Austen rakes and wolves and why we love/hate them...

Glad you suggested Lady Susan. I have known two Lady Susans in my life, though neither was such an awful mother, just femmes fatales.Watching them in operation was really educational! But they were fun to be around. And the interesting thing was that one of them, at least, wastrying hard to be a moral person-it's almost as if the world would not let her.

In some ways, Lady Susan reminds me of Scarlett O'Hara...she's a much meaner, more intellectual version. --- An observation: Isn't it interesting how Austen gives us the evil "villains" on one side and then the flaky and contemptible rakes on the other? Usually the "villain" is a female and the rakes are men. In general, it's the female "villains" which are most perniciously dangerous, while the male rakes are merely selfish and/or ineffectual. One offsets the force of the other, maintaining a relatively high level of "hatability" without making one character into a colossally-hyperbolic fairy-tale witch or monster (how much fun is it to read Lady Susan in comparison to the other novels for most people?). Without considering lesser characters who take part in the instigation of trouble, a successful pattern of two-pronged troublemaking emerges: S&S Fanny (& Lucy) / Willoughby (Both Fanny and Lucy have different forms of control which affect the happiness of our protagonists, but they become representative of the same evil. Fanny's power is monetary, Lucy's is that of prior claim to Edward - but both function as block's to Elinor's marital happiness. The two of them even form an ironic little anti-Dashwood alliance for a period of time.) P&P Caroline (& Lady Catherine) / Wickham (Lady C.'s actual power is minimal, though Caroline's influence over Bingley re: Jane presents a very real threat) Emma Mrs. E / Frank (both of these characters are pretty mild examples. Mr. Elton might qualify as Mrs. E's junior partner in crime) MP Mrs. Norris / Henry C. (Henry Crawford is a borderline villain...until he goes nuts and runs off with Maria, you can't decide whether he's dangerous or just a jerk. In any case, he has no control over Fanny's life, and so qualifies as an ineffectual bounder for my purposes) The only story in which she gives us a villain and a bounder in one character is Lady Susan. She's such a hyperbolic character that her influence (esp. over Reginald) is very difficult to believe. In NA, as Cheryl pointed out above, there really is no one "villain" we'd like to slap around, but there are plenty of players and snobs. And in Persuasion, we have a few "villains" of sorts (negotiable, in the forms of Lady Russell, Sir Walter, Elizabeth, and even Mary), and no rakes - circumstance and situat on takes over where the "bad" characters lack true malice. These last two seem to have the most believable examples of sociological "types" and human nature. They've also got the least concentrated forms of villainy. Spreading out the guilt, rather than concentrating all the evil/annoyance in one or two characters seems to make for the most believeable character dynamics, in my opinion.

I wonder under which category Mr. Elliot of Persuasion would fall. He is both villain and rake, but certainly not in the tradition of either Fanny Dashwood or Willoughby. He is enough of a villain in his dealings with the Smith's and his machinations to become Anne's husband to qualify. He also is rakish when you consider his relationship with Mrs. Clay, Elizabeth believes him to be pursuing her and then his open pursuit of Anne. He turns out to be ineffectual in both areas, but then don't all of Austen's villains and rakes? The heroine always manages to endure the villain and see through the rake to get her reward. Justice. Maybe that's one of the things I like about her novels...never though about it like that before...

Mr Elliot fits in the "Not just the thing for our girls" category. I guess I am just putty in JA's capable hands. I always dislike them just as I am supposed to. Take Wickham, Churchill, Crawford? Never liked them from minute one. Not any of them. Not even a little teeny bit.

Amy -- I see that you are a more discerning first-time reader than I! I liked Wickham at first, because he likes (or seems to like) Elizabeth. Frank Churchill bothered me immediately as did Willoughby, but I must confess that I wanted to like Henry Crawford. (I couldn't approve of his conduct, but I really wanted him to be able to deserve Fanny.) On the other hand, I wanted to smack Darcy the first time we meet him, because he doesn't find Elizabeth handsome enough to dance with. What a dunderhead! But, of course, he redeems himself very quickly. Amy, I love "Not quite the thing for our girls" -- that's it, to a T.

I loathed Henry Crawford from the start. Never much liked Mary either for that matter!

Yep, forgot to mention Mr. Elliot...yeah, he's a rake...becuase he's to ineffectual to be a villain. He's like Crawford in that he's a danger to weak minds...but to Anne, he is nothing, just as Crawford is to Fanny.

Nobody has yet mentioned John Thorpe or his sister, Isabella! I dislike both of them intensely; both are self-important, small minded, selfish,lying busybodies!!

Of course, the Thorpes. Who was it who suggested that John Thorpe would be a used car salesman today? And Isabella(e?) seems like a dumber version of Lucy Steele from S&S.

Rakes have power only if the protagonists let them . Villains have leverage of their own...so what's Mrs. Elton's power? The power of continual annoyance? The leverage of her husband's hatred of Emma? The fact that despite her unpopularity with some she remains a permanent social fixture by merit of her money and her marriage to the vicar? I'm still having trouble with this one, though I do agree that she is a "villain," but in a more muted form than in the other four stories with true villains...perh ps she is on the same level as Lady Russell? Though her actual power is less, her intentions are not so good...

Oh dear! I confess to liking many of JA's rakes and villians. I like the Crawfords, and I like Frank Churchill. These three seem confused and spoiled but not malicious. As part of the generation that came of age in the 60's and thought it could reinvent morality, I cannot condemm those characters who seem to mean well in their confusion and selfishness. I dislike Willoughby because he makes fun of Col. Brandon. I can forgive Marianne for the same meanness because she was so young, but Willoughby was old enough to know better. I dislike Wickham because he tells hurtful lies and is willing to destroy young women in the name of pleasure, convenience, or personal gain. I think the Thorpes are merely boorish and stupid - the kind of people God provides to allow naive young people like the Morelands lose their naivety without losing anything more important. The Eltons and Aunt Norris and Mr. Elliot kind of make my skin crawl. There is this meanness of spirit about them.

I love Mary, and I refuse to think for a moment that she could be such an irrational bitch as to admit excitement at Tom's illness for the sake of Edmund's gain, nor can I believe that she would say such off-putting, psycho things to Edmund himself. Perhaps she wouldn't have married Edmund becuase of the money and their different views of morality and reverence, but I can't picture her becoming so suddenly repugnant that a man so much in love with her could shut her out so abruptly. Austen abruptly and nbelievably sacrificed Mary's honor because she figured it would be easier to maintain Fanny's insurmountable moral astuteness and strength than to reconcile us to the fact that Fanny would eventually A) be proved wrong about Mary's character and B) accept Henry once Mary and Edmund got hitched. If Austen had allowed herself more options for Fanny's fate (like oldmaiddom), perhaps the story could have worked both ways - Edmund could have married the woman he loved, Fanny would maintain her integrity, and Henry Crawford could remain the jerk he was meant to be. Henry is too cold and reckless in his dealings with others to be lovable, IMHO...He contrives to make both Maria and julia fall in love with him just to create trouble, and then resolves to trifle with Fanny herself ...like Willoughby, his intentions don't start out good, he gets hooked, then his old tricks come back to ruin everything...he's ultimately harmless re: Fanny, but he's a poisonous snake without the helpless appeal of Willoughby. I do love Frank, though...he's selfish, and his grasp of the situation is myopic, but he loves his Jane, and that's really all that matters. A generally sweet, if careless, kid...

"rakes only have power if the protagonists let them.." I agree-KAli. That reminds me of the famous Elinor Roosevelt quote-no one can make you feel inferior, unless you let them. I never once saw Mr Elliot as a threat to Anne, because she wasn't affected by him. HE had no power over her. Likewise-Fanny and Henry. A individual has the ability to really hurt you if you care about that person, his/her opinion. For me this is best represented by Marianne and Willoughby. Like Mrs J, I too wanted to pluck his heart out!

Marianne learned, did she not? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread...

Emma is a really difficulf case, one may thing Harriet Smith(!) is our villian. I mean, she, like Lucy Steel, wants to marry the man our heroine dearly loves, I don't see what harm Mrs. Elton caused to Emma, Emma didn't like Mr. Elton anyway. In a second thought, maybe our villian can be Jane Fairfax, she did not mean to harm Emma, but I think she somehow did, she was better than Emma, and Emma couldn't bear it, and maybe Emma was afraid that, as Mrs. Weston said, Mr. Knightley is in love with Jane. Sorry for the mess, I'm just thinking out loud.

Ayelet, I see what you mean. In Emma's mind, for the greater part of the book, Jane Fairfax did haunt her. Of course, it was Emma's error in thinking that made it so, but nonetheless our heroine was made -- or made herself -- at uncomfotable in consequence of another character.

I think Wickham qualifies as a villain rather than a rake. Trying to elope with Georgiana qualifies as villainish rather than merely rakish, and he did have the power, initially, to seriously mislead Elizabeth. Which leads to an interesting question. If it had not been for Wickham, would E have been quite so prejudiced about D? Would she have seen his real qualities if her initial impressions had not been so clearly confirmed in her mind by Wickham?

I think you are right, Kate. Lizzy was certainly disposed to find Darcy offensive, but he might have been able to rehabilitate himself in her eyes had not Wickham said, "Your instincts are right." Everybody likes to hear that.

Kali wrote: "As part of the generation that came of age in the 60's and thought it could reinvent morality, I cannot condemm those characters who seem to mean well in their confusion and selfishness. " That seems like a very good clue for why Clinton is doing so well in opinion polls. (Sorry for the politics, I couldn't help myself.)

Ann: there are lots of us out there!

Kate wrote: If it had not been for Wickham, would E have been quite so prejudiced about D? Would she have seen his real qualities if her initial impressions had not been so clearly confirmed in her mind by Wickham? I agree Kate. Lizzie didn't like his behaviour at the Meryton Ball, but I think that eventually she could have forgiven him for that (put it down to a bad day, bad mood, bad dinner, etc.)if Wickham hadn't confirmed all her prejudices. And that made her feel even more clever than before - there's nothing to satisfying as finding out that you've been right all along!!;-) Even when you are totally wrong!!

Kate: Still, Elizabeth WAS quick to believe Wickham, without knowing who he was (as Amy said, everyone wants to hear what they want to hear)...she allowed him to sway her mind, just as Georgiana (who no doubt knew that her beloved and wise brother had reservations about Wickham's situation) allowed him to persuade her to elope with him (true, she was young and knew not what she was doing, but you'd think that she and her brother, who are probably both to blame for that incident, would have communicated w ll enough on a regular basis to avert such a catastrophe). It's the same story with Lydia...she puts herself in his hands ( and probably has as good a married life with him as she'd have with anyone of her own choosing!). Wickham couldn't have made so much trouble if people weren't so quick to trust him. Back to Elizabeth and Wickham, the fact still remains that Darcy has successfully managed to disattach Bingley from Jane. If Lizzy hadn't learned this from the Col., she would probably have linked the snobby Darcy with the dirty dealings of Caroline and Mrs. Hurst, whose roles in the Jane-Bingley affair she'd long suspected. In short, Elizabeth was determined to dislike Mr. Darcy - for good reason - from the start of their acquaintance.

I cannot condemm those characters who seem to mean well in their confusion and selfishness But, do selfish people really mean well? I mean, they often say that they mean well, but that only allows them to avoid guilt and responsibility for their selfish actions. [See for example, Caroline Bingley's comment to Elizabeth at the Netherfield ball, "Excuse my interference. -- It was kindly meant." Ha!!] The rakes and wolves are all selfish (and self-centered), and that is why I generally do not like them. The heroes, on the other hand, are generally not selfish. They are good, kind men, and therefore deserve Jane Austen's heroines.

...seem to mean well... no, I do not think anyone has ever thought Caroline meant well. But I do not see jealosy or meanness of spirit in the Crawfords or Frank Churchhill. Only a failure to recognize and separate their selfish ends from their general approach to life. None of them have gotten past the 'if I want it, it must be good' stage of human development. They rationalize anything. The worst thing any of them did deliberatelywas Henry Crawford's exposing the shallowness of Maria Bertrand's affection for Mr. Rushworth (the same thing Capt Tilney did in NA) and the competitiveness of Maria's and Julia's relationship. The rest of it was more muddled thinking. I struggle with the Crawfords and Fanny and Edmund everytime I read MP. Sometimes the Crawfords sparkle bright for me while poor F&E seem dull and lacking in imagination. Other times, the Crawfords look only vain and dangerous, and only Fanny seems to be clear eyed.

] I struggle with the Crawfords and Fanny and Edmund everytime I read MP. Sometimes the Crawfords sparkle bright for me while poor F&E seem dull and lacking in imagination. Other times, the Crawfords look only vain and dangerous, and only Fanny seems to be clear eyed. __ We've talked about this many times, but it always amazes me how the books change with what you bring to them in different stages of your life.

I can appreciate both Fanny's clear-sightedness and Mary's lovely personality...and I think both of them could have done better than Edmund. Am I weird?

Your not wierd. Edmund isn't much of a character.

Kathleen - Loved your Darcy dunderhead comment; those were my exact initial sentiments about the man. I'm still considering how to classify villians in Emma (rakes yes but villians are hard). Post more later.

I agree that selfish people aren't necessarily mean-spirited, but the effects they have on others can be much the same. Henry Crawford may only expose Maria's and Julia's faults, but the effects are not much different than if he had intended to be cruel. A less selfish person might try to bring out the best in others, not the worst. Even Emma is selfish or at least very self-centered throughout most of her novel. She is kind to her father, loves her friends, and even does charitable works for the poor, but she still seems to have a serious "I" problem. And, Emma does cause pain to others. She could have ruined Harriet's future with her ideas about whom to marry. And she definitely caused pain for Jane Fairfax with the Dixon idea -- even if she did not intend to, Emma (& Frank) were clearly causing discomfort for Jane. The proposal, when Emma decides to risk being hurt by befriending Mr Knightley, is the first time she really deserves him (at a point when she thinks she has lost him). She even reasons to herself that perhaps she can help him decide to marry Harriet; every time I reread this part it makes me cheer for Emma. She has finally grown up! With most of the other selfish characters, however, we do not see them grow up. They regret their actions only if it causes themselves to lose something or someone. Maybe that's why I don't really ever like them, they don't really learn.

Perhaps we're having trouble identifying villains in Jane Austen's novels because there really aren't any. As in life, where we rarely (thank God) run into truly malevolent people, so it is in life according to Jane. The obstacles her characters face are frequently of their own device or caused by unthinking or selfish actions of others rather than the result of conscious evil-doing.

You're right, Myretta, in that nobody's that bad (except LS!)...but there are people with power who won't hesitate to make our protagonists' lives miderable, for whatever reason. As far as our trouble identifying Mrs. Elton's power, perhaps Kathleen is right in identifying Emma's own worst enemy - herself! SHe causes trouble where there shouldn't be any!

Give Emma credit, though, she recognizes that she's been a blind fool. I agree-nobody's really that bad in Austen-weak(like Edmund-yes MAry and FAnyy could have done a lot better. I still cringe at the proposal scene.) silly, vain, pompous(Sir Walter, LAdy Catherine), unprincipled/selfish(Mr Elliot, Wickham, Willoughby-Poor MArianne she did suffer most cruelly. And yes she learned the hard way, but even we Mariannes have to grow up)and generally irritating, full of their own misguided sense of importance( e: Mr and Mrs E). But, as for pure evil(Aunt Norris is close though)-read Henry James-Madmae Merle in Portrait. That's evil. She deliberatley plots to manipulate/destroy Isabel's life for her own selfish ends.

The older I get, the less of a catch Edmund seems to be for any one. But Fanny adores him and will make him a good wife. And it is unlikely that she ever could have loved anyone else as much. She deserves him because she wnats him so much. Sometimes Henry Crawford looks as bad to me as he does to Fanny. Other times, he reminds me so much of people I have known and loved - full of energy and charm and so cynical that they have to learn everything the hard way. I am thankful to live in a society where it is possible to learn from one's mistakes and reshape one's life. Some of my favorite people would have been condeemed, by the errors of their youth, to live out their lives in small isolated country houses or gratefully giving "good dinner " to anyone who would associate with them.

I am thankful to live in a society where it is possible to learn from one's mistakes and reshape one's life. AMEN, Katy -- I'm afraid I might have been giving "good dinner" myself...

I agree with Myretta, and with Kathleen. I think what defines the baddies, and they are only everyday baddies, is their varying degrees of unawareness, and their overt and apalling selfishness. The goodies are not selfless, they look after their own needs, but they also are aware of and take care of the people around them.

The goodies are not selfless, they look after their own needs, but they also are aware of and take care of the people around them. Eventually they get a clue about doing right by deserving others...that's what makes them "good." I once said that the remarkable characters stand apart because they come to understand their iniquities, and attempt to reform themselves: Lizzy, Darcy, Emma, Marianne - even Anne, who reevaluates past decisions - are forced to acknowledge their own harmful weaknesses. And I agree that nothing in Austen is cut-and-dried...however, I do contend that though it be madness, yet there be method in it...there seems to be a bit of a pattern (perhaps logic is a better term) which rules the nature and level of villainy...the least believeable story (LS) has one truly evil villain, and the most believeable (characterwise) have a very diffuse sort of obstructionist antagonism. In the middle, we got a dichotomous sort of antagonism, with a powerful (or powerfully annoying concentration of antagonism on one side, and a siren-like but functionally blameless concentration of rakish distraction on the other.

The goodies are not selfless, they look after their own needs, but they also are aware of and take care of the people around them. Eventually they get a clue about doing right by deserving others...that's what makes them "good." I once said that the remarkable characters stand apart because they come to understand their iniquities, and attempt to reform themselves: Lizzy, Darcy, Emma, Marianne - even Anne, who reevaluates past decisions - are forced to acknowledge their own harmful weaknesses. And I agree that nothing in Austen is cut-and-dried...however, I do contend that though it be madness, yet there be method in it...there seems to be a bit of a pattern (perhaps logic is a better term) which rules the nature and level of villainy...the least believeable story (LS) has one truly evil villain, and the most believeable (characterwise) have a very diffuse sort of obstructionist antagonism. In the middle, we got a dichotomous sort of antagonism, with a powerful (or powerfully annoying concentration of antagonism on one side, and a siren-like but functionally blameless concentration of rakish distraction on the other.

Kathleen -- the comparison of John Thorpe to a used-car salesman was made on Austen-L and is quoted on my jokes page http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austt10j.html

Henry -- thank you. I knew I had seen it somewhere close to home, as it were. I thought it might have been Austen-L, but I suspect I saw it on your jokes page first. In future I will try to cite a reference. :-)

If life was full of only 'goodies" - wouldn't it be a boring place indeed. My passion goes out to Willoughby, not as villian or as Kali would put it - a 'rake' He brought out Marianne's character, full of vibrance for life, daring to love and displaying it with such 'unacceptable' behaviour and careless of the consequence. That would be the height to soar to before the bitterness of being 'betrayed' and I would recommend a dose of Willoughby in one's life to bring them out of innocence into reality. From hindsight, I wouldn't be surprised if Marianne would always cherish the time with Willoughby inspite of the mellowed affections of Col. Brandon. Shoot me any ne?

" But Fanny adores him and will make him a good wife...She deserves him because she wants him so much." Katy, isn't it a shame that Fanny had grown to be more street-smart than Edmund . He only provided her with the sound principles and she had the 'advantage' of being brought up poorly in Portsmouth. I wonder if they will be happily married. She will be, but he did fall a little to much for Mary and was willing to compromise his principles for her ways, if only to a limit. But once there's a start to such a compromise, wouldn't or couldn't he then later rationalise why Mary spoke of Henry's affairs as sh did. I think Mary Crawford is superb and would have liven him up. Fanny and Edmund would be too boring together.

Actually, I can imagine good things for Fanny and Edmund. Fanny has finally been pulled out of the shadows of neglect and insecurity and Aunt Norris. She has a home with the man she loves. Sir Thomas adores her and pays a lot of positive attention to her - something she has never know except from Edmund. Susan is there to provide an active female friendship. A few years later, when she and Edmund settle into the Parsonage at Mansfield with several children, we might not even recognize her.

.... I would recommend a dose of Willoughby in one's life to bring them out of innocence into reality .... I always thought every young woman should be entitled to one two-week vacation with the hunk of her choice sometime during her 20's. this shall not count! her husband or boyfriend (should she have one at the time) cannot deprive her of it or hold it against her later. her virginity status does not change nor does her chasity. this is merely a ritual of young womanhood which allows every young woman to 'get it out of her system'. I could be convinced that two weeks was not enough. two months perhaps!

But, Katy, Jeremy would get terribly tired! ;-)

OH CINDY!! I'm sure the MAN has incredible stamina! I want to be on fire like Juliet and Guinevere! And Jeremy's just the man to do it. If my heart is going to broken, it should be by such a Jeremy. I will settle for nothing less!

Cass darling...come to Pemberley?

Good idea, Katy...when are you going to arrange my two months?

Katy, I am extremely fond of your suggestion, but why limit it to our 20's?

Susan, this is to be a rite of passage, hence appropriate to an age group. naturally for those of us already over past our twenties when the tradition emerges, a special clause entitling us to a catch-up would have to be written. (But please give me back the drives of a 20-something for the trip!!!)

I am certainly glad we are extending this for those of us past our 20s! "hunk of our choice"...hmmmm, whom to choose, whom to choose.... ;-)

I have a question, and I hope I'm getting the order of things right here. Would Wickham have been able to have any revenge on Darcy, if the Bennets were'nt so tied to doing what was propper for Lydia? By just taking her to Gretna Green, he only shamed the Bennets, as Darcy had no connection at that time. He had to know that the Bennets were poor, and Lydia was not a good prospect. Until they were found, by Darcy, and forced to marry, then Darcy had to pay all the debts, his commission, etc. So he got some revenge on Darcy, but Darcy brought it all about, by saving the respectability of Lizzy's family. Do you think Wickham thought Darcy's connection was more concrete earlier on, so that is why he pursued Lydia? I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I couldn't find another topic close to it.

IMHO -- I don't think that Wickham knew anything about Darcy's attraction to Lizzie or intended to elope with Lydia to gain any kind of profit from Mr. Bennett. He needed to hide out from his creditors -- some guy with a crooked nose named "Bruno" was probably after him ;-) Figured that it would be nice to have some little "cream puff" with him to pass the time, thus Lydia was a good choice. One point that we never seem to bring up here, is that, according to the book -- Mr. Darcy first tries unsuccessf lly to convince Lydia to let him take her home. He makes sure that the marriage takes place only because she refuses.

I agree Candace. Wickham had no thought that eloping with Lydia would in any way affect Darcy. Wickham also quite clearly did not intend to marry Lydia when he took her with him, whatever she thought. Even when Darcy turns up he quite clearly is still interested in the possibility of marrying another rich woman for her money.

It appears that Wickham's interest in Elizabeth faded when the Bennet-Bingley connection seemed to fade and his interest in Lydia began as the Bennet-Darcy connection began to glimmer in the skies. The man either has good spies or incredible timing.

I can't give Wickham credit for good intuition or superior awareness...he's kind of a comic character because he's always at the wrong place at the wrong time...myopically selfish, creating trouble all around him. The Georgiana affair is the only thing I can charge him with planning for the specific purpose of revenge...

Kali, I understand what you mean about a pattern to these things. I'm thinking on it, but don't hold your breathe!

Why would Wickham need to revenge himself on Darcy at all? Darcy gave him the cash to bail out of the living. So he wanted the living back later but (if I recall) it was already given to someone else.Wickham must have been a really 'small' man to think that spreading a rumour of Darcy here and abouts, would gain him some money from Darcy. Of course he could have married Miss Darcy. And there Kali, yes, would have been revenge..but for what possible motive? I mean, the man could have just moved on with his deceptive-style of life, being as charming as he was, and marry someone else for the money. Am I going round in circles and missing the point to the 'revenge'?

Why would Wickham need to avenge himself on Darcy at all? Darcy gave him the cash to bail out of the living. So he wanted the living back later but (if I recall) it was already given to someone else.Wickham must have been a really 'small' man to think that spreading a rumour of Darcy here and abouts, would gain him some money from Darcy. Of course he could have married Miss Darcy. And there Kali, yes, would have been revenge..but for what possible motive? I mean, the man could have just moved on with is deceptive-style of life, being as charming as he was, and marry someone else for the money. Am I going round in circles and missing the point to the 'revenge'?

Opps..

Wickham would want revenge for Darcy breaking he and Georgianna up-as his future would have been set with her money!

"Wickham would want revenge for Darcy breaking he and Georgianna up-as his future would have been set with her money!" Yes, he had 30,000 reasons for revenge.

And isn't it somewhat ironic that poor Darcy ended up with Wickham as a brother-in-law anyway?

You have jolted back the memory, 30,000 would be a fortune huh?? But wouldn't Wickham have been surprised that Darcy would take such an interest in making sure he and Lydia would marry. It would be like, why is Darcy butting in?? He has no connection to the Bennets. He must have suspected something was up between one of the Bennet girls and Darcy. And yet Wickham still mentioned to Lizzy (as his sister in law) how disadvantaged he was by Darcy's withholding the living Is this man just as 'male' as Colonel Fitzwilliam, to not even suspect would be inconceivable?

He probably suspected that there was more to it than it seemed, but I doubt he had any idea what that might be. But I am sure the last thing Darcy would have wanted to do was give Wickham any idea of the truth. Wickham would have used that to extort even more from him.

Most certainly, Ann...and he probably had little inclination to push and find out, weak as he was...his most immediate problems (debt, &c.) were going to be solved for what probably seemed like a small inconvenience at the time (marrying Lydia, which he probably came to regret). Revenge for the Georgiana affair, and the judgemental condemnation from Darcy which undoubtedly sweetened the initial allure of Georgiana's 30K, was probably the last thing on his mind. It seems that Wickham has always had little regard for anything but the selfish gratification of the present...

So do we then agree that Wickham and Lydia's marriage would not last for very long after? Or would Wickham continue to hold onto Lydia so that he could always remain a brother-in-law to Darcy?

After three years, Wickham had spent the 3.000 � on a life of idleness and dissipation. He then tried again to have the living at Kympton, which Darcy of course refused to give him, though Wickham seems to have repeated his request several times and abused Darcy violently to anyone who cared to listen... that it was meant for him, that Darcy had noone else to provide for..( a bit like poor deceived Lizzie later.)Hence the need for revenge!

Ann,that particular motive for revenge puts Mr Wickham's very low in my opinion. I cannot even rationalise it, that he knew he was buying himself out of the family living and then going back and asking for it. Is he for real? Even the fact that Darcy had no one to provide for doesn't mean it would or should be his. Here's a thought, at the end of the book, since Lady Catherine would be so out of humour with anyone in connection with the Bennets, Mr Collins and Charlotte move to Derbyshire too.