Of cabbages and kings.... Six main novels, six happy couple, six heroes and six heroines.....and a cast of thousands...(well, maybe not quite that many). One of Jane Austen's greatest skills was in leading the readers affections and emotions down whichever rose-strewn path she chose (or muddy wet cobblestones, as the case may be). Her supporting actors and actresses are amongst the main reasons I love the novels. My undoubted favourites amongst the madding crowd of candidates, are undoubtedly William Collins and Mrs Bennet. Neither are harmful (except frustratingly so) or characters you wish would disappear on the coach for Timbuctoo (or the Outer Hebrides or somewhere), but who amongst all the supporting cast most sets teeth on edge? Is it a peevish Fanny Dashwood, a lazy moaning Mary Elliot or Mr Elton's new wife...or maybe someone from the male ranks.....Who, for you?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120202#msg-120202Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:00:23 +0100 Phorum 5.2.22 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120465#msg-120465 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120465#msg-120465 Sarah Waldock Tea RoomWed, 09 Mar 2016 12:46:36 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120436#msg-120436 Re: Wentworth's agehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120436#msg-120436 Jim G.M Tea RoomMon, 07 Mar 2016 10:47:28 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120432#msg-120432 Wentworth's agehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120432#msg-120432-------------------------------------------------------
Quote

Anne was 27 when Wentworth returned, and his age isn't (to the best of my knowlege) stated, although he will presumably be a little older, thirty maybe?

You asked about their ages on Feb 23rd. The answer was given that Frederick was twenty-three when Anne was nineteen. You acknowledged the answer. (Link)]]> JanetR Tea RoomMon, 07 Mar 2016 01:15:40 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120430#msg-120430 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120430#msg-120430
Re your comments:

> Not to be deliberately argumentative Jim, but you
> will note that my observation (as many others of
> mine do) ends with a question mark signifying I
> don't/can't actually know. I also noted that our
> opinions must be speculation for much the same
> reason.

Except Miss Austen didn't leave it up in the air. She flat-out said Fred stayed in the Navy. And she ended that sentence, like I'm ending mine, with a period.

> Unlike P&P (which is never more than a
> metre from my pc desk) I don't own a current copy
> of Persuasion and I said the book didn't tell us
> much about Anne and Frederick after marriage . . .

But what it does tell us is that Fred stayed in the Navy, and Anne "gloried in being a sailor's wife." That's unequivocal and indubitable. Why do you insist that there's an ambiguity about that when there isn't?

> . . . (which, the book being fictional any way, is left
> pretty much to imagination) not that it told us
> nothing. One of the disadvantages of stating
> anything with certainty regarding the future is
> that so many things can change almost overnight
> particularly in an uncertain era like the Regency.
> It is particularly more than a little of a mine
> field when amidst war periods. We read the Jane
> Austen of two hundred years back, but what of
> those who read her when the book was first
> published in 1818?

In real life, you might have a point, but in the book, Miss Austen makes it clear that Fred stayed in the Navy. You can't get around that last paragraph by saying "we can't really know," because Miss Austen doesn't leave any room for doubt.

Fred stayed on active duty and that, literally, is all she wrote.

> It is also no unknown factor that the year 1815 is
> recognised as almost the end of an era for naval
> sea-power with masses of sailors of all levels out
> of work after it and suffering hardship.The facts
> are easily found on this.( sort of a fore-runner
> for "Buddy, can you spare a dime?". if you will. )
> The first steam powered ships had also appeared on
> the scene and were eventually to see the end of
> the great sail-power navies. Anne was 27 when
> Wentworth returned, and his age isn't (to the best
> of my knowlege) stated, although he will
> presumably be a little older, thirty maybe?
> Everything about their future (including children)
> must remain in our imaginations. Today, we can ask
> the authors for answers and have them explain,
> Jane Austen, sadly, never got that opportunity

It was the beginning of the end for "Fighting Sail," but not the end of the end. The first steam-powered military vessel, HMS Agamemnon, wasn't commissioned 'til the 1850's.

Prior to that, though the sail-powered RN was, as you say, much smaller, it was still a force to be reckoned with, and its fighting days were not all past. The bombardment of Algiers, the Battle of Navarino, the bombardment of Acre, the First Anglo-Chinese War, the Crimean War (particularly operations in the Black Sea), and ongoing campaigns against piracy and the slave trade all occurred during the three decades between the end of the 100 Days War and the Age of Steam.

If Fred stayed in the service, and Miss Austen makes it absolutely clear that this was just what he did, then there'd be plenty of work for him.

JIM D.]]> Jim D. Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 23:28:17 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120425#msg-120425 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120425#msg-120425Persuasion was the last of Jane Austen's work being finished in 1816 (I'll stand a correction if this is wrong?) . By that time the war in Europe had ended and also the war against America both around 1814-15 so two major conflicts ended at that time. Effectively, wars then were over when Persuasion was published ( a fact borne out by Frederick's return with his fortune made.) "Home is the sailor, home from the sea, and the hunter home from the hill" as Robert Louis Stevenson was to write later in his poem Requiem. With todays equivalent ( approximate) amount of some two and a half million pounds to his name and the love of his life as his wife, I have to wonder why he would go back to sea at all. Still..que sera..(-:]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 21:48:35 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120420#msg-120420 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120420#msg-120420 Sarah Waldock Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 20:46:33 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120416#msg-120416 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120416#msg-120416
It is also no unknown factor that the year 1815 is recognised as almost the end of an era for naval sea-power with masses of sailors of all levels out of work after it and suffering hardship.The facts are easily found on this.( sort of a fore-runner for "Buddy, can you spare a dime?". if you will. ) The first steam powered ships had also appeared on the scene and were eventually to see the end of the great sail-power navies. Anne was 27 when Wentworth returned, and his age isn't (to the best of my knowlege) stated, although he will presumably be a little older, thirty maybe? Everything about their future (including children) must remain in our imaginations. Today, we can ask the authors for answers and have them explain, Jane Austen, sadly, never got that opportunity]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 19:26:05 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120415#msg-120415 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120415#msg-120415
Re your comment:

> Given the period of the Napoleonic war in Europe
> which ended around the time of Jane Austen's sad
> demise, would she have, in her mind, had Frederick
> Wentworth leave the ocean waves and settle into
> life as a landlubber? The book doesn't really give
> much indication . . .

It doesn't? Well, here's the way my copy ends:

"Anne was tenderness itself, and she had the full worth of it in Captain Wentworth's affection. His profession was all that could ever make her friends wish that tenderness less, the dread of a future war all that could dim her sunshine. She gloried in being a sailor's wife,," [bolded italics mine]but she must pay the tax of quick alarm for belonging to that profession which is, if possible, more distinguished in its domestic virtues than in its national importance."

Seems pretty clear to me that Wentworth remained an active duty Naval officer after they married. What do you find vague about it?

> . . . and the scene at the end of the
> film version with Ciaran Hinds standing on deck
> and sweeping the horizon (not too much of it
> really because the ship was still in dock) whilst
> Anne gazed adoringly at his brass telescope, was
> just a bit too "Hollywood" for me. The Rupert
> Penry Jones version of buying a house, was much
> more acceptable. Unlike a modern writer with the
> benefit of historical events, Jane Austen could
> not know if there would be further war or whether
> Frederick would be called to the flag in such an
> event, and if the delicate Anne would cope with
> the rigours of a life before the mast. It is
> interesting to speculate but, unfortuantely
> speculation is all we have.

The Navy wasn't disbanded upon the final ending of the Napoleonics Wars. Sure, it was down-sized, but active duty officers still would have been needed. Austen's two naval brothers remained in the Navy, and didn't make flag rank 'til 1830 and 1846, long after the war's end. Why wouldn't Miss Austen imagine her character making the same decision in fiction as her brothers did in real life?

And, while we're on the subject, how is it more realistic for Wentworth to buy an estate that couldn't be even sold because it was inalienably tied to the title, than it was for a young, vigorous professional officer, already high on the captain's list, who has to do but two things, remain on active duty and remain alive, to have a rock-solid, iron-bound, brass-bottomed guarantee of a promotion to admiral once he's at the top of that list, to decide to decide to stay in the Navy?

I'll admit to a small bias here. I hate the 2007 version of Persuasion with the heat of a thousand suns. And as much as I hate it, I love the 1995 version. So any suggestion that anything done in the 2007 version improves on the '95 version tends to heat my adrenal glands into critical mass.

JIM D.]]> Jim D. Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 18:23:41 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120414#msg-120414 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120414#msg-120414
Given the period of the Napoleonic war in Europe which ended around the time of Jane Austen's sad demise, would she have, in her mind, had Frederick Wentworth leave the ocean waves and settle into life as a landlubber? The book doesn't really give much indication, and the scene at the end of the film version with Ciaran Hinds standing on deck and sweeping the horizon (not too much of it really because the ship was still in dock) whilst Anne gazed adoringly at his brass telescope, was just a bit too "Hollywood" for me. The Rupert Penry Jones version of buying a house, was much more acceptable. Unlike a modern writer with the benefit of historical events, Jane Austen could not know if there would be further war or whether Frederick would be called to the flag in such an event, and if the delicate Anne would cope with the rigours of a life before the mast. It is interesting to speculate but, unfortuantely specualtion is all we have.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 17:05:17 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120413#msg-120413 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120413#msg-120413 Suzanne O Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 16:00:12 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120411#msg-120411 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120411#msg-120411 Sarah Waldock Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 14:54:42 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120410#msg-120410 Re: Longbournehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120410#msg-120410Longbourne" will probably have as short an impact as "Death comes to Pemeberley". Not describing the contents of chamber pots is not quite what I meant by avoiding reality.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 13:22:01 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120409#msg-120409 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120409#msg-120409
I think I'll remain in the "just don't know" camp when it comes to what Jane Austen intended in her writing. My whole posts have been about what she didn't write about rather than what she did. Effectively, she had a somewhat limited carreer (staying with her finished major works and not worrying about order) and used a small variety of themes from family life and comedy to the somewhat darker themes of Mansfield Park via Northanger Abbey. I'm sure she could not predict her career as a writer would be so sadly short as it was (although her health must have been a worry at times). Where she may have gone next is pure speculation.

Jane Austen lived at the end of an era where she would have seen massive change had she lived a short time longer. War in Europe was over, (although England was usually involved in wars and skirmishes somewhere around the globe.) the arrival of steam, the railways, improved road surfaces, indeed the whole industrial revolution, and yes, the abolition of slave trading (which effectively happened in 1807 policy-wise in Britain) were all waiting in the wings with massive trade implications.The closeted rural world of Jane's topics and subjects was changing. The snobbish attitude of the middle-class to trade would see a major reversal in attitude and Jane Austen and those of her era would have to acknowlege it all as new money gradually replaced the old. All that would quite likely have had influences on writing, even the fictional aspects. It is a great pity we will never know.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 11:59:42 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120408#msg-120408 Re: Longbournehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120408#msg-120408 Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 10:51:06 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120407#msg-120407 Re: Longbournehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120407#msg-120407
Also, Hill is the housekeeper, and not the cook, and the Bennets are described as having both a footman and a butler (meaning at least 6 servants). The butler may have been a little bit extravagant, based on the description above, but was not outside reasonable norms for their income level.

I saw a comment about it on Amazon once, saying that four servants was reasonable for Longborn based on how many servants Downton Abbey has, but the real Highclare Castle employed 60 servants in its heyday.]]> Suzanne O Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 05:43:33 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120406#msg-120406 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120406#msg-120406
It's very true that we're used to reading historical fiction by more recent authors, who will take time to describe various aspects of life at the time for the benefit of their readers, but Jane, of course, didn't feel like she needed to explain those things. And Jane famously only wrote about things she had personal experience with, which cuts out whole swaths of potential subject matter.]]> Suzanne O Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 05:28:42 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120405#msg-120405 Longbournehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120405#msg-120405
Maybe it’s not fair to judge from a sample but with Austen I was hooked from the first page.]]> Amytat Tea RoomSun, 06 Mar 2016 04:32:35 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120398#msg-120398 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120398#msg-120398I will summarise.
Journeys? Why describe them? Jane herself would have looked surprised and asked "Have you ever been on a journey? well it was like that." We don't describe a train journey in detail, it's a wearisome thing to have to survive. Jane had no idea her stories would be read by people who, incomprehensibly to her, find carriage journeys exciting.

the war; it had been going on almost all of Jane's adult life, she was probably fed up to the back teeth of it. If you read contemporary fiction from 1939-45 from America there's very rarely much mention of the war there, either, even taking into account the fact that America was late to the party. It didn't touch ordinary lives. Equally the war on the continent didn't touch ordinary lives in Jane's world, where the theft of geese from people like the Westons was more important. It was a very parochial lifestyle.

the distance between when the books were written and when they were subsequently set and published means any contemporary comments had to be excised; other than there still being militia for the plot device of Wickham. I suspect that one reason for avoiding newsworthy items was in order to avoid the books being seen as 'dated' or fossilised into any particular period.

the only contemporary occurrences I can think of in any of Jane's books is the anti-slavery subtext in Emma, which is slyly and subtly introduced in such ironic references as 'Maple Grove' as the house belonging to Mrs Elton's slave owning relatives and Miss Bates' insistence that they did not drink coffee. Presumably this, however, was a political stance Jane believed in rather than being seen as a mention of current affairs.]]> Sarah Waldock Tea RoomSat, 05 Mar 2016 16:42:45 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120395#msg-120395 Re: Of cabbages and kings....https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120395#msg-120395 Suzanne O Tea RoomSat, 05 Mar 2016 15:51:26 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120393#msg-120393 Re: Of cabbages and kings....https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120393#msg-120393Jo Baker has written a novel entitled "Longbourne" as seen through the eyes of the servant levels of society I have only read a review of this and not the book, but it sure seems to pull no punches. It is one of the reasons for my current questions.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSat, 05 Mar 2016 11:38:40 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120389#msg-120389 Re: Of cabbages and kings....https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120389#msg-120389
You are right to say that Austen did not write about the nitty gritty of life in 19th century England, about poverty or war or slavery. Without having Jane herself to ask about that, the simplest explanation is that she didn't want to. She wasn't that kind of a writer. For one thing, she was a lady, at a time when ladies definitely did not write about certain things, at least not in detail. For another, she wrote comedies of manners, social satire aimed at the circle she herself inhabited, with romance and a little morality thrown in. If she had written about the plight of the lower classes, the terrors of war or political struggles, then she would have been another writer.

As part of satirizing the society she lived in, she portrayed common, everyday villains--not murderers or kidnappers, but the sort of people we all meet in life, charming cads and wily schemers who aren't hell bent on destroying people so much as merely serving their own selfish ends. And she gave them the kind of punishments which such people usually get in real life, which is to say not a whole lot, except that they are never able to be contented or really loved. And that's the point. We're supposed to feel that they got off too easily, which in turn should lead to reflections on the society that promotes such injustice. Pity, on her part at least, has nothing to do with it.

And that's my opinion.]]> Suzanne O Tea RoomSat, 05 Mar 2016 01:11:07 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120385#msg-120385 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120385#msg-120385
Re your question:

> My questions are
> based on asking did she do this deliberately or
> just consider some things irrelevant.?

She did it deliberately because she considered them irrelevant.

JIM D.]]> Jim D. Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 19:44:09 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120383#msg-120383 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120383#msg-120383
That aside, in any normal day life goes on and your Scrimshaw/Sistine Chapel point doesnt gell for me because Pride and Prejudice, for instance is no short story of a few bits of ivory, but covers some three hundred and sixty pages and was originally written in three volumes. . One specific stand out point that must have been a little unhelpful to authors back then, and also to events, is the fact that letters were the only real forms of communication available and therefore time must elapse to allow their delivery to occur and an answer returned. This also meant a little "thumb-twiddling time and a break in the stories. Even these are dealt with by just jumping the time forward. I did not expect any details of Lizzie and the Gardiner's summer trip, as we were told this wouldn't happen, but Hertfordshire to Derbyshire is one hxxx of a jump to be so uneventful.

Allowing that much was different two hundred years ago and the author's style must always be their own, there are things that beg questions and even if they sound disrespectful (which they certainly are not) they cannot just be brushed aside as irrelevant. Jane Austen did seem to conveniently shut out the world at times. My questions are based on asking did she do this deliberately or just consider some things irrelevant.?]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 18:51:42 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120381#msg-120381 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120381#msg-120381
To a degree, I think the lack of details you mention, talk of the war, Mr. Bennet's choice of reading material, depiction of enlisted men ("other ranks" to you Brits), depiction of the upheaval the actual arrival and departure of an entire regiment of soldiers would have on a smallish community, etc., comes down to those not being details that Miss Austen thought served her story.

Miss Austen writes with great concision. She gives us the details that serve her story, and doesn't slow down the action down by details she regards as superfluous to the story she is telling. She is making scrimshaws on "tiny pieces of ivory," not depicting the entire history of God's relationship with humanity on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, nor carving out giant sculptures of America's greatest presidents on the side of Mt. Rushmore, and she limits herself to what makes the tiny image she is creating work.

As to whether her villains get the righteous come-uppance they have coming. But, so often in real life, villains don't (take it from a guy with quite a few years as a policeman under his belt; that's not being cynical, that's just facing reality), and, in her short life, this must have been evident to Miss Austen. Moreover, as Agnes pointed out, sometimes the villain had to get away with it in order for the hero and heroine to have their HEA.

Perhaps the characters being so willing to move on without nursing grudges is, as your suggest, an aspect of Miss Austen's religious principles. As First Corinthians has it, "Love is patient, love is kind . . . is not provoked to anger, does not dwell on past evils [italics mine]" (13:5-6). This isn't so much for the sake of the evildoer, as for his victim. Grudges eat a person up, it's better to forgive (if not forget) and move on. Better for the victim. Maybe Jane Austen, believing that, worked it into her fiction. I'm the kind of guy who tends to hold grudges. But I don't think it makes me a better person. The ability to forgive is a virtue I recognize and admire, even if I don't practice it the way I should.

JIM]]> Jim D. Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 17:05:19 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120380#msg-120380 Re: Did J.A avoid reality?https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120380#msg-120380
Some people write humour, some crime, some horror, some pure fantasy, all of which are personal choice for both author and reader, and some write love stories that tend to happy endings and avoid the harsher edges of reality that is the norm in most societies. Our recent debate on easy let-downs insted of punishnent for villains draws some observations (not particularly new or individual to me) such as Jane Austen avoiding any real detail of a severe war in Europe to the extent we never hear a shot except one aimed at a pheasant or grouse on the family manor, and a careful avoidance of descriptive violence or indeed any real mention of life beyond the family levels of the middle classes, and that includes trade of any real description. Mansfield Park is the only work that dares to hint at the slave trading that was a reality amongst rich families who owned plantations in far-flung countries. My question, as per the post title is; was such avoidance deliberate?

Mr Bennet was an avid reader; presumably this would include newspapers with details of events both rural and nationwide. He never mentions much of anything. No one has a conversation about much beyond local gossip. We have soldiers posing about seeking society and admirals home from the sea. In addition to Admiral Croft and the now wealthy Frederick Wentworth, we even go as far as meeting briefly a war- wounded Captain Harville, but never any lower ranks? No one goes in a tavern let alone gets drunk (Wickham might have done so, but we never know). The militia, a whole camp full of soldiers, move to Brighton without us hearing a single bugle call. It's all so iddylic and civilised, yet life goes on around it all.

Pride and Prejudice is all about Lizzie and Darcy (in the main) yet it is the characers around them that make it live: The air-headed Mrs Bennet, her droll spouse and four other daughters who range from angelic to idiotic, the wonderfully ridiculous Mr Collins and the arrogant Lady Catherine. It works so very well yet has an air of unreality about it where "the rattle of the chaise" wheels are the only actual sound heard beyond
Lydia's manic chatter and a hint of a related gavotte from the assembley. (Oh, sorry, an odd song or two accompanied on pianoforte and maybe a tootle on the church organ in Hunsworth chapel). (-:

I have to believe the absence of all else was intentional because Jane Austen could resort to descriptive if she wished. It just seems odd. I'd be happy to hear a few views on this......]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 16:07:27 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120375#msg-120375 Re: Justice in the real world and in the fictional onehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120375#msg-120375
My personal opinion is that I would like the villains be punished (I would enjoy them getting more punishment than JA gives them), but at the same time, I also like stories of redemption for villains. I suppose it's even less realistic but possible, and I consider it a preferable outcome than the vilains being drawn and quartered. (Nothing less than genuine remorse and change for the better satisfies me in this regard though. And given your reference to Narnia, I'd consider it like Eustace getting rid of his dragon's skins in a painful process aided by Aslan - not a cheap and sirupy solution).

At the same time, I also enjoy what I consider JA's realistic approach - the villains' destiny is to lose the potential for a happier life, which might have been theirs had they held fast to better principles. (Willoughby might have had Marianne if he did not choose wealth and a shrewish wife; Wickham might have had the support of the Darcys and the life of a vicar or attorney had he applied himself, Henry Crawford might have had Fanny's hand and steadying influence etc), while at the same time they don't face utter ruin as in this world, it's rarely what sins receive. Just to express my views since you seem to believe I had already done so.]]> Agnes Beatrix Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 12:00:33 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120372#msg-120372 Re: Justice in the real world and in the fictional onehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120372#msg-120372 Jim G.M Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 11:25:38 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120367#msg-120367 Justice in the real world and in the fictional onehttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120367#msg-120367I don't presume to answer for Suzanne, but I want to make some distinctions relevant to the topic.
I think it's different what a person thinks about how a villain ought to be punished; his/her opinion on what usually happens in the real world (you and I differ in what would likely happen to a real world Willoughby), and if they are an author, whether they want to write their ideal version of justice, their observation of the realistic justice of the world or to write the villain's fate to serve another authorial purpose (e. g. Wickham and Lydia fare relatively well because it enables the happiness of Darcy and Elizabeth who could not be perfectly happy if something really grievous happened to Lydia).

Naivete, in my opinion, is thinking that people are better than average experience; to punish them less than common sense justice would is not naivete but benevolence or mercy (if you do it because you are sorry for them; to think that this, instead of punishment, would improve the villain is, of course, irrational optimism/naivete again). To write a fictional world where all virtue gets rewarded and crime punished is a manifestation of idealism or romanticism, describing a world more perfect than our own, the world as it ought to be. To write that some villains will get away with their sins is realism and cynicism (depending on your own view of the world). If a writer creates a naive character it does not necessarily mean that they themselves are naive. If an evil character goes unpunished it's not necessarily because the author thinks this is what they deserve - maybe they think this is how the world works (Henry Crawford walks away from the Maria Rushworth scandal unscatched, while she is ostracized), maybe they want to move the plot in a some direction by this event (Edward Ferrars gets his girl because Elinor deserver her reward) etc.]]> Agnes Beatrix Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 06:46:47 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120364#msg-120364 Re: Of cabbages and kings....https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120364#msg-120364
I don’t think anyone is claiming JA is infallible or incapable of human error.]]> Amytat Tea RoomFri, 04 Mar 2016 04:21:12 +0000 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120360#msg-120360 Re: Of cabbages and kings....https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,120202,120360#msg-120360
You see, these are the things I consider when reading stories. I don't want to be some Lord High Executioner lopping off heads and hanging people willy-nilly. I do however, like a semblance of the right sort of feelings that characters evoke in me from the authors' descriptions. George Wickham is a good case: How did he have any friends at all in the militia? Darcy knew of his behaviour and indescretions over a number of years yet he had friends (a friend?) who could recommend his character as suitable for an officer post. He left gambling debts and unpaid credit bills in Meryton and accrued more in Brighton. Rumours of his behaviour had reached back to Pemberley (it is almost for certain that Darcy would not speak his name there yet Mrs Reynolds had heard them) He had eloped with a very young ( and very silly) girl who he had no intention of marrying, was on the run from all and sundry and is hiding in London. What does he do? He gets all his debts paid off, a commission bought in the Regular Army and marries himself back into credibility and sits down happily to three courses with the Bennets? Wow! How cynical is that?...If it were not meant to be serious it would be hilarious. Well, done George.(-:]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomThu, 03 Mar 2016 23:10:49 +0000