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

Comments

[donnaimmaculata]

Heh! Gotta love the Austen references ;-)

[leni_jess]

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

Brilliant perception. Did you write that fic?

[donnaimmaculata]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,

[neotoma]

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]

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