Rose,
Re your comments:
> I don't know, Jim. It seems to me that Henry is
> very unique for an Austen villain because we
> actually experience some of his perspective.
> Wickham and Churchill do not have that privilege,
> and even some of the heroes do not have that kind
> of screen time.
That's precisely
why I think she had to be sticking to a pre-planned plot. If she was going to do something different with one of her charming but no-goodnik rakes, Crawford would be the one she'd do it for.
But she didn't.
And the fact that he turned out to be so much more sympathetic than, say, Willoughby or Wickham, or that the reader got to know him so much better, didn't, when all was said and done, make him any the less a rake. And "reformed rakes" don't exist in Austen's worldview (and, even now, are pretty seldom in real life).
Interestingly, I just happened to read on another site that Miss Austen's beloved sister Cassandra, having read the 'script of
MP, strongly suggested that Jane change the ending. She rejected that advice, and, to come back to my original point,
stuck with her original plan.
JIM D.
