Thoughts on Vanity Fair

[Jackson Richardson]

The final sentence of that chapter was very famous as an example of Thackeray's style. I won't quote it as that would be a terrible spoiler

[kev67]

Just to lower tone a bit. Alan Clarke (the politician) - when asked to choose his favorite literary heroine said, "Becky Sharpe! She's a proper little minx, I'd like to give her a jolly good rogering." (it was the 1970's) I've always remembered it.

He might, but I think I would have left her alone, and not just because I would be frightened of her husband.

W.M. Thackery was a friend of Charlotte Bronte. Although I am not very keen on Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte did actually show Mr Rochester being charming and witty. She wrote pages of Mr Rochester charming Jane. I do not think Thackery does as good a job with Becky Sharp. He describes her flashing, green eyes and great wit and intelligence, but we don't actually hear her being very charming and witty for any length of time.

Having read quite a few C19th novels and several non-fiction books on social issues written at the time, I am taken aback by the amount of money George Osbourne and the Rawdon Crawleys were spending. Rawdon had debts of £15,000. This is a colossal amount of money, about £1.5 million in today's money. George Osbourne was no better. He lost over £100 playing for high stakes when he only had £2000 of his mother's inheritance. At 5% interest, that £2000 would amount to £100 a year in addition to his army pay. This is far less than he is used to, but still way more than at least 95% of the population would receive.

[Jackson Richardson]

I think the point Alan Clark was making was not that Becky was charming and witty but she was potentially good in bed (although she is undoubtedly intelligent.)

She can clearly put the charm on (to Amelia as well as Sir Pitt, Rawdon and Lord Steyne) but perhaps we are not meant to be seduced.

[kev67]

This book is rather a saga. People are born, people die, people marry, grow old, suffer reversals of fortune, repent of their actions or otherwise. It is not really a book you can rush. I do not know if it was originally serialized in a magazine like Dickens' books were, but I can imagine it was. I can imagine people reading this over a year or two, perhaps reading several other serials alongside.

[Jackson Richardson]

It was indeed a serial. On the other hand I took it on holiday a few years ago and finished it in under a week.

I tried reading Thackeray's The Newcomes on the basis of an episode each month - modern editions tend to mark the episode breaks. The trouble with that is that by the time you've got near the end, you've forgotten what happened earlier.

[kev67]

At a chapter a day, it is taking me over two months.

Amelia has started to remind me of Tess Durbeyfield of Tess of the d'Urbervilles. She was another love machine who was forced into agonising decisions by the ****-wittedness of her stupid parents.

I am at about chapter 49, and I am having difficulty telling apart Lord Steyn and Lord Gaunt, the Lady Steyne and the Marchioness. Are they the same people or different? Previousy I had difficulty working out Sir Pitt Crawley from his son in particular, and Bute Crawley, his brother; and Mrs Crawley from Mrs Bute Crawley, and there must have been a Lady Crawley. It is difficult when one person has more than one title and several people have similar names.

[kev67]

Possible spoliers:

I have noticed something about Thackery. He sets up some very suspenseful situation, but gives away what happens before it actually happens. For example, in one chapter a duel is about to take place; at the start of the next chapter we learn that one of the duellists will remain alive to make visits on another very minor character. So what happened? Another example, before the Battle of Waterloo, we are informed that a particular soldier will survive. Quite a number of chapters before this we are informed that another of the soldiers will be around for another ten or twenty years in the plot. So that only leaves one soldier who might not make it. It's odd. It sort of sets you up and then deflates you.

[kev67]

I wondered about Major Dobbin's years of service in India. In Jane Eyre, Diane Rivers seems to think Jane going to India would be a death sentence to her. Major Dobbin does suffer from a serious fever at one point. It reminded me that Florence Nightingale had campaigned for health improvements for the British army in India. According to the Indian Sanitary Commission, the annual death rate of British soldiers in India was 69 in every 1000, three times that at home. Out of that 69, nine died of natural causes and the other 60 from poor sanitation. Apart from the bad sanitation, the British soldiery suffered from lack of exercise and liver disease. According to Nightingale, a soldier's routine day was

bed till day break
drill for an hour
breakfast served to him by native servants
bed
dinner served to him by native servants
bed
tea served him by native servants
drink
bed - an da capo

I am sure Major Dobbin spent his days far more constructively.

One thing I am unclear about is that I thought at that time India was governed by the East India Company, not directly by Britain. Jos Sedley works as a tax collector for the East India Company. I thought the East India Company had their own army, which the regular army looked down on slightly. Major Dobbin's was not one of the crack regiments, but I did not think it was one of the East India Company's regiment.

[Ecurb]

I just read "Vanity Fair" for the first time (although I haven't read all of this thread). I read it because it is probably the most famous English novel I hadn't read. Its fame is well deserved.

Since I read it quickly, perhaps some LitNet members can offer opinions on some of the issues the book raised for me.

Rebecca Crawley seems to epitomize the notion that characters live up to (or down to) the expectations of others. At school, Amelia is deemed kind and loving. Becky is deemed dangerous by Miss Pinkerton. Her mother, after all, was a (horrors!) French dancer. Perhaps, given the notions about inherited (and even national) personality traits prevailing in Victorian England, Thackeray would give these factors precedence. But the notion of conforming to expectations seems to be consistent with Becky's long descent into self-serving depravity. Jos, at the end, is terrified of her, with good reason, but, I wondered, if he (and others) had thought better of Becky, perhaps she would have been better.

What saves Becky's husband Rawdon from the same descent? Rawdon is a rake, a gamer, and unscrupulous about money. In these respects, he resembles Becky, and his social talents are less admirable than hers. Yet he remains (for me, at least) a likeable figure. Perhaps Rawdon is never tried as Becky is. Becky herself claims she could be a good person if she had 5k a year. But I don't believe her.

Perhaps, by Victorian standards, Rawdon is saved by being a "gentleman". He has no objection to cheating tradesmen, but would hardly renege on a debt of honor (he rarely loses). By virtue of his gentility and his male gender, Rawdon, like Tom Jones or Joseph Andrews, is granted latitude that Becky is not.

In War and Peace, the other classic of the Napoleonic wars, the lives of individuals drive the engine of history. In Vanity Fair, the engine of history toys with the lives of individuals. The great victory at Waterloo is not victory for the Sedleys -- Amelia loses a husband and Mr. S. a fortune.

Rebecca seems to be compared to Napoleon. Indeed, one of Thackeray's illustrations shows her in Napoleonic garb and pose. She's half French. Both are ruthlessly ambitious.

One jarring note: Becky's lack of affection for her son seems incredible. Someone as fond of love and adulation as Becky is would, I think, snap at such easy bait. Maybe all of Becky's social skills are phony, avaricious, and hypocritical. But I don't think she would be so talented at the social whirl is she didn't like it, and crave admiration (as well as money). The contrast between Becky and Rawdon as parents is, of course, the main reason Rawdon seems so much more sympathetic.

[kev67]

I just read "Vanity Fair" for the first time (although I haven't read all of this thread). I read it because it is probably the most famous English novel I hadn't read. Its fame is well deserved.

Since I read it quickly, perhaps some LitNet members can offer opinions on some of the issues the book raised for me.

Rebecca Crawley seems to epitomize the notion that characters live up to (or down to) the expectations of others. At school, Amelia is deemed kind and loving. Becky is deemed dangerous by Miss Pinkerton. Her mother, after all, was a (horrors!) French dancer. Perhaps, given the notions about inherited (and even national) personality traits prevailing in Victorian England, Thackeray would give these factors precedence. But the notion of conforming to expectations seems to be consistent with Becky's long descent into self-serving depravity. Jos, at the end, is terrified of her, with good reason, but, I wondered, if he (and others) had thought better of Becky, perhaps she would have been better.

What saves Becky's husband Rawdon from the same descent? Rawdon is a rake, a gamer, and unscrupulous about money. In these respects, he resembles Becky, and his social talents are less admirable than hers. Yet he remains (for me, at least) a likeable figure. Perhaps Rawdon is never tried as Becky is. Becky herself claims she could be a good person if she had 5k a year. But I don't believe her.

Perhaps, by Victorian standards, Rawdon is saved by being a "gentleman". He has no objection to cheating tradesmen, but would hardly renege on a debt of honor (he rarely loses). By virtue of his gentility and his male gender, Rawdon, like Tom Jones or Joseph Andrews, is granted latitude that Becky is not.

In War and Peace, the other classic of the Napoleonic wars, the lives of individuals drive the engine of history. In Vanity Fair, the engine of history toys with the lives of individuals. The great victory at Waterloo is not victory for the Sedleys -- Amelia loses a husband and Mr. S. a fortune.

Rebecca seems to be compared to Napoleon. Indeed, one of Thackeray's illustrations shows her in Napoleonic garb and pose. She's half French. Both are ruthlessly ambitious.

One jarring note: Becky's lack of affection for her son seems incredible. Someone as fond of love and adulation as Becky is would, I think, snap at such easy bait. Maybe all of Becky's social skills are phony, avaricious, and hypocritical. But I don't think she would be so talented at the social whirl is she didn't like it, and crave admiration (as well as money). The contrast between Becky and Rawdon as parents is, of course, the main reason Rawdon seems so much more sympathetic.

I got the impression that Rawdon Crawley started to change after his son was born. His love for his son turned him into a better person. Maybe he does not want his son to grow up to be a cad like he was. Maybe he does not want him to have anything to be ashamed about when he grows up. Becky does not feel the same and she is not going to change.

Mme Bovary, in the last book I read, does not show much love for her daughter Berthe. She is not as mean to her child as Becky is, but is thoughtless regarding her. Maybe being an unloving mother is a C19th anti-heroine trope.

[Jackson Richardson]

I can imagine that if Becky wants to be seen as sexually attractive, she wouldn't want to be seen as a mother.

I think Thackeray would consider Rawdon (and his father and brother in different ways) all fail in what a gentleman should be. (Colonel Newcombe is his ideal of a gentleman.)

I think he gets our sympathy because eventually Becky's dupe.

There's the interesting point about whether Becky is technically unfaithful to Rawdon with Lord Steyne. She says she isn't and (as I remember) Rawdon goes along with that for a time as it's in his interest. Nowadays, the immediate thought is that she is lying (which would be in character) and Thackeray only lets his readers think she isn't because Victorians could not cope with a adulterous wife who wasn't tragic. (Contrast Becky to Anna Karenina or Emma Bovary.)

But it is quite likely that she is telling the truth: she is stringing Lord Steyne along and playing hard to get - which nowadays is probably even less admirable.

I admit I've forgotten the situation that leads Rawdon to turn.

What did you think of Amelia, ecurb?

[Ecurb]

Yes, Jackson, Scarlett O'Hara didn't want more children because pregnancy might make her less attractive. Still, Becky is kind to people from whom she gains nothing (at times). Surely her disdain for Rawdon Jr. makes her less attractive to men, just as it does to readers.

I suppose the trope Kev mentions might involve the rejection of "family values" (as they might now be called in the U.S.).

IN addition, Becky is clearly "unfaithful" to Rawdon, whether she has adulterous sex or not. One of my pet peeves is the notion that infidelity can suggest ONLY adultery. Becky leaves Rawdon in jail, dangles after other men, lies about money, and is an unfaithful wife repeatedly regardless of whether she has sex with other men. I'll grant, though, that I know what "technically unfaithful" means, even though I deplore that the meaning has become so clear. So I'm not criticizing Jackson, just the notion that "infidelity" can mean only adultery. Sins of the spirit are more venal than those of the flesh.

[Ecurb]

I thought Amelia was sweet, but sort of a dumb sap. She loves George Jr., but can't take care of him. I think she's contrasted as the opposite evil to Becky, in some ways. The major characters are, I think, meant to be compared and contrasted. Rawdon lives by his wits, just like Becky does. But somehow he is saved. Dobbin is a bit of a dumb sap, just like Amelia. George? Would he become another Becky (whom he wants to run off with)? Or, had he lived, would Amelia's love have saved him?

Amelia shares this with Becky: she is not genteel. She is the daughter of a tradesman. George, Rawdon, and Dobbin are all "officers and gentlemen" (although George's father is not a gentleman). So although George and Rawdon are unscrupulous schemers, they have a sense of honor that Becky lacks.

Also, I don't quite buy that Becky saved her note from George for 12 years. Given the number of beaus she has on her string, she must have quite a library of secret notes, if she saves them all!

[Pompey Bum]

There's the interesting point about whether Becky is technically unfaithful to Rawdon with Lord Steyne. She says she isn't and (as I remember) Rawdon goes along with that for a time as it's in his interest. Nowadays, the immediate thought is that she is lying (which would be in character) and Thackeray only lets his readers think she isn't because Victorians could not cope with a adulterous wife who wasn't tragic. (Contrast Becky to Anna Karenina or Emma Bovary.)

But it is quite likely that she is telling the truth: she is stringing Lord Steyne along and playing hard to get - which nowadays is probably even less admirable.

Yes, the question of Becky's fidelity is interesting. Of course she hasn't done anything Thackeray doesn't mention because she is only made of ink and paper, and of course Thackeray isn't in a position to tell us about her now, so it becomes a question of what we think she would have done. About that I have no doubt: Becky Sharp would have done whatever suited her. She probably would have enjoyed toying with Lord Steyne more than anything else, but if she was in the mood for anything else, I don't imagine she would have hesitated. Thackeray warns us near the beginning that it is pointless to get too precise about Becky's chastity (which may or may not have survived Chiswick Mall):

"For Amelia it was quite a new, fresh, brilliant world, with all the bloom upon it. It was not quite a new one for Rebecca—(indeed, if the truth must be told with respect to the Crisp affair, the tart-woman hinted to somebody, who took an affidavit of the fact to somebody else, that there was a great deal more than was made public regarding Mr. Crisp and Miss Sharp, and that his letter was in answer to another letter). But who can tell you the real truth of the matter?"

One jarring note: Becky's lack of affection for her son seems incredible. Someone as fond of love and adulation as Becky is would, I think, snap at such easy bait.

I would say it seems unnatural rather than incredible. But Becky was surely unnatural to Victorian readers, and Thackeray warns us from the start that she hates children. In fact, at one point she makes an uncharacteristicly kind comment about them, and even Amelia gets a little suspicious.

I don't see Becky as being so much "fond of love and adulation"--especially the innocent love of a child--as simply looking for revenge for how she thinks the world has treated her; and she does not care whether the innocent suffer with the guilty if she can get that. Again, this is a pattern from the start, when she throws the "dixonary" back at the awful Miss Jemima's annoying-but-earnest sister. For Becky, it's about beating the world at its own game. Collateral damage doesn't matter.

[Ecurb]

I would say it seems unnatural rather than incredible. But Becky was surely unnatural to Victorian readers, and Thackeray warns us from the start that she hates children. In fact, at one point she makes an uncharacteristicly kind comment about them, and even Amelia gets a little suspicious.

I don't see Becky as being so much "fond of love and adulation"--especially the innocent love of a child--as simply looking for revenge for how she thinks the world has treated her; and she does not care whether the innocent suffer with the guilty if she can get that. Again, this is a pattern from the start, when she throws the "dixionary" back at the awful Miss Jemima's annoying-but-earnest sister. For Becky, it's about beating the world at its own game. Collateral damage doesn't matter.

I agree, but Becky would be unlikely to be successful in her drive for vengeance and self-improvement if she didn't have a natural social talent. In addition, Becky's singing and her acting in charades suggests a desire for admiration which goes beyond vengeance and social climbing (Rawdon, for example, objects to her acting, and her talent may suggest to some of the ton an inheritance from her mother, which would counter her social ambitions).

It seems to me Thackeray is suggesting that Becky's bitterness and ambition lead her at first into minor transgressions, and her successes and rationalizations of these minor transgressions tempt her to adultery and murder. She justifies her small sins, which, eventually, allows her to move on to venal ones. I don't know enough about Napoleon's early life and career to know if this model might be applied to him.