5 Things on the Internet that annoy me

Happy first day of Advent. Happy National Craft Jerky Day. (No seriously, that's a thing.) Happy National Bavarian Cream Pie Day. (If you think I'm making this up, I'm not.) Today I'm going to complain about things on the Internet. Because it's fun. And because Internet can be extremely, extremely annoying. And yet, we're carried away by it and have patience for it.

1. Long intros on Youtube videos

UGH I HATE THIS.

This is probably the one that annoys me the most, and it's everywhere on Youtube. If you don't know what I'm talking about, well, let me elaborate. Many Youtubers, when they start a video, called say, 'DIY's for Christmas' they start the video with something like, 'wassup, guys!' and then they explain what they're going to do in the video. This I can manage. But then so often they just ramble on and on. Often they even say 'like this video!' in the INTRO. Like, NO! SO FAR THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN VERY BORING. And sometimes they say stuff like, 'Oh and one more thing...' and then finally after like a four minute intro, they say, 'Now let's get into the video!'

AS IF THE VIDEO HASN'T STARTED YET.

It HAS!

The video starts from 0:00. Duh.

So I get why people do intros, and short intros are fine. But really, even those aren't needed. Viewers aren't STUPID. They will get from the title that a video called 'DIY's for Christmas' is 'DIY's for Christmas.'  If it's a music video, they will get, okay, as soon as the video starts that it's a song. There is no need to explain. People can figure it out for themselves by just watching the video. And reading the title.

Rant over. Next rant.

2. Buzzfeed

Nuff said. Ugh.

The clickbait, the stupid useless-ness of it and the way it grabs time with meaningless articles about 'what cheese are you' and 'ten things that will make you say legit' or whatever. Buzzfeed makes me loose hope for humanity. Buzzfeed should read Ecclesiastes and realise how meaningless they are.

*insert random cute picture*

3. When ads don't even load!

Ads are an immense nuisance. Period. But what really takes the giddy biscuit is when they don't load and you have to WAIT FOR SOMETHING YOU HATE. *turns off caps* *turns off italics* You know what I'm talking about, right? When you're going to watch a video, and there's an ad before the video and then wifi gets bad and the ad won't load. Just... I WANT TO WATCH THE VIDEO. But there's an ad. And I have to go through the ad before the video - I accept that. But when the ad doesn't load... ugh, the way it plays on my patience. I'm quitting.

4. Serious 'sexy' selfies

WHY.

Serious selfies annoy me sooo much. I love selfies, I'm not one of those 'ughh teens with their stupid selfies' people - but SMILE PLEASE. THAT'S THE POINT. I don't get why people go all serious on pictures. It's not professional, or chique, or glam, or hot. It just looks plumb ridiculous. And then of course there are comments with like, 'OMG YOU'RE SO PRETTY' which makes me roll my eyes which makes the older generation turn around in their graves. (Duck-face selfies, of course, are terrible too. But I think we can all agree on that and don't need to talk about it. *shudder*)

5. Repost if you...

Repost if you love Jesus. Pin if you would stay up all night to convince out of suicide. Repost if your best friend is beautiful. Okay, these are all true and I've seen all of them, BUT I'M NOT GONNA REPOST. And that doesn't make me less of a human... I just don't want to repost it! I don't need to repost something to prove that this is true. This just bothers me because it makes me feel guilty about not spending some extra time posting something which will make other people feel exactly the same. Why is this a THING. :-P

(Also: We don't need another make-up tutorial. Or another cover of Let it Go. Or a duck-face selfie. And Instagram, I know legs exist. Stoppit.)

What are some things online that annoy you?

And I fully realise I sound like a very grumpy person in this post. Share if you agree. Like and subscribe and don't forget to comment! (Yeah, people say that way to much. If the post is good: You will get comments and likes and followers. But begging makes one sound so desperate!) (I find it hilarious when Youtubers with MILLIONS of followers say the 'Like and subscribe' thing. As if they're scared of not getting enough attention.)

Seven Things that BOTHER me - in books

Now and then one must grumble and complain and let it allll go out. :-D I suppose you could call this my book-peeves-post. Some things a lot of people are bothered about - such as dog-earing books - I don't really mind. Also, many people, I've heard, don't like it when books about movie-covers, but I rather like it. Also, even love-triangles. I don't really hate THOSE. :-)

But there are other things which bother me. 

A lot.

Of course, there are obvious things I don't like - I don't like books which have tons of swearing in it - I don't like books in which witchery or other stuff are encouraged - I don't like books which make romance un-holy and un-special. So I'm not going to rant about that today. Today it's the other stuff. :-/ Yeahhh.

1. When there's no book blurb on the back.

Only quotes. No blurb. 

Sure, 'The New York Times' tells us it's 'thrilling and life-changing.' Sure, there's Markus Zusak with words of encouragement. But I STILL don't know what the story is about. This drives me flipping nuts. I need to know a BIT about the story, right? I need to have SOME kind of idea? Is it about zombies? Or princesses? What? Luckily, I have Goodreads which gives me a book blurb, but when I'm in a real book store, this peeve can pop up.

No thanks.

2. When the character pictured on the cover is different than s/he is (so clearly) described in the book.

For instance, I've read books where the character is blonde - this physical feature is so often mentioned in the book - and then bam, the front cover features a brunette. This is just weird. I hope they make a rule that all cover-designers MUST read the book. Or does the author not care that this is done? Must she not contact the cover-designer for approval?

Anyway. I find this very annoying.

3. When a book starts with a looooong description.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those literary spirits who actually enjoys reading description. (As long as it's not ten chapters in succession. I'm looking at you, Victor Hugo.) But when a book starts with a three-page elaborate detailed structure about a flower patch or a sunny atmosphere of a summer's day, I kind of get discouraged. That's why I quit reading Les Miserables. I had enough about the Bishop's bedroom. I didn't care a jot.

I like a story that starts good. Description is welcome, but not as the first thing on the doorstep. Thanks.

4. When a lot of the chapters end the same way.

Or, when authors try to use good page-turning-tricks at the end of chapters.

I haven't had this too much, but now and then I've encountered such books and it's starting to become a serious pet peeve. For instance, I just finished a book which was rather good, but - seriously, every chapter ended with two really short choppy sentences. It just became weird. I also don't like it when a lot of chapters end with several dots. Like this...

They think it's a good page-turn-trick. It's not.

5. When introverted heroines are clumsy.

Seriously? Why is this a thing? Introverted people aren't clumsy. I mean, SOME might be, but not fifty percent of them! Actually, it's not only introverted heroines that are clumsy, it's just heroines in general. Because when heroines are clumsy they accidentally bump into a handsome gentlemen. Or they fall in a puddle and a random potential future husband helps her up and gets reeeeaaal close to her. Or they drop their teacup on the toe of a prince. Love at first drop. 

Blehhhhhhhhhh.

6. When you can't take off those stickers on the cover (!!!!!)

THIS ANNOYS ME SOOO MUCH. Seriously, where to start my epic mini-rant.

In the first place, why do they put stickers on the cover? WHY. Sure, the book may be promoted. Sure, it's a best-seller. But WHY do you have to mention that via un-managable-to-get-off stickers? Why do you ruin entire beautiful covers by flashy yellow circled stickers?!!!

And fine, if I were able to take them off easily, like one is able to easily slide off some kinds of washi-tape, I wouldn't complain. But half of the time YOU CAN'T GET THEM OFF. Or you can start to peel them off, and the half of it kind of half remains and my whole cover is spooooilt. This can make me frustrated to TEARS. Arghhhhhh. (Seriously, once I used a wet hanky to rub all the sticker bits off. I was that desperate to remove the wretched objects.)

7. When the cover features a scene which isn't even in the book.

This one is pretty similar to number (*goes up to have a look which number it is*) two, but I've got to mention it anyway.

For example, I once read a book (yes, I actually DID. I know. I know. Amazing, right.) which had a couple in an embrace, standing in front of a flying machine. Areoplane, call it what you want. And in the book yes, they do embrace, and yes there are scenes with planes in them - but they don't actually embrace in front of a plane. And suddenly, on the cover, they do. 

It just annoys me. :-P

Okay. Those were seven of my book botherations. I have more, of course. :-) But I'll leave those others to other blog posts. I can't over-swamp you with complaints; that's a bit inconsiderate, you know. Anyway. 

Do these things annoy you? 

Do you have any particular book peeves?

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'?

__________________________________________________________________