Remus Lupin = Jane Austen villain

[donnaimmaculata]

I said so some time ago to neotoma, commenting on how to write Lupin, whose notorious passive-aggression makes it difficult to see him in action.

Now, I'm in the middle of Jane Austen's "Persuasion", and here's what she's got to say about Mr. Elliot, the resident villain:

His manners were an immediate recommendation; and on conversing with him she found the solid so fully supporting the superficial, that she was at first, as she told Anne, almost ready to exclaim, "Can this be Mr. Elliot?" and could not seriously picture to herself a more agreeable or estimable man.



Every thing united in him; good understanding, correct opinions, knowledge of the world, and a warm heart. He had strong feelings of family-attachment and family-honour, without pride or weakness; he lived with the liberality of a man of fortune, without display; he judged for himself in every thing essential, without defying public opinion in any point of worldly decorum. He was steady, observant, moderate, candid; never run away with by spirits or by selfishness, which fancied itself strong feeling; and yet, with a sensibility to what was amiable and lovely, and a value for all the felicities of domestic life, which characters of fancied enthusiasm and violent agitation seldom really possess.

In the next chapter:

Though they had now been acquainted a month, she could not be satisfied that she really knew his character. That he was a sensible man, an agreeable man,--that he talked well, professed good opinions, seemed to judge properly and as a man of principle,--this was all clear enough. He certainly knew what was right, nor could she fix on any one article of moral duty evidently transgressed; but yet she would have been afraid to answer for his conduct. She distrusted the past, if not the present.

And later:

Mr. Elliot was rational, discreet, polished,--but he was not open. There was never any burst of feeling, any warmth of indignation or delight, at the evil or good of others.

Later still:

Mr. Elliot was too generally agreeable. Various as were the tempers in her father's house, he pleased them all. He endured too well,--stood too well with everybody. He had spoken to her with some degree of openness of Mrs. Clay; had appeared completely to see what Mrs. Clay was about, and to hold her in contempt; and yet Mrs. Clay found him as agreeable as anybody.

Of course, Mr. Elliot turns out to be a lying, manipulative scumbag, whose only goal is to make sure he's not cut out from the legal succession of the baronetsy.

I should take the opportunity to point out that I like the Jane Austen villain. Colin Firth's magnificent smouldering in "Pride and Predudice" notwithstanding, the character bores me to death. Wickham, now, Wickham is fun. His cheerful lies and charming insolence never fail to make me smile. The discrepancy becomes ever more evident in "Bridget Jones" (the movie), where Daniel Cleaver has much better chances to win my, ah, heart than Marc Darcy (here again, Darcy's redeeming feature is Firth's magnificent smoulder). I love Firth's Darcy, mind, but I don't love Austen's Darcy.

In "Emma" in particular I developed a major crush on the anti-hero (Frank Churchill), while Mr. Knightley made me roll my eyes in exasperation. Frank's got charm, style and panache, while all Mr. Knightley's got is integrity. Frankly, I'd rather be entertained. Her villains might be great coxcombs, but at least they're fun.

To come back to Remus: He's got exact that sense of self-preservation and carefully maintained facade that characterises Austen's villains. He lies and sidesteps neatly and is generally pleasant and well-liked. The only one who sees right through him is Snape, which, logically, would make Snape the Austen hero.

When I was considering a HP adaptation of "Sense and Sensibility", I settled for the obvious cast of Snape as Col. Brandon (naturally), Sirius as Willoughby and Remus as Edward Ferrars. But this is nonsense. Remus doesn't have any of that moral integrity that is Edward's most striking feature. He should be Willoughby and abandon the girl in an act of self-preservation. - In fact, this is what Remus does at the end of PoA, when he abandons Hogwarts (and Harry) because his condition becomes known and he finds himself socially stigmatised.

Comments

[shocolate.livejournal.com]

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

:-D

[megstuff.livejournal.com]

I have nothing of substance to contribute but thought I'd congratulate your much more sensible casting of the HP S&S. I was doing the same thing a few days ago, and since Draco was my Marianne I had to make Remus Colonel Brandon. (And shocolate's picture is exactly the scene I was imagining!).

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I was unable to cast the female characters and abandoned the idea altogether. Who's your Elinor? Hermione should be Mrs. Jennings. Draco would make an excellent Fanny, actually, all drama-queenish and "Mother says".

Shocolate's picture rocks!

[megstuff.livejournal.com]

Well, I hate to confess it but I made Harry be Elinor and Snape be Edward. Not for any good reason.

Actually, I was thinking a little about an old post of yours on cross-gen when I did it. All of a sudden I got totally squicked by the idea of Remus/Draco - like, what would this man my age and this young boy be doing together? I had to make comparisons to literary cross gen pairings (that have never bothered me) to be OK with it again.

(Harry & Snape ending up working out much better as Jane Eyre & Mr Rochester. I know, I know, Snape as Rochester is the most trite casting ever.)

/meandering chatter

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. I didn't want to spoil your pleasure on cross-gen, honestly!

As a matter of fact, I commented on other literary cross-gen couples in an older post, going on about how in L.M. Montgomery's Emily series Dean Priest's (36) obsession with Emily (12) squicked me. In that context, I also mentioned Col. Brandon's obsession with Marianne ;-)

Actually, I never used to have that problem when I was younger. The older I grow, however, the more the idea of grown man - young girl repels me. It's a question of perspective: I find it all right for my 27-year-old friend to be involved with a 47-year-old man, but if my 27-year-old friend got himself a 16-year-old girlfriend, I would be bemused and wonder whether he can't cope with a woman his age.

[caesia390.livejournal.com]

Yes!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

:-)

[stevie-jane.livejournal.com]

I think you're onto something, Jo has been influenced by Austen in some ways, and she's admitted she's a fan of Jane's work.

Remus isn't the great guy he at first seems to be, and darling Harry, relative innocent that he is, is very much playing the female protaganist role of being taken in by the wrong sort and only realising who the genuinely good and steadfast people are much later.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Remus' moral ambiguity is a much discussed topic and it's what makes him such an interesting character. I don't think that Rowling actively based him on the Austen villain nor that she intends him to turn out evil(TM). But he could trade his facade with Mr. Elliot without anyone's noticing:
rational, discreet, polished,--but he was not open. There was never any burst of feeling, any warmth of indignation or delight.

taken in by the wrong sort and only realising who the genuinely good and steadfast people are much later

Harry = Elizabeth Bennett?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

This would also explain why I obsess over like Remus: I like the Austen villain and with him very happy. Wouldn't it be fun if Remus came out on top at the end of the series?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I knew you'd like the phrasing ;-)

[babycakesin.livejournal.com]

*in awe* oooooh...
*fangirls Donna* *waves 'I <3 Donna' flag*

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Heh! Gotta love the Austen references ;-)

[leni-jess.livejournal.com]

I saw the link on quickquote and gave a yelp of joyful enlightenment - YES!

Brilliant perception. Did you write that fic?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Thank you *bows* The characterisation of Mr. Elliot could so be applied to Remus - apart from the "man of fortune" bit - and I couldn't ignore the parallel.

I didn't write the fic. It was an early concept for scribbulus_ink's Classic Canon Challenge last year, before I decided to use Tom Sawyer instead of Jane Austen.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I wonder if in this universe the "man of fortune" bit wouldn't be reversed anyway. After all, here being poor is more something that's attached to being good than being well off.

*loves this post*

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

You're right about the rich vs. poor question. This emphasises something I said about how a society's moral values determine the perception of a character as good or evil: if rich is good and poor is icky, all rich characters are "good" by default and it comes as a surprise if they turn out to be bad.

Of course, I'm only fooling around with some random ideas here, and I'm aware that those aren't exact parallels. But I love taking canon characterisation as far as possible without getting absurd.

[seventines.livejournal.com]

I am one of the tiny minority who feel that Remus's actions are questionable. So, naturally, I wander around the fandom looking for spurious evidence to support my unpopular theories (and ignoring all evidence to the contrary). Your essay, of course, is anything but spurious, and I shall be quoting it ad nauseam from now on :D

Very observant, very nice parallels - and nicely chosen quotations. Taken together with JKR's Austen love (isn't there an Austen on the bookshelf on her website?), this is throught-provoking stuff.

Here via Q-Q, btw, and very nice to meet you :-)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I am one of the tiny minority who feel that Remus's actions are questionable.

I've got the impression that there are plenty of those who find Remus' actions ranging from highly questionable to outright unexcusable *g*

Remus is morally ambiguous (which, of course, is exactly what makes him a fascinating character), and I'm very glad he is perceived as such, because I heartily dislike the concept of sweet, enduring, loving Remus. He's pragmatic, and most of his actions derive from the desire to maintain a respectable facade.

I'd like to know in how far Austen's work has influenced Rowling's; I don't think that Rowling based Remus on the Austen villain, if only because she likes Remus. Then again, I love Remus and I still think he's Mr. Elliot.

Nice to meet you too. I'm glad you popped in :-)

[seventines.livejournal.com]

I don't think that Rowling based Remus on the Austen villain, if only because she likes Remus.

I don't think she did either, but on the other hand, she may have chosen to develop him like Mr. Elliot (whom I also rather love). I mean, creating an initial conflict, where liking is tempered by an uneasy (but unsubstantiated) gut feeling that all is not well. Also the gradual dropping of small, unsettling details into the story, so that you remain seduced by outward appearance but begin to see cracks in the facade.

Or maybe she's not that subtle at all.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, btw. Your lj seems a nice safe place to hide from the *saintly Remus* brigade, I'll visit occasionally if you don't mind :-)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Or maybe she's not that subtle at all.

She definitely developed Remus (as most of her characters) to be conflicted and multi-layered. I think this is her strong point when it comes to characterisation (of the good guys, at least, her villains are rather flat). And as readers, we are, in addition, entitled to look for different interpretions of the characters and their motives. Actually, I led several discussions about Psychopath!Remus - not because I believe he is a psychopath, but because it's a possible extrapolation of his characterisation

By all means, visit as much as you like. I talk about Remus a lot, and I'm always happy to meet people who're willing to discuss him :-)

[morganmuffle]

That's a very cool theory and it makes a lot of sense. I like the Willoughby!Remus idea particularly other than the fact that I see Remus' reasons as slightly more noble than Willoughby's. After all Remus knows that Dumbledore would get owls trying to force him out whereas Willoughby is ONLY thinking about himself.

Then again I'm afraid for all my liking of bad boys normally I've fallen for pretty much everyone of Austen's heroes over her villains.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't have made the Remus-Willoughby connection without Mr. Elliot. But Mr. Elliot's description could be easily applied to Remus, which was what got me thinking.

I see Remus' reasons as slightly more noble than Willoughby's

Of course it's not a one-to-one parallel, and I don't see Remus as being a second Willoughby either, but he's more Willoughby than he is Edward Ferrars.

As I said, I like Austen's villains. The point is, her villains are often wrong not because what they do is evil, but because it doesn't concur with the moral values of her time. Take Mr. Elliot: She saw that there had been bad habits; that Sunday travelling had been a common thing; that there had been a period of his life (and probably not a short one) when he had been, at least, careless in all serious matters; and, though he might now think very differently, who could answer for the true sentiments of a clever, cautious man, grown old enough to appreciate a fair character? How could it ever be ascertained that his mind was truly cleansed?

I must admit, none of those flaws strike me as particularly condemnable. It implies a development, from a careless young man to someone more mature. Same thing with Frank Churchill, whom I find very charming and whose worst offence is keeping his engagement a secret. Which, from where I stand, is no offence at all.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

Remus doesn't have any of that moral integrity that is Edward's most striking feature.

Does *anyone* in the Potterverse have Edward's moral integrity? I mean, really -- they are one of the most unscrupulous casts for a children's book I've ever seen.

Also, Remus as Willoughby -- he's going to run off and teach at a more expensive school?

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

OK, this is going to sound ridiculous, but: Remus = Willoughby, Sirius = Edward and Severus = Col. Brandon. No, wait, it realy makes sense.

Sirius is Edward, because he sticks stubbornly and stupidly to what he believes is right. - Edward maintains an engagement he is tired of, even though he falls in love with another woman. How is that morally justifiable? In my eyes, it's not merely stupid, it's also cruel and bound to make three people very unhappy: Edward, Elinor and Edward's wife. (At that point, Edward assumes that Lucy is seriously attached to him, but he is still prepared to marry her even though he loves another woman). I know that Edward's actions are justified within his social environment and that he is convinced that he's doing the right thing. But Sirius is also convinced that he's doing the right thing, and his brainless protectiveness of his pack is also justified in the eyes of his environment. As a reader, I judge from a different socio-cultural context, and from my point of view, there are certain parallels between their motives and actions.

Remus is Willoughby, because they're both pragmatic and unattached. Remus is emotionally removed. Willoughby admits that he did neither intend nor expect to fall in love with Marianne and that he was merely playing with her to begin with. Willoughby's wishes revolve around fun and money. Remus' wishes are difficult to determine. - I suppose the nearest guess that he wants to be left alone and not take responsibility. Willoughby runs off when he is compromised and in danger of losing fun and money. Remus runs off when he is compromised when he's in danger of having to take responsibility for his actions.

Severus' emotions and his character are strongly determined by pain he experienced in the past and he is obsessed with parallels between a young kid and his former nemesis. Col. Brandon's emotions are determined by pain he experienced in the past ("His manners, though serious, were mild; and his reserve appeared rather the result of some oppression of spirits than of any natural gloominess of temper. Sir John had dropped hints of past injuries and disappointments, which justified her belief of his being an unfortunate man, and she regarded him with respect and compassion"), he's obsessed with the memory of a woman he loved in the past and with the resemblence between that woman and a young girl.

You know, this is fun. When I took up this idea, I never expected I'd carry it so far.