Jim D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until Janice pointed it out, I never really
> thought about it how little the villains in Jane
> Austen really do pay.
> Willoughby winds up with a rich wife and an estate
> that's even bigger than the one he's already got.
Willoughby had the happiest fate of JA's villains, he had a rich wife and enjoyed himself on her money "in sporting of every kind". I think in S&S, JA's earliest novel, the villains were the luckiest e.g. Lucy, it irritates me very much that Robert and Lucy got the 1,000 a year estate that should belong to Edward and Elinor (although in canon, Edward and Elinor got married after getting 10,000 capital (500 a year) from Mrs Ferrars with a lukewarm reconciliation, unlike Robert and Lucy, Edward and Elinor would not grovel in order o get more).
>
> Wickham winds up with a pretty, vivacious wife and
> a military career.
>
Wickham did not get a rich wife, but he sometimes left Lydia to enjoy himself in London or Bath.
> William Elliot doesn't get what he wants, but he's
> still rich, still good-looking, and still destined
> to get the title and the estate that comes with
> it.
>
We're told a change was not very likely to come for Elizabeth Elliot, no suitor whom she felt worthy appeared, implying she would remain unmarried.
> Frank Churchill winds up with Jane Fairfax, for
> crying out loud, who's practically the true
> heroine of the whole story (being as the title
> character's so damned insufferable). Thank God
> Sarah Waldock offed the unworthy twit and married
> Jane off to a brave. trustworthy cop named Caleb
> Armitage, with whom she plays Nick-and-Nora in the
> Regency era.
But I don't really regard Frank as a villain, and I'm not the only one. Emma has been described by some as a villainless novel.
>
> Henry Crawford goes back to being a wealthy
> landowner, little affected by the scandal he's
> caused, while Maria Rushworth, who didn't do
> anything any worse than he did (but has to pay
> more for it 'cause she's a woman), goes into
> isolation with Aunt Norris.
>
I think Crawford is JA's most redeemable villain, unless you count Frank as a villain, in which case Frank becomes her most redeemable villain. While the word "enjoy' is used to describe both Willby and Wick in the last chapters, the word "suffer" is used to describe Crawford -- the only one among them who suffered regret, vexation, remorse, wretchedness -- not only for possibly losing the chance to win Fanny, but also for "having so requited hospitality, so injured family peace" -- he had some conscience.
>
> Maria Crawford, who maybe doesn't quite qualify as
> a full-out villain, but who is no real friend to
> Fanny, goes on with her rather pleasant life, her
> thwarted romance with Edmund just a bump in her
> road.
I don't think Edmund's rejection of her was just a bump on the road for Mary. Fanfics often had her quickly marrying someone else, but that is directly contrary to canon -- in canon, Mary was still unmarried when Dr Grant died, although she had many suitors for her beauty and 20,000 pounds, because none of them could put Edmund sufficiently out of her head, while Edmund had Fanny.
> Nothing really puts paid to Gen. Tilney, or the
> Thorpes, either. Tilney loses his family, but
> since he didn't seem to value them much, anyway,
> it's not clear he'll even notice the loss. And,
> as for the Thorpes, losing Catherine and Henry is
> just a bump in the road.
Gen Tilney did not even lose his family, in canon, Mr and Mrs Morland insisted on Henry getting the Gen's consent before they would give their consent to his marriage to Catherine.
>
> Good God, nobody really pays for their
> misbehavin' in an Austen novel!
JA was a realist, and none of her villains were murderers or rapists anyway.
>
> JIM
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until Janice pointed it out, I never really
> thought about it how little the villains in Jane
> Austen really do pay.
> Willoughby winds up with a rich wife and an estate
> that's even bigger than the one he's already got.
Willoughby had the happiest fate of JA's villains, he had a rich wife and enjoyed himself on her money "in sporting of every kind". I think in S&S, JA's earliest novel, the villains were the luckiest e.g. Lucy, it irritates me very much that Robert and Lucy got the 1,000 a year estate that should belong to Edward and Elinor (although in canon, Edward and Elinor got married after getting 10,000 capital (500 a year) from Mrs Ferrars with a lukewarm reconciliation, unlike Robert and Lucy, Edward and Elinor would not grovel in order o get more).
>
> Wickham winds up with a pretty, vivacious wife and
> a military career.
>
Wickham did not get a rich wife, but he sometimes left Lydia to enjoy himself in London or Bath.
> William Elliot doesn't get what he wants, but he's
> still rich, still good-looking, and still destined
> to get the title and the estate that comes with
> it.
>
We're told a change was not very likely to come for Elizabeth Elliot, no suitor whom she felt worthy appeared, implying she would remain unmarried.
> Frank Churchill winds up with Jane Fairfax, for
> crying out loud, who's practically the true
> heroine of the whole story (being as the title
> character's so damned insufferable). Thank God
> Sarah Waldock offed the unworthy twit and married
> Jane off to a brave. trustworthy cop named Caleb
> Armitage, with whom she plays Nick-and-Nora in the
> Regency era.
But I don't really regard Frank as a villain, and I'm not the only one. Emma has been described by some as a villainless novel.
>
> Henry Crawford goes back to being a wealthy
> landowner, little affected by the scandal he's
> caused, while Maria Rushworth, who didn't do
> anything any worse than he did (but has to pay
> more for it 'cause she's a woman), goes into
> isolation with Aunt Norris.
>
I think Crawford is JA's most redeemable villain, unless you count Frank as a villain, in which case Frank becomes her most redeemable villain. While the word "enjoy' is used to describe both Willby and Wick in the last chapters, the word "suffer" is used to describe Crawford -- the only one among them who suffered regret, vexation, remorse, wretchedness -- not only for possibly losing the chance to win Fanny, but also for "having so requited hospitality, so injured family peace" -- he had some conscience.
>
> Maria Crawford, who maybe doesn't quite qualify as
> a full-out villain, but who is no real friend to
> Fanny, goes on with her rather pleasant life, her
> thwarted romance with Edmund just a bump in her
> road.
I don't think Edmund's rejection of her was just a bump on the road for Mary. Fanfics often had her quickly marrying someone else, but that is directly contrary to canon -- in canon, Mary was still unmarried when Dr Grant died, although she had many suitors for her beauty and 20,000 pounds, because none of them could put Edmund sufficiently out of her head, while Edmund had Fanny.
> Nothing really puts paid to Gen. Tilney, or the
> Thorpes, either. Tilney loses his family, but
> since he didn't seem to value them much, anyway,
> it's not clear he'll even notice the loss. And,
> as for the Thorpes, losing Catherine and Henry is
> just a bump in the road.
Gen Tilney did not even lose his family, in canon, Mr and Mrs Morland insisted on Henry getting the Gen's consent before they would give their consent to his marriage to Catherine.
>
> Good God, nobody really pays for their
> misbehavin' in an Austen novel!
JA was a realist, and none of her villains were murderers or rapists anyway.
>
> JIM