'-vain, not Scarlett-O'Hara-vain. I'm not the boy-crazy, loity-toitering in heels older sister at all, thank you very much.

And now we can move on to the 'main' one I'm talking about in this post. The Stereotypical older sister that gets so horrible misused in literature, cinema and real life. Are you ready for my rant? Because there's one.

__________________________________________________________________

THIRD // THE STEREOTYPICAL BOSSY OLDER SISTER

When I was younger, like eight or nine and soso, there were times when I HATED being the oldest sister, and the reason was not because I "had" to look after babies (snort, I rather enjoyed that, and I didn't have to at all, that's just a stereotype) and things like that. Nope, the reason was because I so often read books where the oldest sister was vain and bossy, while the younger sister was the fun, main character.

Now, the word "bossy." That's a strong word.

It is NATURAL for the older kids in families to, y'know... be protective. To kind of POINT OUT things. Like, if I see my little sister put her hand in a jar of jam, I'm not going to go 'okay, fine, bleh', I'm going to be practical and use my common sense and go, 'Nope! Don't do that. What are you thinking?' (I might add a Woosterish 'Well! Of all the bally NERVE!' for fun.) Us older kids are just... not being critical to anyone here, but often the older ones of the family just... kind of DO less silly things. And therefore they must point things out to prevent millions of stupid things to happen.

Elinor, just pointing something out. That's not being bossy.

So there's a difference between that kind of 'pointing-out-hey-there-just-stop-that-silly-thing-will-you-'bossy'', and the real-bossy-kind-of-bossy.

And what I HATE is that those two kinds - the 'just pointing out', what people sometimes unrightly call 'bossy', and the mean, 'GO AWAY'-evil-stepsister real kind of bossy - are always mixed up. Because of stereotypes. Like, people automatically think, 'Oh look, that's one of those mean bossy sisters again' immediately, without assuming the fact that there is a 'not-bossy-kind-of-bossy.' Am I talking nonsense, or do you kind of get it?

To show you the difference, here are some examples.

Let's start with Eliza Jane, shall we? Have you all read 'Farmer Boy'? That Little House book about Almanzo's childhood with all the food and horses? Yes, that one. Well, if you've read it, you'll surely remember the extremely annoying and bossy older sister, don't you? Eliza Jane. She doesn't let Almanzo do anything, let alone touch a crumb before dinner is announced. She, I admit it, is a rare mean sister. She is also the kind of stereotypical bossy sister. Just MEAN.

Now, you'll have to agree, this (Eliza Jane-bossy) is not the same kind of (let's-call-it)-bossy that, say Elinor Dashwood has. 

The first word that comes in my head to describe Elinor Dashwood is not 'bossy'. SO not. Elinor Dashwood is sensible and therefore has the need to point things out to her slightly-less-practical sisters and mother. Things like telling Marianne to please say more than just 'yes' and 'no' and stuff like that. That's not bossy, right?

And Mary Ingalls. I used to be the biggest Little House fan, ever, so I have my 'defending Mary Ingalls' paragraph all over-thought and ready for you. Mary Ingalls was written in the eyes of her very-different younger sister. If my younger brother or whatevs would write a book about his life I'm afraid there would be a rather big possibility of me being portrayed in a cringe-worthily stereotypical-bossy-sister (hopefully not as bad as Eliza Jane, though. Really, I do my best to be reasonable). Laura also often writes about how she admires Mary, so I'm sure Mary was a lovely girl. She and Laura had tons of good childhood memories together. Mary just felt the huge need to SAY those doggoned obvious things to Laura now and then, that's all. She was just being a good older sister.

So, please, everyone who has older sister, please do not go around and call them bossy (unless they are REALLY as mean as Drisella or Anastasia or Eliza Jane. But please, those are uber-rare.) I hate nothing more than being called bossy when I'm just pointing things out that need to be done or that SO need not to be done. It's a hard thing, being an older sister.

(Of course, I'm not critising any of the 'younger sisters' out there. Wouldn't dream of it, I wouldn't! I'm sorry if I offended you when I said that about the older sisters feeling the need to point out stupid things. I don't mean to say that you're stupid, not at all. Just, sometimes younger siblings can do disastrously WHAT THE PORRIDGE things. For instance, deciding to throw out all contents of the marble bag. Of COURSE I feel the need to tell them to tidy it up. That's not bossy.)

__________________________________________________________________

SOME OLDER SISTERS IN LITERATURE THAT AREN'T STEREOTYPICAL 

I often find myself sympathising enormously with the older sisters in movies and books, especially when they aren't portrayed in stereotypical ways (actually, ONLY when they aren't portrayed in stereotypical ways, heehee.)

I absolutely love Meg March. She does what older sister's do (y'know, point out things (that's not bossy, remember? ;-P)) and she has her faults, such as being carried away by the latest fashions and ball gowns, but she's sweet and has a darling original personality. She can be mistaken for a stereotype (in fact, that's why I didn't like her when I was younger - I thought, 'Oh, there you go. ANOTHER vain older sister'), but she really isn't.

I also love Elinor Dashwood, of course. She's a chump.

I love it when I come across a very quirky, very different older sister! I did so yesterday evening, when we watched 'Summer Magic.' Nancy Carey is a chirpy, chattery oldest girl, very good-natured, and a bit hot-tempered. She rather delighted me. :-)

Fanny Dorrit, in 'Little Dorrit', is by no means an older sister I heartily approve of, but she has a very un-stereotypical side to her too. She's hilarious and almost-sweet, under that silly stereotypical bossiness. She was a very kind of refreshing character, for an annoying older sister. I like Charles Dickens.

DO YOU GET ANNOYED BY OLDER SISTER STEREOTYPES?

OLDER SISTERS, HAVE YOU BEEN CALLED 'BOSSY'?

__________________________________________________________________