Character Assassination by Famous Authors

I was both delighted and dismayed to see the news that the late, great author, Hilary Mantel, was working on a mash-up of Jane Austen’s novels at the time of her death at age 70 in September of 2022. The author of the Wolf Hall trilogy reached such heights of acclaim that her novels were turned into an award-winning PBS series. I devoured those three books and even developed a rather strange and inexplicable crush on Thomas Cromwell.

The premise of Mantel’s new novel was to be a satirical take on Austen’s works in which characters from the six novels make “appearances in unfamiliar guises” according to Lisa Allardice, writing for The Guardian (4/22/2023).

The title of the novel, “Provocation”, is an indication of the direction Mantel’s satire would take. The protagonist was to be the overlooked and much-maligned Mary Bennet while Darcy would be portrayed as something of dimwit afflicted with “a solid, sterling stupidity, such as an English gentleman alone dares display” as described in one of the paragraphs written by Mantel that was recently released by her husband, Gerald McEwan.

Mary’s early observation of the newly married Darcy’s was “that it would be Elizabeth’s lifetime work to collaborate with his innocent self-conceit. It is what she will give, in return for being mistress of Pemberley.”

And therein bursts the proverbial bubble for all the romantics and committed acolytes of our beloved Jane Austen. This Darcy is the strong, silent type because he’s rather stupid and dear Lizzy, witty and observant of the many foibles of Regency society, has chosen a match that requires her to put up with her husband’s limitations in exchange for wealth and security. So much for romance.

Oh dear!

Mantel is not the only famous writer to pick Mary as her heroine. Renowned and prolific author, Colleen McCullough, wrote The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet in which both the Darcy’s and the Bingley’s marriages fall short of “happily ever after” in the very early chapters. As a huge fan of McCullough’s novels of which I’ve read many, I was extraordinarily disappointed, and it’s the only one of her novels that I chose not to complete.

My question is this. Why do authors choose to denigrate characters we have come to know and love so they can raise the prospects of their chosen unsung heroine around whom they wish to build a new storyline? Why create unhappily ever after scenarios so someone else can achieve a measure of happiness?

I remember being rather horrified when I began reading McCullough’s version of Mary Bennet because, like Hilary Mantel, I had begun work on a novel that brought together characters from all six Austen novels in 2020. Rather than the “unfamiliar guises” Mantel planned to use in her satire, my characters were all true to their origins in Austen’s novels. I wanted the happily every after. I wanted to add to the felicity of the main characters along with less developed characters, including Mary Bennet. I didn’t want to change anyone but to enhance those who were overlooked and whose futures were left hanging. I had to stop reading McCullough’s novel because her characterizations ran so utterly contrary to my own imaginings that it caused distress to my own creative process.

I don’t wish to give the appearance that my focus is only on happy unions. In fact, I took great pleasure in writing about rather despicable people, those you love to hate. I was eager to further the story for Persuasion’s deeply flawed, arrogant, and conceited Elizabeth Elliot who was still unmarried at the end of the novel. I found a match entirely to her liking and inflated sense of self, although the groom’s family may have regrets about the union. Writing in her voice was wickedly gratifying especially in comparison to writing for prim, self-important Mary Bennet spouting prosaic platitudes, which I found far more challenging. Nevertheless, I still managed to find a marriage partner perfectly suited to her without changing her essential character or self-perception.

Rather than disparaging undeveloped characters such as Georgianna Darcy as Mantel did in an opening paragraph that described Mary’s point of view when she notes “Elizabeth took her new sister’s silence as profundity, but I myself saw that, compared to Georgianna, my sister was Socrates.” In other words, she is as dimwitted as her esteemed brother. My version of Georgianna divulges unique interests hiding behind her shy exterior that are allowed to develop. After all, education for young ladies and expectations of their roles in society could be very confining unless they were introduced to new information and means of expression. Hint: There is a strong element of feminism in my novel, The Matchmaker of Pemberley, An Amorous Sequel to All Jane Austen’s Novels.

Which brings me to the point of using denigration as a means of raising the prospects for a particular character such as Mary Bennet. It saddens me that it is used as a first line tactic by authors I admire, rather than finding ways to develop characters not at the expense of others whether they’re men or women. Why not do more to demonstrate solidarity for the beloved icons of Jane Austen’s imagination, both the best and the worst of them? Even if you want to snipe at the role of men in her society, you don’t have to take aim by turning them into dolts such as describing Darcy as a man who “has power to perceive what is hidden from us, because he is a man, and a gentleman and has a park that is ten miles round.” Surely some Regency men had redeeming qualities even if you are writing a satire.

I wanted to pay homage to Austen’s characters without changing them. Willoughby is still Willoughby, a charming character not to be trusted. Vanity still reigns unchecked in some, avarice in others. Some have developed in splendid ways to showcase their talents and passions. New friendships form that you hope will flourish. Future engagements and weddings are on the horizon. None of this is at the cost of character assassination on the part of the author.

Jane Austen’s legacy is to leave us hopeful about the future of the world she created for her “children” which is how she viewed her novels, as her children. I can’t help but feel it would sadden her to think that future stories about these children require them to step on the backs of each other to get ahead in the world or to be acknowledged. She focuses on the importance of good character, adherence to values, and overcoming adversity to find happiness even if you are sometimes your own worst judge of character as was the case with Emma. I hope other authors will join me in trying to carry on this heritage when creating stories around Austen’s beloved children. We owe it to her. While she admired acidic wit and demonstrated it amply herself, she also believed in love and redemption.

Many thanks to Lisa Allardice for her excellent content, “Hilary Mantel’s last novel was to have been an Austen mash-up: read an exclusive extract starring Mr. Darcy” in The Guardian (4/22/2023) which triggered this response.

No offense intended to the brilliant and recently deceased authors, Hilary Mantel and Colleen McCullough for whom I have enormous reverence and respect (except on this particular subject).

No offense intended to the legion of Jane Austen fan fiction writers who conjure new roles for her children from zombie fighters to dragon riders, swashbucklers to time travelers, or even transplants from other eras. I know you will continue to delight us all.