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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-02-23 04:48 am (UTC)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.