Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
heroines and heroes, villainesses and villains, and ?
date
newest »
newest »
In Mansfield Park, pretty much the only comic figures are very minor ones, Mr. Rushworth and Mr. Yates. Does the widow with the snaggle tooth in Persuasion count as a comic character? Perhaps Sir Walter is comic, but he’s more disturbing than funny. For a character to be truly comic I think he/she would have to have no power over the heroine.I would not categorize Austen’s novels as romances, though (even in the modern sense and certainly not in the sense the term was used in her day), despite her use of the marriage plot—which was the standard plot of comedy. I think of her works as social satire or comedy of manners.
The most apt source I can suggest to you is Audrey Bilger’s study Laughing Feminism: Subversive Comedy in Frances Burney, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Austen. It may be hard to obtain a copy.
Abigail,Thank you. And remind me to have a discussion re Austin and romance. But not in this thread.
Maybe I'd better think about the word 'comic.' Some you laugh at (Collins) and some... (Sir Walter).
The Jane Austen Wiki calls Mrs. Clay a 'viper in the bosom.' Villainess wannabe?
"Laughing Feminism" is still #1 on a Google search for the title.
My local library sometimes works miracles.
Lots of comedy in Nothanger Abbey and Emma. As for Mansfield, Mary Crawford has a rather nasty joke about the Navy.
I found an article entitled The 7 Funniest Jane Austen Characters. Unfortunately I cannot figure how to post a link on my phone.
I think the villains in Austen - Wickham, Henry Crawford, Frederick Tilney, Willoughby, Elliott exercise their vanity, confident of their ability to engage a woman's affection - in some, to the point of seduction, which was ruinous for a woman. It is a vanity that can have a material affect on a woman's life. There are also the negligent or misguided fathers, but they're not really villains.The villainesses are often personally vain, but their failing is pride - more specifically pride of status or possession, which causes them to be manipulative or meddlesom. Fanny Dashwood, Lady Catherine, even Elizabeth Elliott pretty much fit into the mold.
And what do you think, J., that the villain(ess) adds to the novel? My concern is romance. I've read the "how to write a romance" books but they never explain (in fact never mention) the villain(ess). Yet Austen (five of her six completed are romances) seems to feel they are necessary. (Many romance writers who followed her seem to agree.) Is there something fundamental here without which the romance loses its appeal?
All of the villains are objects of romantic interest. There is a line in P&P where Elizabeth says of Darcy and Wickham that one had all the goodness, and the other had all the appearance of it. Dissimulation seems to be the common thread in Austen's villains.
Mrs Norris in MP is rather a villain. Lady Catherine is more a foil, an obstacle than a villain.
J. wrote: "I think the villains in Austen - Wickham, Henry Crawford, Frederick Tilney, Willoughby, Elliott exercise their vanity, confident of their ability to engage a woman's affection - in some, to the poi..."I'm going to add Miss Bingley to your list. She seems to fit the definition. She is subjected to the same feminine standards as the heroines, but as Mr. Bingley's sister, she has a certain power. The power of access to Mr. Bingley. If he wants to entertain ladies in his home, he needs his sister to be the lady of the house. If he wants to sort of correspond with a lady, it must be through either of his sisters. And Miss Bingley seems to enjoy wielding this power. It certainly makes life more difficult for Elizabeth and Jane.
Isabella Thorpe has some fiendish qualities but I do not believe she actually rises to the level of a villain.
Isabella did Catherine’s brother a favor by showing her true colors!
She certainly did. She is a fun character, though. Becomes someone you love to hate. A frenemy.
Jan wrote: "Isabella Thorpe has some fiendish qualities but I do not believe she actually rises to the level of a villain."I don't think she's bright enough to be a villain. General Tilney is the villain. Isabella is just a not too bright, pretty girl trying to make her way up the social ladder.
Worst Austen father? Probably. Mr is deeply flawed but loves his children. Mr Eliot is vain and incompetent. Mr Price is bad, but perhaps might have been better if alcohol had not destroyed him. You might say Sir Thomas is pretty bad at guiding his children and being a slave holder is indefensible. Mr. Wodehose is merely a nanny. Mr Dashwood was a poor planner who died young. As bad as Sir Thomas is as a person, the General is probably the most villainous as a father and as a character who has a stake in the progression of the plot.
The first father is the nameless Mr Bennet
We've discussed Mr. Dashwood. His hands were tied. His wealth came from his first wife and was passed down through an uncle. The uncle chose John Dashwood as his heir and the girls were left with a small portion. Mr. Dashwood asked John to look after Mrs. D and the girls but Fanny, his grasping wife, convinced him to essentially not do anything. John promises himself he'll make them presents of game once in awhile, do little things for them but then he never does. He finally remembers he has sisters when they reunite in London. He thinks Elinor is the one Col. Brandon is interested in and eager to get one sister off his hands, tries to push Elinor into marrying Col. Brandon. She knows perfectly well it's Marianne who has Col. Brandon's interest and Marianne loves Willoughby so she's not going to say yes to ancient (in Marianne's mind) Col. Brandon. John doesn't want to listen and could care less as long as he is absolved of responsibility towards his sisters.
My point was that he could not compete with the General as a bad father and he was not a villain. Only Sir Thomas is a likely contender because he was a slave holder.
Perhaps it's a tribute to Austen's genius that so many of her villains are also comical, and so many of her comics are also villainous (in their effects, at any rate.)
I've mentioned this before, but its worth repeating. One of my all time favourite books about Jane Austen is Fathers in Jane Austen, by I.P. Duckfield. An absolutely fabulous read! Its a really well written, approachable book with great points about every male character with progeny. The author has clearly read all the novels numerous times. A must read.
It's definitely significant, to my mind, that fathers in JA's novels are 'problematic'. The only completely good one is Catherine Morland's father, and he doesn't really come into the story at all!This could indicate that Austen was making some kind of psychological point with possible reference to her own father (???), or it could simply be a plot driver.
After all, as Catherine Morland herself would probably point out, one can't have a heroine who is sufficiently 'protected' from 'bad stuff happening' (as in, things that make her unhappy), from then having any kind of 'adventure' at all.
If Mr Bennet were more financially responsible the girls would not have been so impoverished in their expectations, and would have had a wider range of men to choose from as husbands.
If Mr Woodhouse had not been so mentally frail Emma would not be so confined and frustrated by her dull life in Hartfield, which leads her to meddle in others' lives.
If Mr Price (Lieut Price?) had been more financially responsible he wouldn't have had to farm his daughter Fanny out to rich relatives.
If Sir Walter had been less profligate and snobbish Anne might have married Wentworth earlier. (Not too sure of this one - but maybe if she'd had a larger dowry she wouldn't have felt that to marry her so young would be a burden to him in his career?)
If John Dashwood senior hadn't died so young, he'd have been able to look after his widow and daughters more adequately, not leaving them to the un-tender mercies of his ghastly daughter in law! (Again, not really his fault he died so soon.)
Thinking about it, it is the poverty of the heroines - other than Emma - that drives the plots forward. In Emma it's the emotional dependence her wilting father has on his daughter that drives it.
Beth It seems to me you would really enjoy "fathers in JA' it widens your preceptions in the above
Yes, I think so too! I shall look out for a copy!
Yes, I think so too! I shall look out for a copy!
I had no trouble ordering it on Amazon.
Jane Austen did some early work in the epistolary form but settled (mostly) for modern romance. Typically that includes a heroine, hero and at least one villain. (One can have more, as Austen did. Two loving pairs, in P&P, a villainess, Lady deB, as well as a villain, Wickham, etc. P&P is about 50% longer than would be common today.)
Today I am thinking about another character Austen used: the comic. Often funny, seldom intentionally so. (Mr. Collins. Mrs. Bennet.)
Do all of Austen's romances include at least one comic? How are her romances stronger (or weaker) with comics?
And can anyone suggest prior research in this area?