Nikki,
I see your point, though I think you go a little far when you say that JA created "no very evil villains."
Reread Persuasion and you'll be presented with a guy who, selfishly threw over the only relatives he had, married solely for money, inveigled himself back into his family for strictly selfish reasons, plotted to keep his uncle (who was still healthy and virile in middle age) from ever marrying just so he'd get a rather meaningless title ("baronet" even sounds silly, for crying out loud, like a Muppet baron; and they don't even get to do anything substantial like vote in the House of Lords), cheats a young widow (who was married to his, supposedly, closest friend), and attempts to romance the heroine without having a jot of affection for her (though, apparently, a truckload of desire).
That's well into evil territory in my book.
Still, your general point regarding the villain-less-ness in Austen is well taken.
As for your question, yes, I do like stories with strong villains, and I like 'em to get a righteous come-uppance. The worth of a hero is measured by the antagonist he is facing. We know Sherlock Holmes is a superior hero because, after all, he's pitted against Professor Moriarty. Ditto Nero Wolfe and Arnold Zeck. Ditto Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless. Ditto Superman and Lex Luthor.
It even holds true in real life. Eliot Ness and Al Capone. Churchill and Hitler. Eddie Zigo and the Son of Sam. Bill Tilghman and the Guardsmen of Oklahoma and the Dalton/Doolin Gang.
I don't mind the lack of villains in JA, however. Partly this is because the stories aren't about the conflict between good and evil. And partly, it was because she was talented enough, and entertaining enough, that she didn't need that kind of conflict in her plot to carry her stories.
As a writer, my work in the non-JAFF world is mostly crime fiction and westerns, genres that tend to be conflict-heavy, and that's bound to carry into the JAFF's I write.
So far I've written four, all deriving from Persuasion. The longest was a ballsy adventure story, with Frederick as an action hero, out to rescue Anne from a really villainous villain. The other three have been short-shorts. One has conflict, but the person who fills the villain role (to the degree that this is an accurate description) is Lady Russell, who is (I hope ) not depicted as either unsympathetic or as truly bad, but simply as a person who really does want the best for Anne, but has given not altogether good advice. A second features Mr. Elliot as a villain, but all he gets for his villainy is embarrassed. The third has Elliot as a character, but not really as a villain. It just is about how Frederick and Anne might have gotten to the point a little quicker if Frederick had walked her home from Molland's instead of Elliot.
Here's the thing. I know I'm not as talented as JA. Not even in the same league. And what talent I do have doesn't lend itself to carefully detailed illustrations on what JA called "little pieces of ivory." I am, on the other hand, pretty good at action, pace, and depicting conflict so, like anyone else, I'm likely to play to my strengths.
And that, in the final analysis, may be why JA fan-fic tends to have more villainous villains than JA Canon. The writers are simply playing to their strengths.
JIM D.
I see your point, though I think you go a little far when you say that JA created "no very evil villains."
Reread Persuasion and you'll be presented with a guy who, selfishly threw over the only relatives he had, married solely for money, inveigled himself back into his family for strictly selfish reasons, plotted to keep his uncle (who was still healthy and virile in middle age) from ever marrying just so he'd get a rather meaningless title ("baronet" even sounds silly, for crying out loud, like a Muppet baron; and they don't even get to do anything substantial like vote in the House of Lords), cheats a young widow (who was married to his, supposedly, closest friend), and attempts to romance the heroine without having a jot of affection for her (though, apparently, a truckload of desire).
That's well into evil territory in my book.
Still, your general point regarding the villain-less-ness in Austen is well taken.
As for your question, yes, I do like stories with strong villains, and I like 'em to get a righteous come-uppance. The worth of a hero is measured by the antagonist he is facing. We know Sherlock Holmes is a superior hero because, after all, he's pitted against Professor Moriarty. Ditto Nero Wolfe and Arnold Zeck. Ditto Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless. Ditto Superman and Lex Luthor.
It even holds true in real life. Eliot Ness and Al Capone. Churchill and Hitler. Eddie Zigo and the Son of Sam. Bill Tilghman and the Guardsmen of Oklahoma and the Dalton/Doolin Gang.
I don't mind the lack of villains in JA, however. Partly this is because the stories aren't about the conflict between good and evil. And partly, it was because she was talented enough, and entertaining enough, that she didn't need that kind of conflict in her plot to carry her stories.
As a writer, my work in the non-JAFF world is mostly crime fiction and westerns, genres that tend to be conflict-heavy, and that's bound to carry into the JAFF's I write.
So far I've written four, all deriving from Persuasion. The longest was a ballsy adventure story, with Frederick as an action hero, out to rescue Anne from a really villainous villain. The other three have been short-shorts. One has conflict, but the person who fills the villain role (to the degree that this is an accurate description) is Lady Russell, who is (I hope ) not depicted as either unsympathetic or as truly bad, but simply as a person who really does want the best for Anne, but has given not altogether good advice. A second features Mr. Elliot as a villain, but all he gets for his villainy is embarrassed. The third has Elliot as a character, but not really as a villain. It just is about how Frederick and Anne might have gotten to the point a little quicker if Frederick had walked her home from Molland's instead of Elliot.
Here's the thing. I know I'm not as talented as JA. Not even in the same league. And what talent I do have doesn't lend itself to carefully detailed illustrations on what JA called "little pieces of ivory." I am, on the other hand, pretty good at action, pace, and depicting conflict so, like anyone else, I'm likely to play to my strengths.
And that, in the final analysis, may be why JA fan-fic tends to have more villainous villains than JA Canon. The writers are simply playing to their strengths.
JIM D.