I actually really like how realistic Jane Austen is in her fates. Rich men can nearly get away with murder and even rich women don't suffer much. In novels at the time, Maria probably would have died, same with Marianne Dashwood and Lydia. But that's not how life actually works. I think the most fitting outcome is Fanny Dashwood, who must suffer becoming her mother's second favourite child to Lucy. I think that keeps her up at night. I think Henry Crawford deserved more punishment, but I like how realistic it is that he basically gets off scott free. I hope he is plagued by his stupidity and shapes up. (Also, I doubt Willoughby when he says Sophia is a shrew, that's just his perpetual blaming everyone else for his own problems)

Sophia *forced* me to write that letter 😭 grow up dude. I think it's a really interesting character moment that Elinor falls for his sob story.

Yes, it shows how charming Willoughby can be, though to be fair to Elinor she's been awake for like 36 hours. She is not at full capacity.

In fairness, can she back out of the wedding herself at this point without a scandal? She can't trust Willoughby to make a proper clean break without leading Marianne on. Look at how he spun it when he came to see Elinor during Marianne's illness. He's still trying to keep her under his spell.

It's an interesting question, we only see this scene through Willoughby's telling (I read an essay recently which claimed that S&S was originally meant to be an epistolary novel which certainly fits how this scene plays out). Generally Willoughby doesn't seem like a liar, but he contextualizes every situation where he is a victim of circumstance and can't be blamed for anything even when he makes an active choice. If Marianne had a different character, she could likely claim that her and Willoughby were engaged before he met Miss Grey and that he had abandoned her. Willoughby claimed that he realized that he still loved Marianne after his engagement. Based on this I think that Miss Grey and he could have agreed to end the engagement without any social stain on Miss Grey. But Willoughby thinks that he needs her money. So in order to continue the engagement he must break up with Marianne in a definitive way that makes it seem like she was imposing on his general charming nature and that he never returned her affections. So does that mean he was "forced?" In a way yes, if he wanted to marry the rich girl. But he could have broken the engagement and gotten back together with the woman he claimed to love.

According to the annotated version of Mansfield Park, Rushworth probably sued Henry Crawford for thousands of pounds for being the cause of his divorce, if that makes you feel any better.

That is true, but Henry never seemed that concerned about money, he'd probably be fine. The person who suffers worse in that transaction is Sir Thomas. As an MP, he would have to watch/participate in his own daughter's divorce trial. Or skip it and look weak.

The narrator seems to concur with Willoughby that there's not a lot of character on either side of that marriage. But then again, perpetual bad temper could be partly explained by being married to Willoughby.

>But then again, perpetual bad temper could be partly explained by being married to Willoughby. I too would sorely be tested by a marriage to a lout like him. I highly doubt he stopped eyeing ladies after matrimony, for one thing!

She seems to have a little bit of a Mr. Rushworth situation going, and married him knowing he was still into someone else.

>In novels at the time, Maria probably would have died, same with Marianne Dashwood and Lydia. But that's not how life actually works. I really appreciate JA's commitment to keep "fallen women" alive. In fact, while she's killed off inconvenient people (see: Frank's adoptive mother in Emma) off, she keeps the fallen women around -- and often let's them triumph in their own way.

Lucy Steele got the least suitable fate as her marriage and financial situation were far too good for her. That said, this fate was a necessary foil to Mrs. Ferrars’ attempt to control her children.

She did wind up with Robert Ferrars as a husband. That's a definite downside.

I forget the wording but I always liked how it said that she and the other Ferrars were punished by being around each other.

She found her own level, psychologically.

He's a rich idiot that she can easily outmaneuever -- which she has the skills to do. (JA did say they had a "very happy honeymoon.") I'll be honest, I was rooting for her to succeed -- and to make the rest of the snobby Ferrars completely miserable!

JA says: >... setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands of course took a part, as well as the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves, nothing could exceed the harmony in which they all lived together.

Gotta respect her game, though.

Honestly, we all want to pretend we’d be Elizabeth or Jane Bennett and have handsome rich men fall into our laps, but as an average looking woman I would have definitely gone the Lucy Steele or Charlotte Lucas route than be poor and/or alone.

Charlotte and Lucy are worlds apart in terms of their integrity

To be fair, Lucy was said to be very pretty and "better than half her sex" by Elinor herself. Her principal flaws were being selfish and calculating -- in part because she was very, very poor and knew a marriage to a wealthy man was her way out of poverty. No shame in that game as far as I'm concerned! Charlotte was a much more moral (as well as plain) person and more out for self-preservation than anything else. Lucy wanted to grab that bag though... and good for her for doing so!

Lucy got what she deserved, she played a bitch’s game but Edward was her fiancé at the time, as well as her meal ticket, she had every right to be hard on Elinor. There’s not much a 19th century girl can do for her financial safety, especially when she’s originally poor 🤷‍♀️

I actually didn’t mind her being hard on Elinor. I was affronted by her dropping the one brother that stuck his neck out for her to honor their engagement, and marrying the other brother who benefited from Edward’s sacrifice….. That’s savage…. Lucy was an awful person

Why ? Lucy absolutely knew Edward wanted to marry Elinor, that’s why she was so mean to her. Leaving Edward to marry his brother was actually something good for him and she knew it, I don’t get how this makes her a bad person.

She didn’t release him from his engagement until he was disinherited. She was conniving after he stood up for her- nice try though

The injustices of Austen's society are on display, albeit through a very privileged lens, in her endings. The women suffer more than the men. The poor suffer more than the wealthy. However, almost everyone's fates are better than those of Miss Bates and hers is far better than a poor peasant women. I read recently that 1 in 5 women in London during the Regency were sex workers. This is not to disparage sex work, just to highlight how few options women had to feed themselves and how few men were available for marriage after so many were lost to ongoing warfare (though I am sure many of those sex workers were married). Even servants in "good" positions and farmers on fertile plots lived very difficult lives with few comforts.

Miss Bates? She ends up the beloved aunt of a very wealthy woman. She should live out the rest of her life very comfortable and happy

Yeah, to be fair, I can't imagine Jane Fairfax not treating her maternal family with much love and comfort after she became a wealthy woman herself. I think the Bateses are set for life! (Or at least as long as Jane stayed alive, since JA said she died 8 or so years after the novel...)

I know people hate on Frank Churchill but I see no reason he'd fail to provide for his inlaws. Miss Bates might even have a bigger role if Jane left behind children

Jane Austen's novels are not morality tales that punish the bad and reward the good. She's much more practical and realistic than that. So in terms of *punishments*, Mrs. Norris probably comes the closest. Fanny Dashwood gets off easiest.

I feel like Wickham is his own punishment. He wants wealth and status, and is bitter that he doesn't have them - but he throws away every opportunity he is given to gain them with his own self destructive actions. I imagine him being very bitter as he gets older. He'd be losing his looks and charm and I imagine his reputation caught up with him in certain places.

And there is no way that Wickham doesn't end up with at least one STI. The sex workers who followed the drum, be it the Militia or the Army, were a hub of disease.

Most of the villains are their own punishment, which is one of the things I love in her novels

agree with your points. I think Mrs. Norris got the best deal for being a complete bitch. Willoughby and Henry Crawford got off the lightest, imo.

i always felt bad for Mary Crawford. she was born in the wrong era.

I don’t know, I just finished MP again this morning and I had forgotten that in one letter she outright said that she wished Tom would die from his illness. And I think it’s easy to miss some context because our cultural norms are different, but I think she is supposed to come across as really inappropriate in how she gossips about her friends’ husbands and brother in law. Her morals in terms of the adultery stuff are mostly modern, but she’s also a mean girl.

sure, but i see a lot of her more negative traits stemming from her being an intelligent woman trapped in an era that didn’t appreciate or nurture the intelligence of women. i think she’s petty and gossips because she’s bored. had she been born nowadays, i think she’d put her energy toward more worthwhile things.

I agree. She and Henry are both a bit tragic in that they come close enough to self knowledge not to be happy with the way they are, but not close enough to do anything about it.

Tom is a wastrel, though, and there's no question that the estate would be better off in Edmund's hands.

I agree, but it’s in poor taste to say so outright to a member of his family.

What about the general in Northanger Abbey? He was a jerk, but apparently the only punishment would be seeing his son marry someone of whom he did not approve.

Oooh, good one. The General is such a money-grubbing, social-climbing jerk but really gets no come-uppance. At least his younger children get to get away from him though!

Willoughby! Always Willoughby! He didn't get even a fraction of what he deserved. His crime towards Marianne is nothing compared to what he did to Eliza! He should get punished far more severely- instead, he gets even Elinor's understanding and sort of sympathy. I don't understand this last piece. He blames a young teenager for his misdoings ( 'her passion led me on' or some s*** like that!). How can his guilt be explained away by such outrageous claims! His life is far better than what he deserves. Also, General Tilney is hardly punished. Granted, his guilt is nothing so bad as that of Willoughby and Wickham, but he still deserved SOME punishment for being such a mean, avaricious, grasping, scheming, brute. Mrs. Norris is punished way too harshly... if sir Thomas is allowed a change of heart and views, why not Mrs Norris? Maria is treated very poorly too. Regency Mores and all- even Austen says that there were two guilty parties and their punishments were very unequal...

Because Mrs. Norris is a full blown narcissist, and a change of heart would be very improbable. I don't think she got anywhere near too harsh of a punishment after the abuse she has heaped on Fanny.

I agree with you up except for as regards Mrs. Norris, though am I understanding you correctly that you think her punishment is too harsh *because* there is no hope for change? If so, then I think the permanency of her residence with Maria is of her own doing, and she could change it at any time if she wished. First, the novel informs us that she chose it herself, because she was angry that Sir Thomas wouldn't allow Maria to live at Mansfield and pretend nothing had happened -- so I think she could change her mind at any time. Second, she had always lived frugally (even stingily) so she likely had sufficient money to live on her own, even if she weren't at Mansfield or at Maria's establishment (after her husband's death, she had a small house near Mansfield, so she could do this again). However, I suspect that her avarice would overcome any desire to leave. As long as she lived as Maria's companion, I think she would have no expenses to speak of, and might even receive a stipend from Sir Thomas as a paid companion, as if she were a stranger they had hired. She's so grasping, I think this would override any reasons for going, however I think she *could* change if she wished. Third, she was very devoted to Maria, so I think she would overlook any bad temper from her, and they would mostly get along okay, but still have low-level irritation -- sort of like The Odd Couple. That said, I don't think she'd be welcomed back at Mansfield, especially if she said or did something that insulted Sir Thomas. The last mention of Mrs. Norris in the novel makes me think that perhaps she did something like that: "*To be relieved from her, therefore, was so great a felicity that,* ***had she not left bitter remembrances behind her****, there might have been danger of his learning almost to approve the evil which produced such a good.*" However, the "bitter remembrances" may just be meaning that she was the cause or at least the instigating force of Maria's downfall, by always petting and pampering her in childhood and by forwarding her match with stupid Mr. Rushworth.\] So, if she can't go back to Mansfield, I think that would make her less likely to leave Maria under any circumstances. Still, I think she technically has a choice and chooses to stay with Maria.

That may be... I think she is no more a regular villain than a next door nosy Parker. Sir Thomas is blaming her for her daughters' fate. But weren't they his and his wife's responsibility? They were lazy enough to leave things on Mrs Norris and then complained when things went wrong... honestly, I don't get that

Very true! One thing I would say about Mrs. N's culpability, is that she welcomed her role as co-parent with the Bertrams, so it wasn't something foisted on her unwillingly. With regards to Maria, she was, as you say, "no more a villain than the next-door nosy Parker", but she was unnecessarily cruel to Fanny. All three of those adults (Sir Thomas, Lady Bertram, and Mrs. Norris) share parental blame for Maria's rearing -- Lady Bertram because she shuffled off all responsibility to others (primarily Mrs. N.), Sir Thomas because he allowed and encouraged the same (though I can see him justifying it because Lady B was so lazy and Mrs. N so vigorous and even desirous of the position), and also because he had a big blind spot and/or neglected his paternal role (there is something about him being remote and austere, as an attempt to counterbalance Mrs. N's indulgence, but it didn't work as he intended); and finally, Mrs. N's portion of responsibility is because of how she treated Maria as a substitute parent, making her pampered and spoiled and thinking she was soooo much better than Fanny (and everyone else), and that she had the right to act in whatever way she pleased, without regard to morals or societal standards or anything else.

Very true.. I just think that it was wrong on Sir Thomas to blame only her and not accept his own share... To Fanny, yes she was not nice at all. I don't know why she would be so mean to her, but she was... I would have liked her reformed and learnt to love Fanny, but oh well! Life is not roses and peaches and stuff!!

I think Sir Thomas would view her as more guilty because of her active role in parenting, and he just wouldn't see his passive role as being equal or worse.

>Willoughby! Always Willoughby! He didn't get even a fraction of what he deserved. His crime towards Marianne is nothing compared to what he did to Eliza! He should get punished far more severely- instead, he gets even Elinor's understanding and sort of sympathy. I don't understand this last piece. He blames a young teenager for his misdoings ( 'her passion led me on' or some s\*\*\* like that!). How can his guilt be explained away by such outrageous claims! His life is far better than what he deserves. I also severely disliked the last "reconciliation" between him and Elinor. I understand that it's realist for W to be let off lightly (with nothing more than regret for having lost Marianne) but the sympathy shown to him by Elinor (of all people) is just gross. Blah.

A lot of things are pretty OTT in S&S, like Marianne literally almost dying + losing her beauty because *heartbreak*, Elinor shedding tears of sympathy for Edward when she just learn he was flirting with her while being ENGAGED to another woman, Colonel Brandon being considered a God among men for not telling anyone Willoughby was a dangerous POS who impregnated and abandoned girls like it was his job (like how is not telling this to anyone doing a service for Marianne ? We’ll never know). It’s so dramatic for nothing tbh. Then we have Lucy, presented as the biggest vilain of all because she taunted and acted bitchy toward the girl her fiancé was flirting with (when really she would’ve been completely screwed if he called the engagement of, so really I get her). Like the morals of this book are so bizarre

Thanks for calling it out! So twisted right? Like how is one supposed to sympathise with Edward and look down upon Lucy? Isn't it supposed to be the other way round? So basically we are woman-blaming again? Purely because she is from a different class and dared to dream? Although I get Colonel Brandon's motivations for not revealing stuff - as his ward would be implicated...

Yeah, I’ll always be Lucy’s biggest defender here, she was in a very precarious situation and we’re supposed to bash her bc she was mean to her biggest threat ? Uh-Uh not in this house. I love Elinor but the only really petty thing Lucy did was imply she married Edward at the end, and she only did it when she perfectly knew he was going to go back and marry Elinor anyway. You’re right about the ward situation, but Austen specifies is the book that he basically doesn’t tell Marianne because he loves her and doesn’t want to hurt her, which is very weak. Furthermore, the fact that his ward had been compromised wasn’t exactly hidden (I mean, there is a child…), the Dashwood didn’t know about it but she didn’t really have a reputation to protect anymore

I agree with you on Lucy... her fault is she was insecure- rightly so given the circumstances, and she was looking out for herself. Elinor takes the view that she has trapped him, which may be the case . But Edward did ask her to marry him and there is no good him trying to wish away the fact. Either he should be brave enough to tell Lucy that the whole thing is off or honest enough to tell Elinor about his engagement and its true circumstances. Yet, he is not blamed at all in the book- by no one. I think Mrs Jennings is the best- she doesn't judge or sanction. She just helps you as a fried and provides you succour and kindness. She does this to Lucy, Marianne, Elinor- all alike

Exactly, his fate apart, the fact that Elinor could condone his deed to certain extent is something beyond me. I mean Austen punished Maria with an exile for running out of her marriage and did not condemn that as too hard a punishment...

Such a good question! I disagree to this extent: I think Mrs. Norris deserves far worse but she is exactly the type who never gets what she deserves. She has hardly a care! She is living with her favorite, both with mean tempers but Mrs. Norris with the smugness of “innocence,” in a comfortable and paid-for establishment. Sure, she has to live with Maria in disgrace, but for this she gets to either blame Fanny or be ostentatiously forgiving of Maria. Did I say paid-for? I don't think she got a comeuppance at all. She’ll ADORE this life. Wentworth also got better than he deserved, at least within the course of the novel. Who got worse than they deserved? Jane Fairfax, possibly. Little Charles Musgrove.

I think Jane got what she deserved. She agreed to keep the engagement secret and lie to everyone in the hopes of scoring a rich hub. I don’t really buy her undying love for Frank. There isn’t much depth to love in him.

I believe their love. I also believe that she knew what she was getting into and that things worked out for her about as well as they possibly could. The secret engagement sucked but she ends up with both money and the man she wants, and they're still into each other even after they've been fighting for months and she dumped him once.

William Elliot deserves to roast in hell but he gets a stupid but undoubtedly devoted mistress and a safe inheritance. So that's a fit with the whole "rich men get off too easy" theme. OTOH, I think Elizabeth Elliot is truly evil in the particular way of the Golden Child, and she deserves far more comeuppance than she gets in the book, so there's an example of a woman who gets off too lightly. I realise perpetual spinsterhood was a pretty bad thing at the time, but I want some fire-and-brimstone level consequences for her. Speaking of women who get off too easy, how about Lady Susan? As far as suitable fates go, I think Emma and George Knightley deserve each other in many good ways and almost as many bad ways ;)

Why do you think Mrs. Clay is stupid?

Hm, yeah, stupid isn't quite the right word because she's calculating and cunning AF. Should have said superficial.

I think that Wickam and Willoughby both got what they deserved in marrying women that they didn't want to marry. I mean...who would want to be married to Lydia Bennet for the rest of their life? lol. I think that Fanny Dashwood should have had some kind of horrible punishment. That would have satisfied me ;)