One of my grad school advisors had a theory that Austen only ever named the overly sweet / near perfect characters Jane as like a joke to her family and friends! (Like Jane Fairfax in Emma!)
You claim all all secondary dimensions; but two are missing. (There are six or mathematically 4x3/2 pairings of 4 items) MORALS + FUCKABILITY = chastity? MANNERS+FORTUNE= elegance? I'm not ruling on whether these are of any value just non-Austenian maths points out that they do exist. One additional factor is covered in my recent post: the appreciation of country walks. Mr D scores for his tastefully laid out hiking trails; Mr Knightley for walking when even Emma knows he should take the carriage; but H Tilney most of all for his detailed insights in landscape appreciation https://aboutmountains.substack.com/p/jane-austen-walks
I chose to set it up geometrically because I saw less value in those pairings, but of course you could compute the others easily enough! Enjoyed your hiking essay—& if you haven’t read it recommend Thomas Love Peacock’s Headlong Hall, which satirizes the early eighteenth century landscaping battles.
What of Colonel Richard Fitzwilliam? I understand that he was never intended as a love interest, but I would rate him on par with Bingley for his kindness, loyalty, and looks. If he'd been the older son, he might have beat out Darcy himself.
In the midst of drafting a post analyzing my wife and me when we first met in 1984 on the basis of "high and low value" criteria by another Substack writer. Maybe someday I'll turn your Austen analysis method on ourselves. I will say that we met when we were 22 and 21 and your (4) seems in retrospect to have had a much higher than 10% weight, certainly initially and also throughout our 40 year relationship. If you mean 10% to be applicable to Austen's world, i defer to you. In 1984 I think it was a lot higher.
The 10% fuckability weighting/Austenian prioritization more generally is deeply influenced by the limited options of Regency women—I think the unweighted model still very relevant in the 80s (and today), but the baseline weighting inevitably less so. Looking forward to your post, and would love it if you could point me to the other “high and low value” criteria, I am so curious!
Excellent! I appreciate your honest scoring. Mr Darcy’s flaw, which “improves on acquaintance” makes him more desirable (perfect). I believe Austen understood that as far as humans are concerned a flaw can amplify attraction. Sort of a wabi-sabi kind of thing. You are dead on for Mr. Collins. I cannot wait to read your scores for Emma. She is my favorite Austen heroine. Mr Knightley remains too passive( submissive) for a bit too long for my tastes. What would happen if Emma crossed Darcy’s path? Thank you for including my previous comment.
Great post, although giving Mr. Collins a 2 is much too generous.
I think one can argue that Darcy is truly the central figure in the novel as he wrestles with the question of how much he is prepared to change in order to have the life that he actually wants. That naturally includes Eliza, but it also means spending less time with idiots like the Bingley sisters and more time with authentic people like Mr. Gardner. The novel does not end when Eliza finally gives in after seeing the real estate. Instead, Mr. Darcy must demonstrate that he will do what it takes for their relationship to thrive. If that means negotiating with Wickham, he does it. If that means putting up with Lydia's clueless vanity, he does it. If that means tolerating his mother-in-law, he does it. So, yes, Mr. Darcy is too proud and austere at the outset, to his detriment. But he truly has character, and that two wise everyday people -- his housekeeper and Mr. Gardner -- respect and admire him. That Austen grants Darcy this arc of development is, in my opinion, one reason it endures.
One of my grad school advisors had a theory that Austen only ever named the overly sweet / near perfect characters Jane as like a joke to her family and friends! (Like Jane Fairfax in Emma!)
Obsessed w/ this theory
I predict that Knightley will actually beat Darcy's score.
SAME!
✅
BOLD PREDICTION!
Against all this we must be reminded that, as Joy Clarkson says, Mr. Collins is living his best life now: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/literature/why-we-should-envy-mr-collins
Lol thank you for sharing this—and I appreciate the point—but also have to say her apology for him goes TOO FAR!
Fair enough! I truly doubt Austen wanted us to celebrate Collins at all.
Me too--but I also increasingly do not think we're to hold him against Charlotte at all.
You claim all all secondary dimensions; but two are missing. (There are six or mathematically 4x3/2 pairings of 4 items) MORALS + FUCKABILITY = chastity? MANNERS+FORTUNE= elegance? I'm not ruling on whether these are of any value just non-Austenian maths points out that they do exist. One additional factor is covered in my recent post: the appreciation of country walks. Mr D scores for his tastefully laid out hiking trails; Mr Knightley for walking when even Emma knows he should take the carriage; but H Tilney most of all for his detailed insights in landscape appreciation https://aboutmountains.substack.com/p/jane-austen-walks
I chose to set it up geometrically because I saw less value in those pairings, but of course you could compute the others easily enough! Enjoyed your hiking essay—& if you haven’t read it recommend Thomas Love Peacock’s Headlong Hall, which satirizes the early eighteenth century landscaping battles.
What of Colonel Richard Fitzwilliam? I understand that he was never intended as a love interest, but I would rate him on par with Bingley for his kindness, loyalty, and looks. If he'd been the older son, he might have beat out Darcy himself.
Very possible! That he actively doesn’t present himself as a suitor given the circumstances is much to his credit, too.
Natasha,
In the midst of drafting a post analyzing my wife and me when we first met in 1984 on the basis of "high and low value" criteria by another Substack writer. Maybe someday I'll turn your Austen analysis method on ourselves. I will say that we met when we were 22 and 21 and your (4) seems in retrospect to have had a much higher than 10% weight, certainly initially and also throughout our 40 year relationship. If you mean 10% to be applicable to Austen's world, i defer to you. In 1984 I think it was a lot higher.
The 10% fuckability weighting/Austenian prioritization more generally is deeply influenced by the limited options of Regency women—I think the unweighted model still very relevant in the 80s (and today), but the baseline weighting inevitably less so. Looking forward to your post, and would love it if you could point me to the other “high and low value” criteria, I am so curious!
Cartoons Hate Her had a few posts on high vs. low value. I'm using her criteria as a jumping off point.
Ooh thanks I will check out
Excellent! I appreciate your honest scoring. Mr Darcy’s flaw, which “improves on acquaintance” makes him more desirable (perfect). I believe Austen understood that as far as humans are concerned a flaw can amplify attraction. Sort of a wabi-sabi kind of thing. You are dead on for Mr. Collins. I cannot wait to read your scores for Emma. She is my favorite Austen heroine. Mr Knightley remains too passive( submissive) for a bit too long for my tastes. What would happen if Emma crossed Darcy’s path? Thank you for including my previous comment.
I agree with your analysis entirely--and think it's reflected in Darcy's perfect Fuckability score! We shall see how Knightley fares...
Great post, although giving Mr. Collins a 2 is much too generous.
I think one can argue that Darcy is truly the central figure in the novel as he wrestles with the question of how much he is prepared to change in order to have the life that he actually wants. That naturally includes Eliza, but it also means spending less time with idiots like the Bingley sisters and more time with authentic people like Mr. Gardner. The novel does not end when Eliza finally gives in after seeing the real estate. Instead, Mr. Darcy must demonstrate that he will do what it takes for their relationship to thrive. If that means negotiating with Wickham, he does it. If that means putting up with Lydia's clueless vanity, he does it. If that means tolerating his mother-in-law, he does it. So, yes, Mr. Darcy is too proud and austere at the outset, to his detriment. But he truly has character, and that two wise everyday people -- his housekeeper and Mr. Gardner -- respect and admire him. That Austen grants Darcy this arc of development is, in my opinion, one reason it endures.
Why does Wickham get a 1/6 for fortune rather than a 0/6?
Because 1 is the low score; 0 not an option