Melissa:
Re your comments:
> Jane Austen never wrote a true villain. Wickham,
> who is the worst, is a lazy opportunist. He has
> no true victims (Lydia would be to modern
> sensibilities, but not Regency) Lydia was willing,
> Georgiana was willing, Mary King was willing, even
> Elizabeth was willing to have vindication for her
> dislike of Darcy.
The willingness of a victim to be victimized doesn't make the villain any less villainous. Many child molestation victims are willing. I hardly think that qualifies the molester for "non-villain" status.
Victims of cons and grifts are usually collaborators in their own victimization. And while any self-respecting con man uses his victims' greed against them, many scammers with no self-respect use their victims' generosity against them, by setting up phony charities, etc. Does the cooperation of such victims in their own victimization really absolve the con artists?
Georgiana and Lydia are fifteen. Some smooth-talkin' a-hole who knows exactly what he's about, and tries to seduce 'em certainly qualifies as a villain in my book. Hell, at least with Georgiana, he was willing to actually marry her, but all he wants from Lydia (who, I reiterate, is only fifteen) is some sub rosa slap and tickle. An act of total selfishness that he knows damned well will not only affect Lydia, but her whole family, none of whom have consented to this victimization.
> This is really a very human thing to do. Not an
> admirable trait, but it is not uncommon for people
> to attempt to rewrite history to justify their own
> bad choices. Many times they've told the story to
> themselves so often that their brains are
> convinced that this version of events is the truth
> and can't distinguish the lie any further. Emma
> does this to herself with Harriet Smith's
> background, but she's not considered a villain.
C'mon, you really can't be comparing Emma's fantasy about Harriet being the illegitimate daughter of a landed gentleman (he turns out to be in trade when his identity is finally revealed; big whoop) to Wickham's determined attempt to deceive all of Meryton by using a series of deliberately misleading half-truths, can you? This isn't Wickham telling the story as he really believes it. This is Wickham maliciously revenging himself on Darcy by painting someone he knows to be honorable in a dishonorable shade.
> I myself have behaved on some level as each
> antagonist in Jane Austen's novel. Like Frank
> Churchill I've hidden personal relationships that
> would be considered unacceptable from a parental
> figure that they thought was bad but I knew
> wasn't.
Yeah, but did you pretend to be interested in someone else, someone who was unaware of the secret relationship you were really pursuing, for the sole purpose of camouflaging the identity of your undercover honey, without regarding in any way how you might be opening up for that someone else a king-size can of heartache?
Didn't think so.
That Emma is not broken-hearted is only because, though she didn't consciously realize it (and Frank Churchill certainly didn't), her heart was already spoken for. If Frank had really awakened sincere affections, Emma would have been terribly hurt.
That was, at best, unconscionably inconsiderate, and, at worst, plain mean.
> Like Mary Crawford I've tried to
> encourage someone interested in me to be someone
> I'd be more interested in.
Yeah, but did you encourage them to go against deeply held principles?
Didn't think you did that, either.
> Like Willoughby I've
> enjoyed romantic flirtation that almost crossed
> the line to leading someone on, because it was fun
> and because it flattered my vanity.
And how many times did you abandon a much younger romantic partner that you had seduced, after she wound up pregnant? How often have you ever abandoned any of your children for others to raise?
Yeah, I kinda thought you'd never done any of that.
> Like Gen. Tilney and Lady Catherine I've taken actions to
> dissuade someone I care about from a situation
> that I judged not to be in their best interest.
Did you ever throw a defenseless young girl out into the cold air, in a remote rural area that she's in no way familiar with, in the middle of the night, just cause you didn't think that defenseless young girl wasn't the best match for whoever it was you were trying to dissuade?
How about bursting, completely uninvited, into the home of the person you believe to be a less than optimum match for that person you cared about, and then proceeding to berate, insult, degrade, demean, and debase that less-than-optimum party in the most discourteous, deliberately hurtful way imaginable?
I'll bet a freshly printed Franklin against ten cents worth of dimes that those are both still on your "haven't-gotten-around-to-that-yet" list, too.
Here's a few more things I pretty sure you haven't done.
Cheat a crippled young widow out of the legacy she's got coming from her late husband, who trusted you to look out for her after he was gone, and who, to that end, named you as the executor of his will.
Seduce the spouse of someone else while simultaneously courting (or accepting the courtship) of a sweet, naïve person for whom you profess to feel true affection, just for a cheap thrill.
Deliberately and publicly snub a sweet, decent girl at a dance, who never did you a lick of harm, because you are holding such a truckload of animus in your heart against someone else who holds that sweet young thing in some regard.
I'll grant you all of this is a long way short of Professor Moriarty/Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Fu Manchu territory, but not truly villainous?
I guess I've just a got a lower bar.
JIM
Re your comments:
> Jane Austen never wrote a true villain. Wickham,
> who is the worst, is a lazy opportunist. He has
> no true victims (Lydia would be to modern
> sensibilities, but not Regency) Lydia was willing,
> Georgiana was willing, Mary King was willing, even
> Elizabeth was willing to have vindication for her
> dislike of Darcy.
The willingness of a victim to be victimized doesn't make the villain any less villainous. Many child molestation victims are willing. I hardly think that qualifies the molester for "non-villain" status.
Victims of cons and grifts are usually collaborators in their own victimization. And while any self-respecting con man uses his victims' greed against them, many scammers with no self-respect use their victims' generosity against them, by setting up phony charities, etc. Does the cooperation of such victims in their own victimization really absolve the con artists?
Georgiana and Lydia are fifteen. Some smooth-talkin' a-hole who knows exactly what he's about, and tries to seduce 'em certainly qualifies as a villain in my book. Hell, at least with Georgiana, he was willing to actually marry her, but all he wants from Lydia (who, I reiterate, is only fifteen) is some sub rosa slap and tickle. An act of total selfishness that he knows damned well will not only affect Lydia, but her whole family, none of whom have consented to this victimization.
> This is really a very human thing to do. Not an
> admirable trait, but it is not uncommon for people
> to attempt to rewrite history to justify their own
> bad choices. Many times they've told the story to
> themselves so often that their brains are
> convinced that this version of events is the truth
> and can't distinguish the lie any further. Emma
> does this to herself with Harriet Smith's
> background, but she's not considered a villain.
C'mon, you really can't be comparing Emma's fantasy about Harriet being the illegitimate daughter of a landed gentleman (he turns out to be in trade when his identity is finally revealed; big whoop) to Wickham's determined attempt to deceive all of Meryton by using a series of deliberately misleading half-truths, can you? This isn't Wickham telling the story as he really believes it. This is Wickham maliciously revenging himself on Darcy by painting someone he knows to be honorable in a dishonorable shade.
> I myself have behaved on some level as each
> antagonist in Jane Austen's novel. Like Frank
> Churchill I've hidden personal relationships that
> would be considered unacceptable from a parental
> figure that they thought was bad but I knew
> wasn't.
Yeah, but did you pretend to be interested in someone else, someone who was unaware of the secret relationship you were really pursuing, for the sole purpose of camouflaging the identity of your undercover honey, without regarding in any way how you might be opening up for that someone else a king-size can of heartache?
Didn't think so.
That Emma is not broken-hearted is only because, though she didn't consciously realize it (and Frank Churchill certainly didn't), her heart was already spoken for. If Frank had really awakened sincere affections, Emma would have been terribly hurt.
That was, at best, unconscionably inconsiderate, and, at worst, plain mean.
> Like Mary Crawford I've tried to
> encourage someone interested in me to be someone
> I'd be more interested in.
Yeah, but did you encourage them to go against deeply held principles?
Didn't think you did that, either.
> Like Willoughby I've
> enjoyed romantic flirtation that almost crossed
> the line to leading someone on, because it was fun
> and because it flattered my vanity.
And how many times did you abandon a much younger romantic partner that you had seduced, after she wound up pregnant? How often have you ever abandoned any of your children for others to raise?
Yeah, I kinda thought you'd never done any of that.
> Like Gen. Tilney and Lady Catherine I've taken actions to
> dissuade someone I care about from a situation
> that I judged not to be in their best interest.
Did you ever throw a defenseless young girl out into the cold air, in a remote rural area that she's in no way familiar with, in the middle of the night, just cause you didn't think that defenseless young girl wasn't the best match for whoever it was you were trying to dissuade?
How about bursting, completely uninvited, into the home of the person you believe to be a less than optimum match for that person you cared about, and then proceeding to berate, insult, degrade, demean, and debase that less-than-optimum party in the most discourteous, deliberately hurtful way imaginable?
I'll bet a freshly printed Franklin against ten cents worth of dimes that those are both still on your "haven't-gotten-around-to-that-yet" list, too.
Here's a few more things I pretty sure you haven't done.
Cheat a crippled young widow out of the legacy she's got coming from her late husband, who trusted you to look out for her after he was gone, and who, to that end, named you as the executor of his will.
Seduce the spouse of someone else while simultaneously courting (or accepting the courtship) of a sweet, naïve person for whom you profess to feel true affection, just for a cheap thrill.
Deliberately and publicly snub a sweet, decent girl at a dance, who never did you a lick of harm, because you are holding such a truckload of animus in your heart against someone else who holds that sweet young thing in some regard.
I'll grant you all of this is a long way short of Professor Moriarty/Ernst Stavro Blofeld/Fu Manchu territory, but not truly villainous?
I guess I've just a got a lower bar.
JIM