Nikki N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not offended with you or others who don't like
> my story, I know non-canonical pairings are always
> controversial.
>
> But I must comment on your comparison between
> Charles Musgrove and Thorpe. Charles M is a minor
> character and not the hero, but he is one of the
> nice guys while Thorpe is a boorish villain.
> Charles Musgrove may be compared with Charles
> Bingley as a nice young man who is rather
> colourless or spineless etc., but he can no more
> be likened to Thorpe that Bingley could be likened
> to say, Willoughby. JA never said that Thorpe
> would be a better man if he married a good woman
> -- but JA did say that of John Dashwood,
> indicating he was weak rather than really
> villainous, and she gave examples of scenes
> between him and his wife showing how his wife
> manipulated him -- bringing out the worst in him..
> Charles M was already a nice, good-natured
> man even with Mary as his wife, the text said he
> would be even better with a better wife,
> not that he would be transformed from an
> ill-natured man like Thorpe into a good man.
>
> I don't think JA believed that a bad person could
> be transformed into a good person by a good
> spouse, but she believed that a good person could
> become an even better person with the right spouse
> or a good spouse who would help in bringing out
> the best in them. That is what happened to most of
> JA's heroes and heroines.
>
> And one of the great things about JA is that even
> her minor characters have their own
> characteristics. There are the good ones, the
> not-so-good ones, and the villains. There are the
> weak ones, those easily influenced by others, and
> the cunning, manipulative ones. Some popular
> writers tend to focus only on the personalities of
> the heroes and heroines and lump ever other
> character together merely as plot devices without
> giving them personalities of their own, but great
> writers such as JA do not do that.
I actually do not disagree with anything you say in this comment.
But to use Anne as the woman who makes Charles Musgrove better is overkill--or, perhaps over-save is a better word. A better woman for him is fine, but Anne? Of course, I realize you disagree with this but, please understand, that is my point. It is NOT that your story is bad or that Charles is bad or unworthy of saving.
Austen writes of Anne's ability to withstand Lady Russell's opinions three years later and to reject Charles without a doubt, unaided by anyone's counsel. For me, this is a testament to her growth. At nineteen, she had loved a man whom she gave up for two reasons--her godmother's counsel and her own concern for his future that such an early marriage might be a drag upon it. Three years later she has matured further. She is thinking about herself and what she needs, and while Austen tells us that a second attachment could have been possible, it would not have been just anyone. Specifically, it was not Charles, although his family was prominent locally and he was a nice man. Even in her loneliness, facing life at 22 and Charles the best prospect out there for her, he was not the man she would have chosen.
Why? I interpret Austen as telling us that Anne's second attachment had to at least approach her first attachment in heroic spirit and mind. She had been young but she had known what she wanted. It was not just about finding a warm body and a decent man to warm her bed. The fact that she had standards is part of Anne's essence and the enduring allure of Persuasion. Switching that up so that she chooses CharIes--yeah, you can do it, of course, but there are less catastrophic ways to give Charles a chance to be a better man. Yes, I know that time and experience with a person can possibly cause love to bloom. Love the one you're with. You can tell me this is Austen's Anne under different circumstances, and I realize that is what you are saying. I raised the idea of another way to make Charles a better man rather than use Anne.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not offended with you or others who don't like
> my story, I know non-canonical pairings are always
> controversial.
>
> But I must comment on your comparison between
> Charles Musgrove and Thorpe. Charles M is a minor
> character and not the hero, but he is one of the
> nice guys while Thorpe is a boorish villain.
> Charles Musgrove may be compared with Charles
> Bingley as a nice young man who is rather
> colourless or spineless etc., but he can no more
> be likened to Thorpe that Bingley could be likened
> to say, Willoughby. JA never said that Thorpe
> would be a better man if he married a good woman
> -- but JA did say that of John Dashwood,
> indicating he was weak rather than really
> villainous, and she gave examples of scenes
> between him and his wife showing how his wife
> manipulated him -- bringing out the worst in him..
> Charles M was already a nice, good-natured
> man even with Mary as his wife, the text said he
> would be even better with a better wife,
> not that he would be transformed from an
> ill-natured man like Thorpe into a good man.
>
> I don't think JA believed that a bad person could
> be transformed into a good person by a good
> spouse, but she believed that a good person could
> become an even better person with the right spouse
> or a good spouse who would help in bringing out
> the best in them. That is what happened to most of
> JA's heroes and heroines.
>
> And one of the great things about JA is that even
> her minor characters have their own
> characteristics. There are the good ones, the
> not-so-good ones, and the villains. There are the
> weak ones, those easily influenced by others, and
> the cunning, manipulative ones. Some popular
> writers tend to focus only on the personalities of
> the heroes and heroines and lump ever other
> character together merely as plot devices without
> giving them personalities of their own, but great
> writers such as JA do not do that.
I actually do not disagree with anything you say in this comment.
But to use Anne as the woman who makes Charles Musgrove better is overkill--or, perhaps over-save is a better word. A better woman for him is fine, but Anne? Of course, I realize you disagree with this but, please understand, that is my point. It is NOT that your story is bad or that Charles is bad or unworthy of saving.
Austen writes of Anne's ability to withstand Lady Russell's opinions three years later and to reject Charles without a doubt, unaided by anyone's counsel. For me, this is a testament to her growth. At nineteen, she had loved a man whom she gave up for two reasons--her godmother's counsel and her own concern for his future that such an early marriage might be a drag upon it. Three years later she has matured further. She is thinking about herself and what she needs, and while Austen tells us that a second attachment could have been possible, it would not have been just anyone. Specifically, it was not Charles, although his family was prominent locally and he was a nice man. Even in her loneliness, facing life at 22 and Charles the best prospect out there for her, he was not the man she would have chosen.
Why? I interpret Austen as telling us that Anne's second attachment had to at least approach her first attachment in heroic spirit and mind. She had been young but she had known what she wanted. It was not just about finding a warm body and a decent man to warm her bed. The fact that she had standards is part of Anne's essence and the enduring allure of Persuasion. Switching that up so that she chooses CharIes--yeah, you can do it, of course, but there are less catastrophic ways to give Charles a chance to be a better man. Yes, I know that time and experience with a person can possibly cause love to bloom. Love the one you're with. You can tell me this is Austen's Anne under different circumstances, and I realize that is what you are saying. I raised the idea of another way to make Charles a better man rather than use Anne.