Maybe I'm the one who needs to be intoxicated...

 I don't really get horror, I think.

 I like horror video games, sure, but when I sit down and read horror there's this distressing tendency to put the story down, look at the wall and go 'what the hell was that all about?'.

 Okay, not always.

 I did enjoy The Shining, and when I pick it back up, I'm sure I'll greatly enjoy Dracula, but in the instances of the two horror short stories I've read as an adult, I'm just confused.

 For example, I read The Fall of the House of Usher by Edgar Allen Poe and was left staring at the wall in confusion. I mentioned as much in the post containing my Taphophobia drabble.

 Some dude buries his sister alive and then his house collapses?

 I'm clearly missing something here, but I just can't tell you what.

 I get that there's some connection between the literal house and these two last representatives of the family house, but so what?

 I'm left in a very 'nice story, Poe, now go make me a sandwich' kind of mood.

 When I was reading the Shining, I bought the kindle edition of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and other short stories because it had been mentioned. (This is what happened with A Rebours, so I do this a fair amount.)

 I've been in a reading mood, so I decided to start reading it just now and the first story, The Intoxicated has just left me in the same mood.

 I gather that the story is meant to be unsettling, but it just isn't.

 So what? Some teenage girl is anticipating the downfall of society because her parent's generation cocked it up?

 Isn't that what teenagers do and have always done? Wanted a blank slate to recreate the world as they see it and not to have to live with the mistakes of the past? Think that the way their parent's generation is ruining the world?

 ... Am I just jaded?

 Was this actually a thing people weren't used to or aware of in the nineteen forties?

 Because, wooo boy, that's what the world is like now.

 It's a good thing Jackson died in 'sixty five, because what the baby boomers have done since would have made her damn head explode.

 -sigh-

 I'd suggest that maybe we're meant to be unsettled by the fact that she's very clear on the end of the world coming, and seems convinced that it's coming soon, but every adult around her is so dismissive of that.

 Again, so?

 In the face of baby boomers, this is all just so quaint.

 I actually looked up analysis for this story because I didn't get it. I got Doug to read it, and he didn't really see what it was trying to get at either.

 Eh, maybe all this stuff is an acquired taste.

Hannibal Lecter is Not a Sociopath and Neither Are You

 And while we're at it, neither is Sherlock Holmes.

 I know this looks like 'Why I'm not Divergent, and neither are you', but unlike that, this isn't going to be tagged as an uninformed opinion about a book I have not read.

 Because I have read Red Dragon and, let's make it perfectly clear here, in Red Dragon it states that the only reason that Hannibal Lecter is called a sociopath is because they don't have anything else to call him.

 Let us be clear, psychopathy is a thing. It's a dangerous thing and it can severely disrupts an individual's life and the lives of those aroud them.

 Sociopathy, on the other hand is the learned form of psychopathy.

 People like the term sociopath because it gives them the 'I'm gonna fuck with your head' smartness of a psychopath without the stigma of it being an inherent problem.

 The thing is, while sociopathy is hypothetically possible, it's not a thing anyone has ever actually observed, because the only way to socialise anyone into that kind of behaviour is to do it on purpose and basically from birth.

 And who has that kind of time?

 Honestly, the only kind of person who would raise a sociopath is a psychopath.

 Red Dragon is relevant in this conversation because it helps to show exactly why people calling themselves sociopaths is both stupid, and not as cool as they think it is.

 Remember, symptomatically, sociopaths and psychopaths are identical, it's the cause that is different.

 Which brings me to Francis Dolarhyde, a man I find both sympathetic and disgusting. (It's the teeth thing, it hits my mental gag reflex incredibly hard.)

 There are chapters devoted to his life's history, and they cover two of the big reasons why referring to oneself as a sociopath is not as cool as people think it is.

 One, because people don't like those who torture and kill animals for their own amusement.

 Two, because one of the symptoms of psychopathy is bed wetting.

 Oh, sure, you can stick 'high functioning' on it as much as you want, but that doesn't make either of those diagnostic symptoms magically disappear.

 See, a high functioning alcoholic can function pefectly well in public and through life, but they are still destroying their own livers with ethanol.

 If you're a high functioning anything, you can basically function in society perfectly (or mostly) fine, but you're still the other thing and still suffer from issues and symptoms relating to it.

 The reasons that Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss seem to think that 'high functioning' sociopath sounds cool is because:

 One, they didn't bother to do their research and find out what a sociopath is (which is funny in a rather pitiful way)

 Two, they probably think that high functioning autism is the cause of the whole 'savant' thing, which is wrong. Being high functioning means being a  fully functioning person, not a genius. It's a useful descriptor entirely because there are autistic people and alcoholics who can function perfectly well in society as well as ones who cannot. (If it sounds like I'm lumping autistic people in with alcoholics, it's because that's how medical science uses it. They could use it for a lot more, I'm not sure why they don't.)

 Honestly, the entire reason that the term sociopath exists in the first place is because one guy found that the word psychopath was used inconsistently and identified that what we now call psychopathy generally manifests as anti-social behaviour.

 So even if you deny that a sociopath is a socialised psychopath, it remains that the two words have been used by medical science to describe the same thing.

  At best it's a vague term with no real definite diagnosis, in the case of Hannibal Lecter (who probably just doesn't care), and at worst you're calling yourself a psychopath.

 Congratulations, you're telling other people that you wet the bed (at least to an unusual age) and torture and kill animals.

 That's so cool!

Reecey's Quick and Not at All Comprehensive Guide to Terry Pratchett

 So, you've decided to delve into the works of Terry Pratchett, a writer who is as prolific as Stephanie Meyer, but generally more competant (give her time and she may get there. Host is apparently better than Twilight.)

 Frankly, calling him more competant is something of an insult, he's one of the greatest fantasy writers Britain has ever produced.

 And, most importantly, he hasn't set up a tent in Tolkein's back garden.

 Yes, he's got elves and dwarves and they don't like each other, but he's not taken a D&D approach to elves, he's taken a traditional English folklore approach. Which is rather rare these days and far more interesting.

 Also, industry is a thing in the Discworld and you don't get that in Tolkein's back garden. He's had a word with the council and they'll deny you planning permission.

 I've read a lot of Pratchett in my time, and the first book I'd recommend to a new comer is... honestly, it depends.

 Are you a fan of Neil Gaiman?

 Yes?

 Start with Good Omens.

 It's a gateway novel to Pratchett for Gaiman fans and a gateway novel to Gaiman for Pratchett fans.

 After that, or to start with if you're not a Gaiman fan, I'd recommend The Carpet People.

 It's short and it's got an interesting history.

 It was originally written and published when Terry Pratchett was a teenager, and then rewritten when he was an adult and had a few Discworld books out. He himself writes in the foreword about the change in approach between the two versions that basically amounts to camping in Tolkein's back garden and then moving out into a place of his own while Tolkein waves him off with a tear in his eyes and plans for a new flower bed.

 But what to read after you've finished the Carpet People and are looking at your vacuum cleaner funny?

 This is the time to delve into the Discworld. But which set to start with?

 Ah, the sets.

 See, there are a handful of different locations and sets of characters that appear in the Discworld, and most (but not all) of the books revolve around at least one of them. This is why the sets exist.

 They include (but are not limited to); the Witches, the Wizards, the Watch and Death.

 Of these, I'd suggest starting with either the Witches or Death.

 I would not recommend starting with The Colour of Magic or The Light Fantastic despite those being the first books in the series. Honestly, they're kind of crap.

 It's really just because they're the first, I'd recommend reading them a few books in. They're fun, but they're not the best examples of the Discworld books around.

 I started on Reaper Man, which I still think is a great start for a new reader.

 After this, you can pretty much do as you please.

 Although I do recommend reading Strata at some point. It's a science fiction novel that explores the idea of a flat Earth and basically is a prototype for the Discworld. It's also got a few other interesting ideas in it too, like a company that builds planets a la Slartibartfast and the Margratheans in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.

 It also explores how humans relate to the universe around them and how one seemingly insignificant change can lead to a complete change in human civilisation.

 So, there's Reecey's quick and not at all comprehensive guide to getting into the works of Terry Pratchett.

 At some point I'm bound to read The Long Earth and The Long Mars, and will likely let you guys know how they are in guest posts on Fission Mailure.

What is Reecey Currently Reading?

 You'd think I'd have learned my lesson as a child.

 Do not read multiple books at the same time.

 I was actually pretty good at this when I was a teenager, I went through books so fast it was never an issue, but then university happened and I went from avid reader to 'lol, what's a book?'.

 To illustrate how bad it got, allow me to show you all of the Discworld books I've accrued in the last six years or so, but still haven't finished.

 Yeah, it's got really bad.

 These days I take a more pragmatic approach, if I want to read it, I read. There's no use standing on ceremony if it's just going to stand in the way of me reading.

 So here are the books I'm currently reading.

 Or started reading and stopped, but we'll get to that later.

Reecey's Reading List

 I spoke about this one recently in my Nine Ove Five Presents... Syphilis post. It was mostly just me telling you not to read it, and it still stands.

 Don't read it.

 No matter how much you think it's a good idea, no matter how much Oscar Wilde liked it, do not read this book.

 It's awful.

 When I finally finish struggling through it I will do a review for it over on Fission Mailure, fully detailing all of its flaws, but for now just don't read it.

 Okay?

 Good.

 Now this one I do recommend you read.

 For a story about a jam centric apocalypse, it's surprisingly not ridiculous.

 Okay, it is ridiculous, but the way that people react to the apocalypse actually isn't. The way everyone reacts is pretty logical, but taken to varying extremes, or are rather premature.

 One character wants to document everything for posterity, one is planning on how to rebuild civilisation and there's a whole group of people who are taking the apocalypse in stride in a manner that looks totally ridiculous but actually makes perfect sense.

 I think the straightfaced way everyone is reacting to the situation is what really sells this book.

 Croshaw regularly complains about games going out of their way to point out the humour of a situation, so it's not much of a surprise that he doesn't fall into such problems himself.

 So far, it's been a good read. I really should get around to finishing it.

 Sadly, this is the only Science of the Discworld that I don't own in hardback.

 I do, however, own the Tesco's exclusive edition with the extra chapter!

 I just happened to find it when I was looking for awful books to tell Doug about.

 So far, I'm enjoying it. The novel sections are superb as usual, and I really like the chemistry between Ridcully and Marjorie Daw the Roundworld librarian. He's a charming old school flirt, and she's happily receiving the attention as well as mildly surprised that he's not a git.

 The science parts are interesting, although I do find them oddly pandering to the religious and superstitious.

 I'm not really sure how you can separate the concept of spirituality from believing in the supernatural, but it's something they keep attempting to do, and frankly it's getting on my nerves.

 Now, I've only read one chapter of this.

 I was originally planning to do a chapter by chapter recap of this book accompanied by reviews of port, but then I realised that I'd need different port for every chapter, and I'm not that well off.

 I've got the recap for the first chapter floating around on my computer and I haven't decide if I'm going to continue or not. If I do, it will be in a 'Drink and Dracula' format where I drink different kinds of alcohol and read Dracula before reporting it back to you guys.

 Does that sound good?

 Of course I'm reading Sherlock Holmes. You can tell because I have femme!Holmes fawning over Gregson, just like dude!Holmes would if he wasn't in such a post-Wilde Victorian setting, and having Watson wax lyrical about how pretty Gregson is just like Watson actually does.

 That's what I took from A Study in Scarlet.

 Sherlock and John are both gay for Gregson whether or not they're gay for anyone else.

 Also, Sherlock is kind of pretentious, but that's not much of a surprise.

 I should probably read more. It will be useful for my pastiche.

 I'm not going to lie, I bought this one because of the cover.

 I am a sucker for Medieval images of hell.

 To be fair though, it's Inferno, so it's not like I picked something I didn't know was interesting or of cultural importance.

 I'm about five cantos in, and so far I'm come to the conclusion that Dante was incredibly pretentious and super bi. I tweeted about this a bit a while ago, the way he talks to Virgil isn't too dissimilar from a shoujo manga protagonist talking to her sempai.

 So far I'm enjoying it, but it has been a struggle.

 I'm reminded of when I read Thus Spake Zarathustra as a teenager, the poetic language just hits the dyslexic part of my brain and it becomes a real struggle to actually understand what's being said.

 I may start rereading it and use the same tactic I did when I was reading Nietzsche. That is, reading it out loud. It helped then, so it may help now.

 Wish me luck.

 This is the book I stopped reading.

 It's not that I wasn't enjoying it, I liked the premise just fine, and even some of the characters.

 It takes place in an America where anyone and everyone who is diagnosed with a mental illness is taken into state run mental health care and then spit back out. It's also a world where there are electric keyboards that can also play emotions and colonising the moon is a thing that's being worked on.

 This is a good start.

 The problem, as is often the case with science fiction written in the mid twentieth century, is that it's all horribly outdated.

 If memory serves, the story takes place before I was born.

 It's ridiculous, but something that can be overlooked. I lived through the Eugenics wars, so I can deal with this better than some of the kids today could. (Which isn't a slight against them, they're free to laugh and they probably should.)

 No, the reason I stopped reading was Priss.

 No, not a Katniss Everdeen ripoff, Priss is short for Priscilla and she's the driving force of the plot.

 She's not the main character, mind you, that's some dude who's running a electronic keyboard business with her dad, but the story would not have happened without her.

 She's been diagnosed as schizophrenic in this weird mental health system, but I'm not sure she actually is. She mostly just reads as horribly selfish and incredibly short sighted. But I'm not a psychiatrist, so maybe she is actually schizophrenic, just an awful person at the same time.

 What she actually does is create simulacra. Basically, androids and the ones that they make are based on real people.

 She comes up with the idea, she does all the research, she creates the outer shells for them and she's the driving force behind the project. She doesn't do the actual engineering aspect, but that's pretty much the one thing she doesn't do.

 Priscilla basically creates artificial life and it's the most impressive thing any of the main characters have done in the book so far.

 However, and this is the real sticking point, she has this huge cerebral crush on some young CEO who also has some kind of mental illness (he may be schizophrenic too, I can't really remember) and made the simulacra basically to get his attention.

 Once she has his attention he wants to use them to populate his space colonies with fake people so that real people won't feel weirded out about living in space. There are massive legal implications about this, so the main characters wriggle their way out of having to deal with him with the help of Lincoln and some dude named Stanton who is a historical figure I'd never heard of before this book and is somehow my favourite character.

 The reason I stopped reading comes right here.

 They manage to stop the CEO dude from getting them all in trouble/screwing them over and Priscilla basically goes 'well too bad, I'm going to help him anyway' for no reason.

 Lady! What is your deal?!

 Like I said before, I am not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty sure rank stupidity is not a symptom of schizophrenia! Stop thinking with your vagina and realise that this is going to screw you and everyone you know over!

 Also, this guy does not care one whit about you! Either get together with the adorable engineer, go to a book club or die alone leaving a legacy of being the woman who created the simulacra behind you! All of these are better options!

 It's a good book, I mean, I remember the plot really well. It's just that Priss is so damn frustrating that I want to punch her.

 This is a case of a book I'm rereading.

 It's a book I read as a teenager and absolutely loved, and it's held up really well.

 There are a couple of questionable things in it, like this one section with surrogate mothers that makes me cringe, and a surprising amount of the technology is already outdated even though it's set several centuries in the future, but it's still really good.

 One of the things I really like about this book is that the main character is bisexual and black, and the bisexuality is presented as normal and his ethnicity is brought up almost as an afterthought.

 It doesn't really inform his character much, as the colour of his skin is pretty much the least interesting thing about a man who is a second generation clone and third generation immigrant from what is functionally the ruling family of Titan. He's also involved in a love triangle with the son of a rival-ish family and an older woman from Earth that lasts a couple of decades.

 And this isn't even touching on how smart the guy is.

 I really love this book, it really shaped my view of what science fiction should be.

 I should finish it soon so I can start rereading it again.

 (Good luck finding a copy that doesn't have a white guy on the front though. This is pretty much the exact reason I bought a Kindle, so I wouldn't have to deal with that.)

How to build a better Capitol in twelve easy steps

 I’m not a fan of the Hunger Games. There are a lot of things about it that make no sense to me, and they genuinely fill me with a burning rage.

 A lot of this has to do with the world building.

 Primarily with the Capitol and how it makes no sense as an evil empire.

 It leaves far too many openings for people to screw it over and generally behaves in a non-logical fashion.

 In many ways, it seems like the plot of this series is only able to happen because the Hunger Games are run in a way that even an incompetent reality show producer would find laughable.

 So, here’s my guide into making an evil empire that isn’t run by total morons.

1. Make sure the Districts hate each other more than they hate you.

 The Hunger Games would make a perfect opportunity to do this. Instead of having each district send you a team of two for no reason, add a reason!

 If both participants from a District survive, the prize is doubled. This means that if any situation arises where a participant whose partner has died kills the partner of the winning participant, their District will be the focus of all hatred for the winning District.

2. Appear to be fair

 Never take sides in any inter-District conflict. Remain totally neutral for the District’s own good.

 Have every participant of the Hunger Games be the same age. Do not needlessly give one District an advantage over another. Give them the opportunity to do that themselves.

3. Set up ‘friendlies’ and local derbies.

 Have non-lethal matches between Districts that would allow the participants to ‘practice’. Use these to foster animosity between Districts. Giving one District’s participants an opportunity to hurt or cripple another’s will cause tension and help ensure that they do not join forces.

 Be sure to punish any ‘fouls’ with progressive fines that do not actually serve as a proper disincentive.

4. Delay the stream of the Hunger Games.

 You’re going to have to do this anyway, as having twenty four teenagers in a high aggression environment is bound to lead to acts too horrific for public viewing.

 If you’ve followed steps one to three, this will be vital in order to prevent accidentally airing rape to a national audience.

 It will also allow ample time to fake an error if any of the participants try anything clever.

5. Make it clear to the participants that you are in control.

 Dissuade them from trying anything clever by subtly dropping hints that their families are still under your control and that it would be a shame if anything were to happen to them.

6. Create local government, and allow it to be self-regulating.

 Corrupt District councils are your friend. They will bring the focus of dissatisfaction closer to home.

 Be sure to occasionally act as a benevolent force and sanction particularly corrupt councils. This will help bring other councils into line periodically, and make the general population grateful towards you.

7. Encourage Districts to regulate imports into their District using taxation.

 Do this by having it be a non-deductible means of revenue for their local government.

8. Allow upward social mobility, but only sometimes.

 This helps in the pursuit of number two by making you seem fair on a personal level. It also allows for the greater vilification of the poor by giving examples who ‘worked their way out of poverty’.

9. Treat the Hunger Games as a method of allowing upwards social mobility.

 Don’t just give a prize to the winning district, provide benefits to the families of the top six participants. This will encourage families to put their children up for being participants of the Hunger Games and make you seem a more benevolent force while making sure you have something to threaten participants with.

10. Show disappointment in dissenters.

 Encourage winners, and the families who have had their lives improved,to speak against anyone who speaks out against the status quo.

 Remember, you’re doing it for the benefit of the poorer districts. It’s just that nothing is free in this world, people have to work to improve their lives.

11. Don’t name the District that has nuclear power ‘District 13’

 On a related note, do not name it ‘District 4’ either. You’re just tempting fate.

12. Don’t allow Hunger Games participants from different Districts to hang out socially.

 If you don’t understand why, you deserve what you get.


 If you follow these simple steps, you should be able to avoid getting overthrown because you got outsmarted by a seventeen year old and her creepy stalker.

Why I'm not Divergent, and neither are you- an uninformed opinion about a book I have not read

Why is the Divergent trailer asking me if I'm divergent?

 I thought the whole point of Divergent was that the people who live in that hellhole were the result of some genetic tomfoolery that left them incapable of having normal human emotions and responses.

 As I am not the result of genetic tomfoolery, I am capable of being by turns, Dauntless and cowardly, Erudite and ignorant, full of Abnegation and selfish, Candorous and deceitful, the picture of Amity and a vengeful, violent, angry piece of shit. Hell, I can be all of these things at the same time. It is entirely possible to be brave and cowardly simultaneously.

 I am a normal human being, the people in this weird dystopic vision of Chicago aren't. Therefore, I am incapable of being divergent.

 This is worse than the Muggle/wizard thing in Harry Potter.

 Because we are the people they were put into evacuated and walled Chicago to protect.

 They were put there for our benefit.

 This would be like asking wolves if they were wolf-like if dogs only existed in a fictional world where being wolf-like was a really big deal because all the dogs were put in a big kennel for the benefit of the wolves.

 Also, I have a question.

 If divergent people are the ones who have more than one of a set number of traits, why are they called 'divergent'? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to be called 'convergent'? Because all of these traits are converging onto one individual? Or the factions are converging to behave in a similar way?

 If you know anything about evolutionary biology, you've probably heard of convergent evolution. If you haven't, it's this really cool thing that happens in nature where totally unrelated species evolve to fill the same niche. They tend to look similar, act similarly and live similarly.

 Here's an example: sharks, icthyosaurs and dolphins.

 The superorder of Selachimorpha (and some others from the subclass Elasmobranchii), order of Ichthyosauria and family of Delphinidae all look very similar, have similar lifestyles and live in similar environments despite the fact that they're from different classes. Sharks are fish, ichthyosaurs were reptiles and dolphins are mammals.

 Yet look at them. They seem so similar.

 So how does the label 'divergent' make any sense? These people aren't splitting off, they're multiple factions coming together. And it's far, far more literal than sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins.

 Is this label explained in universe as trying to make them seem other and bad (even though they're plainly not ‘other’ in the slightest) or is this really just to make the teenage audience feel different and special, like good little pseudo non-conformists?

 As a side note, in Divergent, is Chicago still twinned with Birmingham? What happened there? I'd like to know.

Oh my god, it's just Pride and Prejudice

 I don’t read a lot of chick-lit, partially because I can’t be bothered, and partially for the same reason I tend not to read most heterosexual shoujo romance manga. That being that I find them personally insulting.

 When I do read them, though, I manage to read the ones that don’t deeply insult me to the core of my being.

 There is a small problem with these though, and that is that, with a lot of them, at some point I will just go ‘oh my god, it’s just Pride and Prejudice’.

 Can we really be surprised here though? The plotline of a man once thought unworthy becoming worthy is a classic one, and in this day and age there are a limited number of reasons for a man to be considered unworthy without the woman coming across as an entitled bitch.

 Let’s face it, we’re not allowed to judge men as unworthy because they can’t provide for us. I mean, it’s not like a family needs to have two well paid breadwinners to have a decent standard of living in this day and age. It’s also not like society still expects us, as women, to do the majority of the childcare and housework and if we were paid; we’d have to be paid a fair amount. Finally, it’s also not like pregnancy could cause us serious harm and illness that could take us out of work for far longer than the mandated maternity leave allows.

 Regardless of all these things, society tells us that we are not allowed to judge men based on their ability to provide at all. If we do we are labelled as gold diggers, it doesn’t matter that it isn’t the main concern; we are told it shouldn’t be a concern at all. But this ignores the fact that the desire to not find ourselves in dire financial straits is not the same as judging a man solely by his income.

 So, we aren’t allowed to use money as a judgement of worthiness. What we are told we’re getting instead is a judgement of worthiness based on emotional availability and willingness to commit, or, at the very least not being a dick.

 Although, consider for a moment that the men who take the role of Darcy are never poor. They are, as far as I know, always rich and capable of providing a good standard of living solely on their own. This may be because Darcy was rich and his wealth was not a consideration for Elizabeth in relation to his manners. However, there is always the possibility that the Darcy characters are only allowed to gain worthiness because they are rich, that publishers believe that we don’t want to read about the lazy and selfish starving artist who learns to grow as a person to become worthy for the powerful politician that he loves. This of course is only an example, but I think what I’m getting at is clear: unless a Darcy is rich, he doesn’t get the opportunity to grow and become worthy.

 It is a genuine concern, I think, that we are being treated as though it isn’t really the emotional availability of these male characters that is our main concern. That the claimed reason for their worthiness or unworthiness is secondary to their ability to provide.

 What we want in our fiction is taking a back seat to what society is determining as what we should want, and, more importantly, what it secretly thinks we really want; that being to be looked after by a wealthy man.

 As I stated earlier a potential partner’s ability to provide is a genuine concern, and there is nothing wrong with it being part of a set of criteria, but we are capable of providing for ourselves and we don’t have to have partners who are richer than us to get that. An equal income, or even a supplemental income would work just as well. Which is not what we tend to get in this kind of fiction, Elizabeth is not getting a financial equal, or someone who could take responsibility in times of illness or hardship. She’s getting someone who can look after her on his own, regardless of whether that’s what she wants, or even what we, the readers, want.

 So, Darcy tends to be rich. He may not be the richest man in the picture, but he will be Elizabeth’s financial superior. Money is not an issue for him, and he would suffer no ramifications for becoming involved with Elizabeth.

 The only reason he has for not becoming involved with her is his own emotional unavailability and dickishness. He may think he is above being in love with her, or that she will pull him down in some fashion. Whatever the reason, it’s unfounded and can’t compete with his love for her. Over the course of the story, he will realise this and give in, whether it be by himself or from taking advice from a trusted friend. So, he’ll stop being an utter dick and actually pursue Elizabeth.

 Of course, Darcy does propose to Elizabeth twice, the first time being a spectacular failure because he went about it in the most dickish way possible short of telling her to make him a sandwich. Darcys these days don’t do this, because society isn’t set up in a fashion that allows a man to propose to a woman before they’ve been together for a reasonable amount of time. Some cultures do allow for this, but not the ones chick-lit tends to be set in.

 The chick-lit I read is set up like this a little over half of the time. I think this is because there are very few genuine obstacles to romance these days that won’t make the woman look like a bitch or the man creepy and unworthy. So this overused formula keeps rearing its head over and over again. Always with a rich man and always with a precocious and less financially stable woman.

 I don’t know about you, but it would be nice to see the artist/politician set up mentioned earlier, or even an emotionally unavailable woman for once.

 There should be more variation in our fiction than just Pride and Prejudice or contrived obstacles to romance.