I learn so much from your close readings! I am beginning to get the hang of Austen's careful word choices, as you point them out. Also I like videos where you ask: what role does this character play (like a middle Bennet sister)?
Thank you for a delightful exploration of more of Jane Austen's work. What is interesting to me is the expectation of where our sympathies should lie, that is with Elinor and Marianne. We are supposed to find Lucy obnoxious and disagreeable because that is how Elinor perceives her. But it leads me to wonder how I would view Lucy or someone like Lucy were we to actually meet. I hope my regard for integrity would surpass my regard for charm or amiableness. Makes me think of Skimpole in Bleak House.
I think that Lucy is written to be a more extreme version of Elinor in some ways. Like Eliza Williams is an exaggerated version of Marianne - what happens if you let your sensibility totally overrule your sense - Lucy seems to be an example of what happens if you logically ("sensibly") conform to what society asks of you, without any regard for sensibility (feelings and morals). Elinor does try to conform to society in many ways, but she refuses to lie and decieve - while Lucy takes it one step further. I think one of the clever things Austen does is that she uses more one-dimensional characters, like Lucy, or Eliza Williams, or Lydia and Mary Bennett, to illuminate the more rounded, dimensional quality of her heroines. Lizzy is headstrong, but she has morals. She wants to learn (read, play) and better herself, but she also wants to have fun. Her more extreme sisters make it clear that she's a more rounded, more balanced character in spite of her faults. It makes the reader more tolerant to those faults. I think in this way, Lucy Steele is in the novel to help us understand Elinor. We are not to judge her for conforming to society to the extend that she does, for hiding her true feelings to the extend that she does. Because she has moral values and better feelings, she's moderate in her conformation to society. This balance in Elinor is highlighted by the fact that there is a Lucy Steele in the plot, who does not have morals or feelings (or at least if she does, she doesn't let them interfere with her behaviour). Without Lucy, with only Marianne's excessive romantic heroine sensibility as a foil to Elinor, Elinor would come off as much colder and more calculating and maybe less sympathetic. Lucy provides a certain balance - and she highlights the ridiculousness of society, and in a sense also makes the reader see that no matter how hard Elinor tries to conform to what is expected of her by society, she is fighting an uphill battle as long as she allows her morals to stand in the way. All in all, though, I think that at the end of the novel Elinor is shown to be a lot happier than Lucy, because she can be herself and be at peace with herself. Lucy will have to endeavour and scheme for the rest of her life, and if she has any feelings, she will have to suppress them.
@@archiewoosung5062 OP is pointing out how Lucy is a useful foil to Elinor from a mix of similarities and differences. They both embody sense (even if Lucy’s is ‘of a certain kind’) but Elinor tempers her sense with moral/emotional sensibility. That is what prevents her from being shameless, as Lucy is. Lucy lacks (or represses) these good feelings. So, re:your question, Lucy’s shamelessness is a key feature that sets her apart from Elinor, which is what makes comparing the two a worthwhile exercise.
@@CynicismFollows Quite new to me to compare Lucy & Elinor, I've been used to thinking of the contrast between Elinor & Marianne. Not sure there are enough parallels to make a comparison; we can compare an elephant with a piece of toast, but not sure how useful that would be...did Austen really give more thought to this than I did?
@@archiewoosung5062 It's not necessarily important whether or not Jane Austen consciously intended it or not (though I think she did). Social conformity is a major theme in the book generally and especially for Elinor, and it's something both her and Lucy share. They both strongly believe in conformity, so they are very similar in that way, but are different in how they are willing to go about doing it. In that difference lies the social critique.
@@roelin360 Definitely think it's important what Austen intended, but that's not the only criterion. You can compare any characters you like, & if something interesting comes out of it, that's excellent. I am simply saying it never occurred to me that there's anything that makes Lucy particularly worth comparing to Elinor (& I stubbornly insist Austen's intentions are relevant). I will think about it, but of course, don't expect anyone to care what I think.
Elinor and Marianne have been unwittingly let down by their parents. Nothing in their life at Norlands prepared them for the life they, their mother and Margaret, are forced to lead following the death of their father, consequently after their move to Devon they are playing a game without understanding the rules. Lucy Steele on the other hand, understands 'the rules' perfectly, as does her sister Anne, though Anne doesn't have the looks, the personality - or the sheer ruthlessness - to win the game. There is always a great deal unsaid in Jane Austen's novels, I always feel the story is just the tip of the iceberg. The Steele sisters' uncle has clearly had to make his way in the world and no doubt this is the same for the whole family, so the girls grew up watching how it was done, whereas Elinor and Marianne knew nothing but 'elegance' in their childhood and were very sheltered. Ultimately, without Colonel Brandon stepping in to protect them, the Dashwood sisters faced a grim prospect of sliding into poverty. Lucy is streets ahead of them. All that said, it is the Dashwoods, Colonel Brandon and Edward who finish the book in what I think of as 'Jane Austen heaven,' ie a group of people of high integrity who love and respect one another living in close proximity - happy ever after. The other half of the Dashwood family, Willoughby, Robert and Lucy probably won't be unhappy because they simply don't understand the characters and mindset of the others, they can't see past money, status, fine houses and position in society, but that's their loss surely.
@@deliciousful Willoughby will an absolutely miserable. He married a woman he didn't love for her money, which turned out to be unnecessary. He will have to live knowing he could have married an amazing girl that loved him and he was too chicken lived to go through with it. Lucy will probably be happy in a shallow, unfulfilled way because she's a gold-digger.
Elinor understood Lucy Steele perfectly. She was never taken in, and her perceptiveness is shared with the readers. Marianne, otoh, is just like her mother, awash in sensibilities. All the while that Marianne is moping away histrionically, Elinor suffers in silence - she governed her emotions. After listening to this video I listened to the book again - if y’all haven’t heard Juliet Stevenson’s performance, you’re missing out. Remember, Marianne is scarcely17, but her mother, at 40, ought to have known better.
That is so true. Elinor and Marianne don’t seem to worry too much about what most around them would consider vitally important to their survival: marrying well. They both think more of a love match, even if Elinor handles it better than Marianne. They learned this from their mother who clearly never thought her daughters would need to consider marrying up. Good thing Brandon has enough money to take care of them all!
@@archie6945 My comment was misworded. If your behavior allows you to continually climb the social ladder, until you get to a pretty hefty amount of wealth and status, that should have been almost impossible for you, how is your behavior not condoned?
A great analysis, particularly when you read Lady Middleton's first reaction to the Steele sisters. One of the things I always liked about Sense and Sensibility, is that I think there is great realism in the happy endings of the antagonists - neither Lucy nor Willoughby suffer very much in the end, and since both operated on very selfish principles throughout, Austen shows a lot of canny understanding that people who know how to work the rules of society can do well out of it.
I always found Lucy’s personality highly distasteful, but I also feel, upon honest reflection, that she may be just have been doing whatever she could to secure her future. She was trying to prevent her “catch” from being “stolen” by Elinor, so from her perspective Elinor isn’t ever a friend. But still, she’s awful. 😁
Yes, I don't entirely blame Lucy, as women had few options in that time. Still, I'm glad that a sweetheart like Edward didn't end up with her. Lucy and Robert deserved each other!
@@MoselleGreen being so entirely dishonest and false is something more than just securing a future, even in such difficult times. She shows up and talks about her feelings when she has none - pretending to be someone she is not - and being deadly mean the same time (like when she says some words of compassion and friendship about Marianne when she doesn't like her at all and feel contemptuous about her situation). This kind of soul dishonesty is disgusting in any times - for me at least - protecting her catch (telling Elinor about it) is kind of reasonable but all the rest of her behaviour (and her inner life) is unacceptable for me :)
Some of her behaviors, though abhorrent, I agree to be understandable. I find no excuse for her purposefully deceiving the Dashwood's man servant so that he would give a false report to Elinor that Edward and Lucy were married. That was just spiteful. She didn't want Edward, but she didn't want Elinor and him to be happy together either. That, honestly, was the worst of her behaviors. It was the only act that was not somehow aimed at securing her own future, but at actively hurting someone else and her future.
@@FranciscanGypsy I think that was accidental. Robert Ferrars was there in the chaise beside her. Perhaps the servant didn't see him clearly, but even so he didn't specify that it was Edward Ferrars, just Mr. Ferrars. The Dashwoods assumed it was because they knew he and Lucy had been engaged.
I think it's easy for us to look down and the things Lucy Steele was ready to do to secure her future. As a young woman I hated her, but as I'm getting older and as I learned more about what woman had to deal with and what little options they had, I can understand her more and more. I do not think she is evil, and I do not even think she is a bad woman. I think she was ready to do what needed to be done in her eyes. She was not fond of them, she most likely did not even like them, but she knew how to use them to get what she wanted. I can admire that, even when I can't say I would be able to do the same.
In the long term though, when is it going to be enough for Lucy that she can drop the act, at least a little. It must be exhausting to always be acting and observing and deciding who is the most important person in the room to flatter or how to get around competing opinions or interests (choosing sides or working out how to seem like she's on both sides). She is never just herself doing what makes her happy. When/if she and Robert have children will they take priority or will it still be about planning for the next big success.
She can drop the act if she has sons of her own and her husband is dead. Her road is to become the new Mrs Ferras, not just in name. She will probably be just as manipulative with her own children.
When Mrs. Ferrars is dead and Robert has inherited the rest of the estate. Divorce was extremely rare in those days, usually only if the wife was publicly caught out in adultery, so her position as Robert's wife is secure. All that's left is to get the rest of Mrs. Ferrars' wealth. There is a hint in the novel that she does drop the act with Robert when it refers to their disagreements.
Great reading Dr Cox. I like how you remind us of Austen's word choice. "Procure/ procurement" and the derivative "procurator" have merchant/legal applications, while "secure" and the related word "security" have financial and legal associations. These are not neutral words. Austen has chosen them carefully to suggest the calculating element in Lucy Steele's actions. Wealth and status always attract flatterers and sycophants, like a flame attracts moths, and Austen was right onto them; her observation of flatterers in her novels as they enmesh, or attempt to enmesh their targets, are razorsharp.
Austen is an interesting contestant. She is enrolled by birth in the Regency Future Wife Influencer industry. She fashions herself into the announcer and makes money off of commentating the lives of other competitors instead.
I usually conclude that Jane Austen‘s characters are really archetypes - and can be found in any generation, not just amongst the Georgians. I think you could find Lucy Steele amongst us very easily. Having said that - as usual, A brilliant video! Thank you 💕💕
This was wonderful - thank you. I love the rest of the line which you started (in Ch 50) - "They settled in town...were on the best possible terms with the Dashwoods: and setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands took part....." My money has always been on Lucy in these "little jealousies" - Fanny doesn't stand a chance. But she helped create the monster that Lucy becomes, and what you sow, you reap. But Lucy can be pretty vicious and spiteful in a petty way when she knows that she can get away with it - allowing Elinor (through their servant) to believe that she (Lucy) had married Edward. You cannot possibly like her - but you have to admire her - she knows what she wants (a rich husband) and she knows how to get it.
Delicious comment! I have always wondered how Lucy could have known the manservant would report their conversation in the way he does. Sure, he'd call her "Mrs Ferrars", but he might have mentioned "Mr Robert" too soon. I agree Lucy wanted to give Elinor pain - Sense and Sensibility is about women fighting other women through the men. Fanny gets rid of her child's rivals for the inheritance through manipulating John Dashwood, and Miss Grey dictates Willoughby's cruel letter to Marianne. Elinor and Lucy fence directly with each other while outwardly co-operating on a very feminine craft project. Col. Brandon and Willoughby fight an actual duel, and, presumably, since both are alive and well, both miss. When the women duel, they don't miss. Lucy Steele (even her name suggests a weapon) is a worthy opponent for Elinor, and, as such, immensely entertaining. She is also a kind of shadow Elinor - the elder of two sisters, the one with more social "nous" and appreciation of economic realities. At the end there's even a suggestion that Elinor sucks up to Mrs Ferrars just enough to get Edward a slightly better income. What an interesting sister-in-law relationship that will be.
I feel there is nothing to admire in sneaky, tricky, false person, so I cannot agree here, but yes I was always curious about the future life of Lucy and Fanny as relatives and "friends".
@@kittykatz4001 Yeah, the Steele sisters are a (very funny) parody of the Dashwoods. Where Elinor is realistic and sensible, Lucy is calculating and devious. Where Marianne is honest and open, Anne is a tactless blabbermouth. Both sets of sisters have secrets from each other: the Dashwoods suffer nobly in silence, while the Steeles listen at keyholes and hide behind chimney boards (which involves crouching in a disused fireplace!). In short, "the sweetest girls in the world". 😂 BTW, I was wrong before - Anne is the elder sister.
@@londongael I can't remember exactly how the servant reported Lucy's message, but Robert Ferrars was lying back in the coach and could not be seen clearly: I shall have to check the book: if Lucy simply reported that she was married to "Mr Ferrars" or that she was now "Mrs Ferrars" the (wrong but natural) assumption would be that she and Edward had married. On your other points (essentially "Women Beware Women"), a) I don't think that Fanny and John Dashwood's child's inheritance was in any danger - except that it might be reduced by £9,000 (admittedly a large sum in the Regency era, but an amount which John and Fanny could easily afford); b) "Miss Grey dictates Willoughby's cruel letter to Marianne": as one of the Males of the species, I am amazed at how easily women can be duped: we only have Willoughby's word that his wife dictated the letter (and, if this were true, no honourable explanation of why he didn't refuse to co-operate), and I cannot understand how Elinor could be so trusting of this serial seducer of under-age girls, who has been so totally dishonest in all his dealings. Yes, Elinor (ever practical) did persuade the reluctant Edward to ask for a marriage gift from Mrs Ferrars - they got £10k and the narrator tells us that Mrs Ferrars was the only one of the three who was surprised that more wasn't requested.
I think a lot of readers ignored Edward's less than honorable behavior because he's 'sweet'. Lucy didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to propose. He was young, he was foolish, but he did it on his own, knowing the rules said he couldn't break it. What really bothers me is how he treated Elinor. Until Lucy told her about the engagement, she had every reason to think he was free. Edward had to suspect her feelings, but continued to come around.
I just discovered you. Have you ever analyzed Mrs. Elton? She is a riot! Sometimes I just skim through Emma to read her dialogue is, and to see how quickly she changes the topic back to herself.
What I always found funny about the portrayal of Lucy was that she always makes some grammatical errors when talking and writing. So it makes the reader think of her as a bit stupid and ridiculous. But of course Lucy isn't stupid. She's rather clever but uses it to be underhand which shows that she's not ridiculous as well.
I've tended to think of her as having a low, instinctive cunning which does not require the greatest education or intelligence (this lack being indicated by her grammatical errors) but enables her to intuit and exploit the weaknesses of others, but I may be confusing her lack of education with a lack of intelligence. I don’t suppose she would waste her time on intellectual speculation. What intelligence she had would be concentrated on maximising her advantage.
@@richardyates7280 Yes that's a possibility. I guess it comes down to the fact that she uses what intelligence she has to be cunning and scheming. She knows that most people underestimate her and she uses that to her advantage. Luckily she only used that side of her to "get the guy" 😅
I'm rereading S&S and am watching and listening to every word and look and tone of Lucy Steele very closely throughout the novel thanks to your close reading of her. From all that we see and hear of her we can imagine how she will have first found out about all of the pupils her father taught and how she will have worked on edward right from the start.... How many others had she tried to secure before?... Perhaps she had an understanding with others that we don't even know of??? Someone like Lucy wouldn't put all her eggs in just one risky basket after all would she.... She's proved she can keep huge secrets... and can switch allegiances at the drop off a hat!
A very worthy subject and an exceedingly timely one. The closing 'moral' can be applied without changing a syllable to US politics and its surrounding 'polite society. '
I appreciated this commentary as you make Lucy Steele seem more understandable, relateable and sympathetic and less vindicatively manipulative. Not so much the counterpoint to Mrs Ferrars but, the antidote to her.
Living in this polite society from sense of sensibility "feels" exhausting but I guess one had tot engage with these people like Lucy Steele to "survive". I don't like it at all, to have to manipulate Lucys way in this society, but it takes a lot of courage to live authetically and that"s why I like Elinor and Marianne for having authethically integrity. Kind regards Elise from the Netherlands.
Thank you, Octavia, this is wonderful. I feel much more sympathetic to Lucy as a result of it. Life at the time offered very little in the way of opportunities for someone like her who had no advantages of class or money. And I feel Austen may be somewhat mischievously understating the cost to Lucy of her chosen course - time and conscience, yes, but also she must spend the rest of her life flattering these hideous people and enduring (that word again) their company. Personally, I think Elinor got the better deal, marrying the man she loved and - while admittedly still relatively poor - living free of the influence and interference of her supposed 'betters'. Perhaps Lucy's mistake was in being too ready to buy into the values of her 'betters', but that's more the fault of that society than of her personally.
Perhaps we should admire the work ethic of the Miss Steeles. They appear hard-working, resourceful, apt to please their patrons. Every employer's dream.
I had always thought Lucy was silly and naive. I thought Robert was silly and naive. They were a good match. Now I know that she fooled me. I have always struggled with subtle social niceties. I tend to point out what I see when others will not admit them. I don't always understand what is going on. When I do, I feel torn on the issue of playing the game. I don't particularly enjoy the game. With my mental and physical health, I don't often have the energy to play it. Perhaps due to ADHD and other disorders, learning the rules and remembering to use them is difficult. Understanding and following directions is hard. The rewards are often embarrassing, yet lucrative for the skilled, which I am unlikely to become. I feel both jealousy and disgust for the game's top competitors. I feel obligated to enter the game, as my financial resources are few. When I try, I become so frustrated that my anger bursts or so bored that I forget to even bring out the popcorn in the face of free drama. Either way, I am excluded for my disinterest and disrespect for the game and its players. I'm not sure what to do. What does one who can be cold like Eleanor, or bursting with fury like Maryanne do in these circumstances? If they had understood the rules, what could they have done differently?
Charlotte Collins was not very much like the other two women. I see more of a connection between Lucy and Mrs. Elton. Charlotte had a moral center. She was not trying to pretend to be someone greater than she was. She was not unkind. Neither of the other woman had any internal compass, and neither hesitated to do whatever was to her advantage.
I love this channel and often listen before bed, but is it just me or is the audio often slightly out of sync? It often seems to me that Dr. Cox's mouth moves slightly after the audio.
And yet Lucy Steele did not do as she was told and instead committed the very crime that Fanny convicted Elinor of -- aspiring beyond her means to form an attachment with her brother. Thanks for this discussion. I always found the preference of Lucy over Elinor confusing.
So I don't know how accurate this is to the books, but I always thought it funny that Lucy Steel is thrown out by Fanny upon revealing her secret engagement is to Fanny's relative (in the novel I guess it's Lucy's sister Anne that reveals this). Then in Vanity Fair a similar scene is rehashed when Becky reveals to the aunt that she's engaged to her nephew. Is this meant to be parallel? Was Thackery referencing Austen (even outright copying her)?
I understand that the Dashwood sisters were left with little money after the death of their father, but they were born and were raised in a high social sphere. They were given a good education, one is a very good musician, the other very good at painting/drawing, and even though they had to leave Norland Park and would've come down a little financially, they would've stayed in the same social sphere I think. So all this to ask, why does Fanny hate them so much? I know Elinor doesn't have a fortune so Fanny wouldn't want Edward getting attached to her. But they are still her own husband's sisters. Her husband's family was good enough for her to marry him at one time, so why is their connection so bad to her now? Every time I re-read or watch the movie, I loathe Fanny when she talks her husband out of helping his sisters and breaking his promise to his dying father.
Lucy Steele is such a piece of work. Her ambition is pretty understandable - but she's vicious about how she pursues her goals, especially to Elinor whom she 'reads' as pretty nice and easily hurt. It is pretty telling that she has that big scene with Edward (in private) where he begs her to release him because of no money and she's saying no, no, she loves him anyway - but she publicly reports it as the other way around. There's this other scene in the novel, which I find pretty telling about how Mean Girl politics work in this society. It's this whole fussing about making the filigree basket for Annamaria. It _could_ wait until the morning, and it's obvious that Lucy was hoping to play whist, but instead Lady M makes a big fuss of saying "Oh no, I hope you won't feel yourself in a hurry about it" which nudges Lucy to get back to work. To me, it feels like Lady M is deliberately causing a little bit of a rub in Lucy's evening, on purpose, to assert her status as the boss lady. Elinor understands this game enough to play along to get what she wants (a private conversation with Lucy); but later on in London when the same kind of pissing contest is going on about how tall Lady M's and Fanny Dashwood's sons are - Lucy plays the game by rhapsodizing about how tall they both are, and Elinor messes up by giving her unvarnished opinion that "William is the taller" and is thus unpopular.
It could be interesting to compare Lucy Steele to Becky in Vanity Fair - I sense a lot of similarities, but also some differences. For example, Becky, unlike Lucy, never managed to get forgiveness from the family of her husband, although she was very skilled in charming people
The key attribute an English Literature scholar must have is to be very, very careful. Every insight must be indelibly documented. It's called a close reading because other "scholars" are always breathing down your neck.
I feel a little more sympathetic to Lucy Steele than the narrator. Lucy was no worse in character than those with money and status. She did what she needed to do, as she saw it. I love the bit in the novel where it is stated that she makes £200 a year look like £500 (I don't remember the exact amounts, those may be off). Today Lucy would be a businesswoman, but that opportunity didn't exist for her.
Hey Octavia, have you done a playlist with the different novels that you have checked on? Because I'm willing to read Pride and Prejudice in english for the first time (I'm a native spanish speaker - and reader -) so I feel like I'm going to need extra help
I like the lines where's Lady Middleton observes her children's physical misbehavior towards the Misses Steel and feels "no doubt of its being a reciprocal enjoyment." That reminds me of some pet owners, too.
Thank you - I loved this talk and it has made me re-think the beginning and the end of 'Sense and Sensibility'. I always wondered about the last paragraph, pointing out the sisters getting on with each other and where it fit. To e, it's always seemed random and an odd place to end. Now I think Austen meant it to bookmark Fanny and Lucy's continual jealousy for Mrs Ferrars' favour - into which they dragged their husbands - and then the very last paragraph where Austen writes the Dashwood sisters ".....could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands" Highlights how Fanny's own meanness had brought down on her the worst possible fate. By contriving jealously against the Dashwoods she had opened the way to a much more cunning and successful competitor for all the lovely money and status which she will now have to live with forever - while the Dashwood sisters continue to live in loving harmony. So haha to Fanny - how do you like those apples 😉
OMG there it is! I sadly hadn't caught onto this before and always felt Fanny and her horrid husband never got enough of a punishment for their cruelty (acknowledging of course that realistically the world doesn't play out with such neat punishments and rewards). But you're 100% correct that karmically it's perfect that Fanny gets her worst fears materialized where before they didn't even exist.
Jane Austen: "I am a witty and urbane master of subtlety in the English language." Also Jane Austen: "Imma name my antagonist Lucifer-y Imma-STEAL-Yo-Man. Oh yeah, I'm brilliant."
I love this kind of alive imaginative response much better than just the mechanical extraction of effects like teeth from the text. It's more like Coleridge's literary criticism.
Further to my previous comment, some of Jane Austen’s upper class characters are admirable, like Elinor Dashwood, Anne Elliot, Colonel Brandon, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Knightley. Moreover, all in all Mr Darcy is a good man. Furthermore, Jane's middle class figures are also a mixed bag. Some we can admire like Mr and Mrs Gardiner, Captain Wentworth, and Mr Weston, but others are socially insecure and unpleasant like Mr and Mrs Elton and the haughty, spiteful, Bingley sisters who despite their high society lifestyle are from a middle class background. In addition, Mrs Bennet is a daft woman of middle-class origin who talks about her desire for her daughters to marry rich men when rich men are present and does not grasp the seriousness of her youngest daughter’s marriage to one of Austen’s most sinister characters, an unprincipled man who was almost certainly of lower birth than “uppercrust twits” like Sir Walter Elliot. Hence if we are supposed to conclude that Austen had a negative view of the upper class (a popular view) her portrayal of the middle class is certainly not universally positive.
I'm actually really impressed with Lucy's maneuvering. Her level of manipulation seems very high, she must be a very keen observer and her stamina to act pleasingly to these rather horrid people (i.e. Mrs. Ferrars, Fanny, etc etc) is IMPRESSIVE. I mean, she's not very nice to Elinor but I totally tip my hat off for her for her persistence. She wanted to be 'elevated' in rank and she got what she wanted.
I think her behaviour towards Elinor is meant to highlight her true nature, because Elinor is of absolutely no use to her, and she also stands to receive some of the “charity”, of the rich Lucy wants for herself.
After this analysis I can't say I blame Lucy for some of her machinations. However, her treatment of Elinor is abhorrent. It's okay to stake her claim, especially when that was a woman's way of securing her future, but to fix Elinor to her side while she plays with people's honor, in Edward's case, and vanity, in the case of everyone else, is indicative of something more malicious. Lucy might not have KNOWN that Elinor truly loved where she didn't, but judging from the behavior we know about, I don't think that would have mattered to Lucy.
I think that Lucy hated Elinor. The reason I think so was because I believe she purposely did not admit which Mr. Ferrars she married to the Dashwood's man-servant when he saw and spoke to her in Exeter(?). I think she wanted one more little dig at Elinor.
@@kataw0404 Even if she didn't hate her. To me she appears like one of these totally emotionless characters who only care for themselves and do not suffer remorse when they hurt others. Her charm is superficial and totally contrived, and works only on similarly self-absorbed people. To Lucy, Elinor was just an obstacle to be removed, and maybe that last performance was meant for Elinor to withdraw from the Ferrars family for good.
I blame Lucy most for how she treated Edward. She knew how seriously he considered the engagement, even if it wasn’t for emotions by the time of the novel, but to her them being engaged was like a game. She could have just ended it herself and still tried to scheme good match some other way.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Lucy would never have allowed the fish she caught to swim away until she caught a bigger fish! She lucked out at being able to interact with Edward to begin with and her connection to him was the only thing that gave her the ability to interact with people in his social circle. If she let him go, she'd end up back at Plymouth or with the Middletons/Mrs. Jennings and have to start back at square 1.
My impression from the novel was that the legal means used to disinherit Edward were so effective and severe that they couldn’t be undone, deliberately so in order to prevent Edward marrying Lucy in the hope of a reconciliation. So when Lucy switched her affections the family had no other possible choice of heir.
I believe the inheritance was irrevocably settled on Robert, meaning that there was some legal arrangement that prevented Robert from being disinherited.
@@davidwright7193 So, Lucy couldn't lose, as long as she didn't care which brother she married, and was confident of her ability to catch him. And got in fast, before any rivals to the newly attractive Robert.
@@mariar3767Lucy and Roberts are peas in a pod , both just as self absorbed, and as manipulative, as dismissive of anybody else's feelings . Robert could have given Edwards a part of his fortune for doing this to him , but he didn't!
Lucy is a next-level manipulator. It's so funny too because poor Anne is so hapless in comparison. As you were talking about these characteristics of Lucy's, I was thinking about how the 1995 adaptation left Anne out, as well as the Dashwoods' son and the Middletons' children, and those changes made Lucy less sycophantic and also more sympathetic. Instead of doting on a whole passel of wild kids, she gets cuddly with Fanny's little terrier. And she's the one who divulges her secret engagement to Fanny instead of Anne accidentally spitting it out. They're interesting work-arounds, but they change so much about who she actually is.
@@bethliebner1060 Watched it yesterday - it's 'Viper in my bosom!' And then she proceeds to grab Lucy by the nose and push her outside. It's hilarious.
The BBC Sense and Sensibility from 1981 is my favorite for Fanny's reaction to Lucy's engagement to Edward. She just shrieks, and keeps shrieking, and acts like a two-year-old, which I suppose was normal for when rich, entitled people didn't get their way back then.
Eleanor will aways be a favored Austen character for me but this reading gives me a better appreciation for the accent of Lucy Steele into better society. In today’s world she would be called fake and even a gold digger, but the stakes were so much higher in her time for her survival let alone her comfort in life. One commenter said don’t hate the player, hate the game. I totally agree. Props Lucy, props.
You point out that the Steele sisters are swift to understand other people and how to deal with them. It's occurred to me that Lucy must have taken Elinor's measure very quickly and accurately. She knew Elinor was honorable and would not reveal her secret, even at the cost of her own happiness. Really, since she confided in Elinor *before* asking for her secrecy, one could argue Elinor was not obliged to keep her secret, but she did, and Lucy knew she would. If Elinor had been a different sort of person, she could have ended Lucy's engagement, or at least imperiled it, very easily, just by telling Mrs. Ferrars.
Considering how Lucy was able to get pardoned and even admired by the Ferrars family, she probably would have found some way to rectify the situation anyway.
@@someonerandom256 When you consider the importance of marriage to a young woman in this time period, you do realize why she feels the need to hustle and it puts her actions into context. but I agree, I dislike her intensely bc she does take advantage of Elinor's character.
I dont think the Steel sisters would have been so welcome if the Dashwood sisters hadn't been there. Being nice to them was an excuse for cutting elinor and marianne.
I have long thought that the Steele sisters were the epitome of the ideas of sense and sensibility. While Elinor appears to be all sense and Marianne sensibility, we see that they both have a balance within them of each quality. Lucy, however seems to be all "sense" of a sort - manipulative, cunning and remorseless without allowing empathy to influence her behaviors and her sister, Ann is just pure emotional impulse.
Lucy Steele has always appeared to me to be a “villainess” by necessity. She did what she thought she had to do to get by in the world. Thank you fo this brilliant analysis!
Elinor was always one of my favourite Austen characters. I always thought she had so much inner strength! But I did also see what Lucy Steele was up to and why. It was not easy for women back then- your only chance of a “comfortable “ life was marrying well. I still think she was awful as a person though. But S&S has one of my favourite lines in it too. When Elinor is at a ball being talked at by Robert there is a line “ Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not believe he deserved the compliment of rational opposition “, it is such a mood!
Elinor deserved better. Edward had no business courting her while engaged to another. He was cheating on Lucy and Elinor, both. He even lied about the lock of hair in the ring. Lucy was dreadful, but that doesn't excuse Edward's behavior. Lucy was at least letting Elinore in on a secret she needed to know.
THANK YOU. Edward had to know how Elinor felt about him. His deception kept her in limbo; and he knew her financial situation. It was selfish of him not to tell her.
She is scheming, treacherous and vindictive, yet I have more respect for Lucy Steele than those she preys upon, Mrs Ferrars, Mrs Fanny Dashwood (née Ferrars), Robert Ferrars and even maybe Edward Ferrars, though he has some redeeming qualities.
Jane Austen's insight on how the game is played, its rules are written, and what the players will do, is universal. It's similar to what goes on here in America. The warped absurdities of the past 5 years show that people will shamelessly abase themselves in order to have status, power, and wealth.
No god but Allah Islam way for peace and the real monotheism Search for the truth and right way with honest heart And ask him for the right way for his mercy.
I might be the outlier but I always had a kind of grudging respect for her. When she was pretty young, mid teens maybe? she recognized that Edwards was an opportunity to have a better life. I dont think she would have even made Edward a bad wife really since she was so determined to "get on". It wouldnt have been a great marriage but would have been a better marriage than many Austen has shown us. She's of a lower class than Elinor, no connections and no money. She saw the brass ring and grabbed it. Then to have the skills to suss out that Elinor was a threat, it might be against the whole Jane Austen spirit but I kind of admire it in a female antihero way like maybe Becky Sharp or Scarlett O'Hara. And in the end, there wasnt a lot of harm done. Edward didnt want her, Elinor got him and most people were happy. And she had the social skills to end up being old Mrs Ferrars favorite daughter in law which probably means her kids with Robert end up being the favorite grandkid and that's got to rightly tick off Fanny Dashwood. I know Im supposed to loathe her but every time I read it and find out she traded Edward for Robert so skillfully I just think "that girl's got spunk"
@@ladykemma3 I assume Edward talked about Elinor to Lucy when he visited? But I don't know if I'm flashing on the 1995 adaptation, where there's a scene of Lucy saying "if Edward had ever talked about _one_ woman more than the other, I would be instantly suspicious, but of course he wouldn't" because, you know, twisting the knife. Does anyone know if there's something like that in the book?
@@DaisyNinjaGirl Yes, it's in chapter 24 - Lucy says she is "inclined" enough to "suspicion to have found the truth in an instant if [among other things, all of which were clearly true of Edward] he had talked more of one lady than another . . . "
@Luise Herpich Interesting observations, here. I think I'M enjoying Lucy's and Elinor's interactions so much, that I'm not quite sure how Lucy feels about them! Re the cruel trick of allowing Elinor to think she (Lucy) has married Edward - how could Lucy be sure that the manservant would report their meeting in the way he did? It seems very chancy - though certainly the malice is of a piece with her character. I imagine that someone who has to suppress their true feelings so much of the time must let the bitterness out sometimes, when she feels safe to do so. Let's not forget that, as sisters-in-law, Lucy and Elinor will remain in each other's social circles for life. Could Lucy's wiles work even on Elinor...?Perhaps they won't have to spend much time together, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they do! 😁
The verb "procuring" applied to the devious doings of Lucy Steele always puts me in mind of the meaning the word "procuress" traditionally had in the English language... maybe Jane Austen was trying to convey that particular shade of meaning as well?
Women in that era, unless well born and wealthy, had few choices. If poor, they had to work, if middle class but impoverished, they also had to work. In the gentry, women had to marry well, if possible, or remain spinsters. Why does Charlotte Lucas marry Mr. Collins? So she can be Mrs. Collins and have an establishment of her own. It is difficult nowadays to consider that women had so few choices but many novels show the reality; many of Austen's works and those of the Bronte sisters highlight this.
I agree with everything you said. But you left out an important aspect of Lucy's character - her vindictive cruelty towards Elinor. This appears several times in the book - in her insisting on sharing the details of her relationship with Edward with Elinor, again and again, her endeaver to make Elinor jealous when they are invited to the Ferrars, and finally, in her message to the Dashwoods after her marriage - a piece of gratuous cruelty. The psychologist Robert Sternberg was the first to define social ability as a kind of intelligence. And I definitely agree with him, that the ability to read the society you are in and plan your actions in order to succeed in that society is an ability (an an enviable one, in my opinion) rather than a crime. But doing it by stepping on others, and more than that, being deliberately cruel to others, is a moral crime. And Lucy is guilty of that crime. Elinor is definitely too severe about Lucy, blaming her for doing the best for herself in a difficult situation. But Lucy deserves censure for her viciousness. And does Lucy really win? We are told in the end (again, with exquisite irony), that "setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands of course took a part, as well as the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves, nothing could exceed the harmony in which they all lived together." Can we really set these discords aside? Has Lucy really achieved her "happily ever after"?
And if you are not convinced, compare Lucy Steele's behaviour to Charlotte Lucas's actions. They are both in similar situations, and both make choices to marry unpleasant men (to say the least) for money and security. And both are censured by the heroines for their choice, which offends their delicacy and ideal of love and respect in marriage. But what a difference! Charlotte, like Lucy, takes her destiny into her own hands, and actively pursues the man she wants to secure. But she doesn't hurt anybody on the way there. And the huge difference - Charlotte, once she has secured her marriage, does everything in her power to make it work harmoniously - she uses her social skills to make her life bearable while making her husband happy, satisfied with his choice and admiring and loving her. While Lucy - as I quoted above, "the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves." She got what she wanted, but isn't prepared to pay the price.
And she is also vindictive towards Edward, Mrs. Farrars and the Dashwoods in general and gets revenge with Robert as the dupe. The only thing I don't understand is how Robert could want to marry a penniless cast-off when he is always trying to aggrandize himself - unless it's just pure vengeance towards Edward - a sort of "haha, I got your girlfriend and your inheritance" thing.
@@LadyIarConnacht I think it's exactly that - it's even stated in the book: "He was proud of his conquest, proud of tricking Edward, and very proud of marrying privately without his mother's consent." The stuffed up dandy was too dense to realize that Lucy was no great catch, and that Edward was completely disenchanted with her and would be delighted to be released from her. After all, staying with a girl he didn't fancy just because decency demanded he wouldn't dump her wasn't something he could comprehend. For him, if Edward stayed faithful to Lucy, he must be madly in love with her, and therefore if he, Robert, could steal her away, it would be a triumph over Edward.
Lucy Steel was a survivor. I don't justify her ways, but in the time, place and circumstances that she was born, it was either be cunning and don't look back or end up on a street or as a pauper. So I kind of admire her talent for manipulating people in an almost artistic way.
What I admired about Lucy was that she always aimed a bit higher than what she had already. She secured her engagement to Edward and then when he was cut off by his mother, she married Robert instead. When Mrs F cut Edward off, she secured Robert's fortune on him so he didn't make the same financial decision that Edward did in marrying her. Lucy was now married to a wealthy gentleman. She then went about procuring Mrs F's forgiveness to improve her situation even further. Eleanor however was quite happy just being married to the man she loved with no desire to increase her fortune or position in life.
I see Lucy as a gold digger. She quickly switched her affection from Edward to Robert after Mrs. Ferrars stripped Edward of his inheritance and gave it to Robert. Doesn’t she realize Robert married the same girl Edward was once engaged to? But Robert gets to keep the inheritance?
At that point, Mrs. Ferrars had settled it "irrevocably" on Robert. To me, it doesn't sound like she could do much to alter it even if she wanted to. Also agree that she didn't want to appear ridiculous.
Robert was her favorite son. Probably because his personality was so similar to hers. She was greatly disappointed that Edward, her eldest and heir, turned out to be an unambitious, shy, modest and gentle soul. Whereas Robert was just as awful as his sister and mother and Lucy is more like her than Elinor is. She may dislike Lucy but she hates Elinor for indulging Edward's personality and for basically being a non-materialistic and kind person.
I agree! When I read this, I was like the mother is dumb. She didn’t want him to keep his engagement going with Lucy. Even told Elinor’s brother that she would’ve liked to believe the rumors of Edward’s affection for Elinor vs being engaged to Lucy. Then allows Robert and Lucy to marry.
I have always disliked Edward Ferrars... He was weak enough to fall for Lucy and her fake charms, he flirted with Elinor (in his own dull and stiff way!) even though he was engaged to another. Then when Lucy followed the money and swapped her affections, Edward came creeping back to Elinor and his bad behaviour was rewarded by acquiring an honourable, educated and truly genteel wife.
The episode, Elinor and Maryanne Dashwood (Engagements & Hair), first made me think of Elinor as an unreliable narrator. How much of our understanding of Lucy is flitered through Elinor's criticle eye?
I think Lucy Steele and Charlotte Lucas are both survivors in a world where there choices are limited. And there really isn't a lot of difference in their actions - except that Lucy in addition to securing her future, also trades up when the opportunity presents. If Austen's brief mentioned of "Mary being persuaded to take him (Mr. Collins)" were read into in detail, Charlotte took the security of all the Bennet girls when she so quickly stepped in (and Mary and Mr. Collins may have made one of the happiest couples in Austen, not pleasant to be around, but happy with each other). Lucy's trading up to Robert could have been written as a generous act (of course it wasn't) in that she knew Edward loved Elinor. I've also often wondered if Lucy couldn't figure out how Elinor felt about Edward - certainly Elinor showed the Austenian virtue of not wearing her heart on her sleeve and hiding her feelings. So its possible to extrapolate a situation where Lucy is unwilling to give up her chance of security in favor of a woman who has no more romantic affection for Edward than she does. And as for Edwards affection, Lucy knows it to be fickle. (But Lucy is such a good villain written as she is)
Oh please, do not drag Charlotte to Lucy's level. Lucy is indeed a great, Regency era female villainess. Charlotte saved Lizzy from exposing her emotions, controlled as Lizzy might be, not to insult Mr Darcy whereas Lucy torments girl who lost her fortune with delight and does everything to harm the chances of whole family.
@@julijakeit While Charlotte probably used her influence on her husband to help the Bennets. And Mr Collins never looked at Mary so it's not like she stole him from her.
While Mr Collins was unable to have any introspection about himself I think he was very aware that Mary would have been looked upon askew by people around him and that she may have angred a congregation rather than placate it. He is a selfish man, but is selfishness is also what allows him to understand that he needs a wife that makes him look good. While Mary may be more aligned with his personality she would never make him look good, so Mr Collins vanity means he would never have considered her. So Charlotte is not taking anything from the Bennet girls that isn't alredy taken the moment Elisabeth declines his proposal. Charlotte marrying Mr Collins certainly hurt the feelings of the Bennet familiy in some ways, but as outsiders we can see that she wasn't swooping in and taking anything that wasn't alredy of the table for them. As such any hope of marrying Mary of to Mr Collins was only the Bennets wishful thinking and not a realistic plan. That said, yes, the societal circumstances that pushes both Lucy Steel and Carlotte Lucas into their respective actions to secure a marrige are the same.
Mary and Collins would have been miserable as a married couple. As far as one can tell, she has no practical training useful in running a house or being a vicar's helpmeet. I can't imagine her going out of her way to make a husband comfortable. And I can't imagine how she would have dealt with Lady Catherine. As both she and Mr. Collins like to be the center of attention and enjoy lecturing others, there would definitely have been some conflict there; both are narcissists.. And, even though it was not reciprocated by any of them, Mr. Collins has an eye for a pretty woman, and Mary is the least pretty of her sisters. Charlotte may not be beautiful, but she seems to have been the more womanly of the two. Charlotte is no Lucy. She never hurts anyone; Lucy is continually prodding Elinor. I don't think that Charlotte, knowing that Jane had no interest in Collins and that Lizzie had rejected him, could really have felt that it was likely the younger three girls (can you picture Lydia as Mrs. Collins?) were going to accept him. I don't think she was endangering their security. She only wants a respectable home, and when she achieves it, she makes it as comfortable and convenient for her husband as she can. She has no particular taste that I see for social climbing, and I can't imagine her dumping her fiancé if someone richer came along. No, she's no Lucy.
Oh wow, i loved this! I feel for Lucy Steele. It takes skill to suck up to people and endure spoiled children. I doubt i could do all that "pleasing." But i say, kudos to her. She has a personal mission in life and she works with what she has. Thanks so much for this.
On the other hand, we are reminded of Miss Bates' remark, "One mustn't compliment, I know, but...." when trying to tell Emma how lovely she is at the ball, and we know that Miss Bates is a lady in the social sense, because Emma calls on her. So in truly polite society, the Steele sisters' flattery would not have been seen as polite, but quite the opposite, which is an indication that Lady Middleton's own interpretation of excellent manners come from a shallow school.
Because Mary doesn't really understand what she studies or reads just as she probably plays all the right notes on the piano but does not interpret the piece correctly. And then she goes one step farther and brags about her talents in all fields and looks down on others who prefer to actually dance at a party and enjoy themselves.
I think it's interesting how often Austen stresses Lucy's lack of education. The uncle she often stays with is the one who educated Edward but his own neice are uneducated. Of she were better educated Edward might not have lost interest.
I agree. Edward was initially charmed by Lucy's appearance and flattering ways, but that was all she had to offer. Lucy didn't "wear well" over the long term with a man of education.
Excellent video. I would love to see a comparison between Lucy Steel and Becky Sharp from the novel Vanity Fair. Two female characters that live by their wits, and attain material security through their own efforts.
Lucy acted in her own interest, understandably so because she had nothing but her smarts and pretty face to get her secure establishment in life. I can even forgive telling Elinor about the secret engagement to deter her from Edward. But then she purposely and maliciously rubbed it in at every ocassion. For no other gain than to give Elinor pain.
The faux moral at the end is something that I find myself quoting very often. One of the most brilliant examples of Jane Austen’s social commentary. It rings as true as ever, especially in our age of overexposure when scenes, both private and public, worthy of her novels, are splashed all over the Internet.
I really hated Lucy when i read it the first time. I want to re-read it and see if I can see her story from a different perspective. Because overcoming her status like that is pretty impressive.
You certainly hit the nail on the head when you described the alacrity with which the Steele sisters abandon one perch as soon as they're offered a more comfortable one! It reminds me of teenage girls planning to get together on the weekends, with the understanding that if one of them is asked on a date by a boy, *naturally* all these plans with the girlfriends go out the window! Lucy takes self-interest to an entirely different level when she finally snags Robert. For those absolving her of cruelty, don't forget that she abandons her own sister Nancy, after taking all their money and leaving her quite destitute, a comic re-enactment of Catherine Morland's predicament. Mrs. Jennings had to come to the rescue and give her enough money to travel to some friends. This was quite cold-hearted and needless, as Lucy was marrying a rich man, but compared with her own advantage, even family ties mean nothing.
Not to defend Lucy's actions, but I read it that she needed some cash to get to Robert, and left Anne cashless, rather than destitute (not that that makes it OK to steal from her!). There must be some money around for Lucy and Anne to dress so smartly that Lady Middleton, no less, thinks they look alright. I imagine Lucy knew that Anne would have done the same to her (like those teenage girls you mentioned), and that, once married she can help her to a rich husband. To me, it's comic, as you say, rather than tragic. Many people in these comments have described Lucy and her sister as "poor", but I don't think they are. They are just lower on the social scale, and less genteel than the Dashwoods - they may well be better off, financially. Having said that, I wouldn't put it past Lucy to abandon or make use of anyone to get what she wants.
Thankyou for pointing this out. I had forgotten that she dumped her sister. She really was out only for herself. I don’t blame her for trying to survive, but I do blame her for dumping Nancy. Perhaps Mrs Jennings took her in; that lady had a kind heart.
It is interesting to compare Lucy Steel with Harriet Smith. I don’t think anyone really sees Harriet as a monster/villain. Yet I think many of the traits in Lucy are echoed in Harriet who is described by Emma herself as “She is not a clever girl, but she has better sense than you are aware of, and does not deserve to have her understanding spoken of so slightingly. Waving that point, however, and supposing her to be, as you describe her, only pretty and good-natured, let me tell you, that in the degree she possesses them, they are not trivial recommendations to the world in general . . . Her good-nature, too, is not so very slight a claim, comprehending, as it does, real, thorough sweetness of temper and manner, a very humble opinion of herself, and a great readiness to be pleased with other people. I am very much mistaken if your sex in general would not think such beauty, and such temper, the highest claims a woman could possess." Emma is of course correct in that these traits, when weaponised as Lucy Steel does, are indeed formidable tools in the social climbing game. The difference being that Harriet is somewhat naïve and Lucy far more worldly and perhaps Machiavellian? My point is that even Emma knows these rules about polite society that in S&S Elinor seems more blind too.
What a fabulous insight into Lucy Steele who's always discussed as one dimensional. Two things that come to mind: 1. In Lucy Steele and Mrs Ferrars, JA seems to explore in more detail the idea of self interest and how it manifests itself between two self interested individuals. We of course have the Crawford brother and sister in Mansfield Park but these and other examples are usually focussed on self interest on the inside and not on one such as Lucy Steele attempting to work their way in. 2. Again, you provided an insight into Marianne that added a further dimension to her personality ie her ideas about Lucy Steele and how she could be improved. The suggestion Lucy might be improved by education comes from a definitive place of privilege, to use as 21st but appropriate idiom. Not only would the plot line disappear but in doing this Lucy would never be able to better herself had she been equipped with ideas that would prevent her behaving as she does but she would no doubt be the best educated farmer's wife (Mrs Martin?) or dependent on others (Mrs and Miss Bates?). In the context of Georgian society I don't "blame" Lucy Steele or decry her for the only way a woman had to better herself: marriage. It was a society based on respectability which continued as a concept in one for or another until the early 70s.I grew up under it myself and can see how Lucy uses it to her own benefit and it was only my own privilege and education during that time that allowed me to see it and dislike it for myself. Thanks again for another great lecture.
I've always found Lucy Steele to be the girl you love to hate. "Steele" is exactly the name for her. She is Becky Sharp in real life and her career is what it would be in the real world, not the sentimental puppet show of Vanity Fair. (I have never believed in Becky's Bad End!) Lucy doesn't make unnecessary enemies and, unlike the less intelligent Lady Middleton and Fanny Dashwood, she will be praised by all the World all her future life. You make a good point about toadying being expected of those in "inferior" positions. As my husband and I watched your video I told him, "This reminds me of something," and afterward I looked up and read to him Dickens' description of the large family at Astley's in Sketches by Boz. "... one of the little boys was seated behind a pillar and could not see, so the governess was stuck behind the pillar, and the boy lifted into her place. .. "... the poor governess peeped out from behind the pillar, and timidly tried to catch ma’s eye, with a look expressive of her high admiration of the whole family." And when her employer laughs, "the governess peeped out from behind the pillar again, and whenever she could catch ma’s eye, put her handkerchief to her mouth, and appeared, as in duty bound, to be in convulsions of laughter also." Here is the average toady. Lucy is an expert. But they are both playing by the same rules.
But Lucy wasn’t on anyone’s payroll. The governess was dependent on those ppl for her livelihood. Though governesses had education to qualify for employment in educating children, Lucy was lacking in this area. Even the woman “fortunate” enough to be qualified to seek employment to work in that capacity, their life was hard and precarious.
Lucy has such “good for her” energy. Like, she had no prospects but managed to marry a rich man and become the favorite daughter in law through the power of flattery and acting. She is why I say I respect gold diggers: because it does take work and it is hard and not everyone can keep it up, and I sincerely applaud the women who pull it off and laugh all the way to the bank. On an unrelated note, I love your channel! You have inspired me to do a Jane Austen listen-through for my personal 2021 goal, and I’ve immensely enjoyed it. I’m currently on Northanger Abbey, (which quickly shot up to 2nd favorite after P&P), and overall the experience had given me a burst of creative energy for my own writing. Thanks so much for sharing your passion with the rest of us!
Yes, I don't really have that much sympathy with these rich men, in a world where people starved, and girls who made a minor mistake easily could lose everything, even in the book. If they are to vain to notice their being played, the joke's on them.
Superb lecture as usual, Dr. Cox! ❤️ I never liked Lucy Steele because she was so obviously favoured over Eleanor and Marianne despite being fake AF! The fact that she promptly moves her "feelings" from one brother to another as soon as she understands the money dynamics further proves the point that many mechanisms of British society (especially upper classes but also in the baby boomer descendants of the cushy middle-classes today), are locked in the sense of the self-perceived superiority, which favours the ones who pretend to play the game and give them the desired validation. As soon as you challenge it - or show that you recognise and refuse to believe in the game they play - it's game over for you, especially if they are your superiors at work!
People in every social group suffer from self-perceived superiority. For example, a lot of working class people like to refer to their own class as "the salt of the earth." That is very self-congratulatory.
@@glendodds3824 Perhaps, but at the same time it is true. If they completely refused to do the jobs they do, we wouldn't enjoy the cushy lives we have. And the white collars, professionals, and high society types certainly won't pick up the slack. Ironic, when you consider that the traditionally the working class is considered to be "below the salt."
Jane Austen had no love for the ingratiating Steele sisters, as well as George Wickham and Mr. Collins in P&P, and their like. She often takes pleasure in exposing them for the avarious amoral social climbers that they are. Their “betters” may be aware of their true motives but choose instead to take them at face value. The royalty choose their courtiers by the false heart, not the true head. Frank Churchill, in Emma, tries to ingratiate himself to Miss Woodhouse, but he doesn’t try all that hard … only hard enough to injure the steadfast feelings of his betrothed. All the Austen villains are of this type and are seen through by her heroes and by her readers. They exist today - they always have and ever will, like remora servicing sharks, humpback whales benefiting from barnacles - and those who are susceptible to their charms will ever be so. Parasite, the recent film, had willing-to-believe royalty that were actually sympathetic to the audience. BIG mistake. They never fooled Austen and her heroes, and they never fool us. Or do they? Sometimes it’s hard to take the measure of a person with a black heart. Praise can be true or false. Jane Austen delineated the difference between sincerity and insincerity, imbued her heroes with a quiet moral superiority and her villains with a loud falseness. There are the praiseworthy and there are the players. ETA: Emma Woodhouse was susceptible to praise from the insincere yet had the heart of a heroine. It took Mr. Knightley to set her aright. He judged her and did not find her wanting in the realm of what truly matters. She had been indulged, as a self-important Lady lording it over a very small fiefdom, but it was Mr. Knightley and only Mr. Knightley who saw her true worth.
Lucy Steele was well portrayed in the movie (Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant version), except that the actress I felt, was not pretty enough. I throughly despised Lucy Steele and was disappointed that she was so well rewarded at the end, but if she had not used her wiles to advantage, there would have been no other way for her to succeed. Therefore, I do admire Lucy Steele for her skilfulness and determination to win at this game.
If you enjoy my channel you can support it here:
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N
Thank you for watching.
I learn so much from your close readings! I am beginning to get the hang of Austen's careful word choices, as you point them out. Also I like videos where you ask: what role does this character play (like a middle Bennet sister)?
I wonder there would be comparison of Lucy Steele and Harriet Smith from Emma.
Thank you for a delightful exploration of more of Jane Austen's work. What is interesting to me is the expectation of where our sympathies should lie, that is with Elinor and Marianne. We are supposed to find Lucy obnoxious and disagreeable because that is how Elinor perceives her. But it leads me to wonder how I would view Lucy or someone like Lucy were we to actually meet. I hope my regard for integrity would surpass my regard for charm or amiableness. Makes me think of Skimpole in Bleak House.
Ca bd is an c'est c Xcaret
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game” … Lucy Steele (possibly)😆
Lol
*sings 'The Game' by motorhead ...
😂 100%
Right lol
I think that Lucy is written to be a more extreme version of Elinor in some ways. Like Eliza Williams is an exaggerated version of Marianne - what happens if you let your sensibility totally overrule your sense - Lucy seems to be an example of what happens if you logically ("sensibly") conform to what society asks of you, without any regard for sensibility (feelings and morals). Elinor does try to conform to society in many ways, but she refuses to lie and decieve - while Lucy takes it one step further.
I think one of the clever things Austen does is that she uses more one-dimensional characters, like Lucy, or Eliza Williams, or Lydia and Mary Bennett, to illuminate the more rounded, dimensional quality of her heroines. Lizzy is headstrong, but she has morals. She wants to learn (read, play) and better herself, but she also wants to have fun. Her more extreme sisters make it clear that she's a more rounded, more balanced character in spite of her faults. It makes the reader more tolerant to those faults.
I think in this way, Lucy Steele is in the novel to help us understand Elinor. We are not to judge her for conforming to society to the extend that she does, for hiding her true feelings to the extend that she does. Because she has moral values and better feelings, she's moderate in her conformation to society. This balance in Elinor is highlighted by the fact that there is a Lucy Steele in the plot, who does not have morals or feelings (or at least if she does, she doesn't let them interfere with her behaviour).
Without Lucy, with only Marianne's excessive romantic heroine sensibility as a foil to Elinor, Elinor would come off as much colder and more calculating and maybe less sympathetic. Lucy provides a certain balance - and she highlights the ridiculousness of society, and in a sense also makes the reader see that no matter how hard Elinor tries to conform to what is expected of her by society, she is fighting an uphill battle as long as she allows her morals to stand in the way.
All in all, though, I think that at the end of the novel Elinor is shown to be a lot happier than Lucy, because she can be herself and be at peace with herself. Lucy will have to endeavour and scheme for the rest of her life, and if she has any feelings, she will have to suppress them.
Lucy is shameless; what part of Elinor's personality does this reflect?
@@archiewoosung5062 OP is pointing out how Lucy is a useful foil to Elinor from a mix of similarities and differences. They both embody sense (even if Lucy’s is ‘of a certain kind’) but Elinor tempers her sense with moral/emotional sensibility. That is what prevents her from being shameless, as Lucy is. Lucy lacks (or represses) these good feelings. So, re:your question, Lucy’s shamelessness is a key feature that sets her apart from Elinor, which is what makes comparing the two a worthwhile exercise.
@@CynicismFollows Quite new to me to compare Lucy & Elinor, I've been used to thinking of the contrast between Elinor & Marianne.
Not sure there are enough parallels to make a comparison; we can compare an elephant with a piece of toast, but not sure how useful that would be...did Austen really give more thought to this than I did?
@@archiewoosung5062 It's not necessarily important whether or not Jane Austen consciously intended it or not (though I think she did).
Social conformity is a major theme in the book generally and especially for Elinor, and it's something both her and Lucy share. They both strongly believe in conformity, so they are very similar in that way, but are different in how they are willing to go about doing it. In that difference lies the social critique.
@@roelin360
Definitely think it's important what Austen intended, but that's not the only criterion.
You can compare any characters you like, & if something interesting comes out of it, that's excellent.
I am simply saying it never occurred to me that there's anything that makes Lucy particularly worth comparing to Elinor (& I stubbornly insist Austen's intentions are relevant).
I will think about it, but of course, don't expect anyone to care what I think.
Elinor and Marianne have been unwittingly let down by their parents. Nothing in their life at Norlands prepared them for the life they, their mother and Margaret, are forced to lead following the death of their father, consequently after their move to Devon they are playing a game without understanding the rules. Lucy Steele on the other hand, understands 'the rules' perfectly, as does her sister Anne, though Anne doesn't have the looks, the personality - or the sheer ruthlessness - to win the game. There is always a great deal unsaid in Jane Austen's novels, I always feel the story is just the tip of the iceberg. The Steele sisters' uncle has clearly had to make his way in the world and no doubt this is the same for the whole family, so the girls grew up watching how it was done, whereas Elinor and Marianne knew nothing but 'elegance' in their childhood and were very sheltered. Ultimately, without Colonel Brandon stepping in to protect them, the Dashwood sisters faced a grim prospect of sliding into poverty. Lucy is streets ahead of them.
All that said, it is the Dashwoods, Colonel Brandon and Edward who finish the book in what I think of as 'Jane Austen heaven,' ie a group of people of high integrity who love and respect one another living in close proximity - happy ever after. The other half of the Dashwood family, Willoughby, Robert and Lucy probably won't be unhappy because they simply don't understand the characters and mindset of the others, they can't see past money, status, fine houses and position in society, but that's their loss surely.
Why is it their loss? They are happy in their way, aren't they?
@@deliciousful Willoughby will an absolutely miserable. He married a woman he didn't love for her money, which turned out to be unnecessary. He will have to live knowing he could have married an amazing girl that loved him and he was too chicken lived to go through with it. Lucy will probably be happy in a shallow, unfulfilled way because she's a gold-digger.
Elinor understood Lucy Steele perfectly. She was never taken in, and her perceptiveness is shared with the readers. Marianne, otoh, is just like her mother, awash in sensibilities. All the while that Marianne is moping away histrionically, Elinor suffers in silence - she governed her emotions. After listening to this video I listened to the book again - if y’all haven’t heard Juliet Stevenson’s performance, you’re missing out. Remember, Marianne is scarcely17, but her mother, at 40, ought to have known better.
That is so true. Elinor and Marianne don’t seem to worry too much about what most around them would consider vitally important to their survival: marrying well. They both think more of a love match, even if Elinor handles it better than Marianne. They learned this from their mother who clearly never thought her daughters would need to consider marrying up. Good thing Brandon has enough money to take care of them all!
This is so insightful.
The fact that Lucy's behaviour is not only condoned, but also encouraged says more about the society that she is in than Lucy Steele herself.
How did society condone Lucy's behaviour?
Any encouragement was surely inadvertent...and the benefit she accrued was surely directed at her husband?
It says about herself too to be honest. The world is plagued with people like that character.
@@archiewoosung5062 If society rewards your behavior, that means it's condoned?
@@Genevieve1023 Not sure how you thought that's what I was saying!
@@archie6945 My comment was misworded. If your behavior allows you to continually climb the social ladder, until you get to a pretty hefty amount of wealth and status, that should have been almost impossible for you, how is your behavior not condoned?
A great analysis, particularly when you read Lady Middleton's first reaction to the Steele sisters. One of the things I always liked about Sense and Sensibility, is that I think there is great realism in the happy endings of the antagonists - neither Lucy nor Willoughby suffer very much in the end, and since both operated on very selfish principles throughout, Austen shows a lot of canny understanding that people who know how to work the rules of society can do well out of it.
A lot of realism in Jane Austen. Bad people have good things. And people adapt better than romance novels normally allow.
I always found Lucy’s personality highly distasteful, but I also feel, upon honest reflection, that she may be just have been doing whatever she could to secure her future. She was trying to prevent her “catch” from being “stolen” by Elinor, so from her perspective Elinor isn’t ever a friend. But still, she’s awful. 😁
Yes, I don't entirely blame Lucy, as women had few options in that time. Still, I'm glad that a sweetheart like Edward didn't end up with her. Lucy and Robert deserved each other!
@@MoselleGreen being so entirely dishonest and false is something more than just securing a future, even in such difficult times. She shows up and talks about her feelings when she has none - pretending to be someone she is not - and being deadly mean the same time (like when she says some words of compassion and friendship about Marianne when she doesn't like her at all and feel contemptuous about her situation). This kind of soul dishonesty is disgusting in any times - for me at least - protecting her catch (telling Elinor about it) is kind of reasonable but all the rest of her behaviour (and her inner life) is unacceptable for me :)
Some of her behaviors, though abhorrent, I agree to be understandable. I find no excuse for her purposefully deceiving the Dashwood's man servant so that he would give a false report to Elinor that Edward and Lucy were married. That was just spiteful. She didn't want Edward, but she didn't want Elinor and him to be happy together either. That, honestly, was the worst of her behaviors. It was the only act that was not somehow aimed at securing her own future, but at actively hurting someone else and her future.
@@FranciscanGypsy I think that was accidental. Robert Ferrars was there in the chaise beside her. Perhaps the servant didn't see him clearly, but even so he didn't specify that it was Edward Ferrars, just Mr. Ferrars. The Dashwoods assumed it was because they knew he and Lucy had been engaged.
@@Izabela-ek5nh Hi. I have enjoyed your comment.
I think it's easy for us to look down and the things Lucy Steele was ready to do to secure her future. As a young woman I hated her, but as I'm getting older and as I learned more about what woman had to deal with and what little options they had, I can understand her more and more. I do not think she is evil, and I do not even think she is a bad woman. I think she was ready to do what needed to be done in her eyes. She was not fond of them, she most likely did not even like them, but she knew how to use them to get what she wanted. I can admire that, even when I can't say I would be able to do the same.
In the long term though, when is it going to be enough for Lucy that she can drop the act, at least a little. It must be exhausting to always be acting and observing and deciding who is the most important person in the room to flatter or how to get around competing opinions or interests (choosing sides or working out how to seem like she's on both sides). She is never just herself doing what makes her happy. When/if she and Robert have children will they take priority or will it still be about planning for the next big success.
I always wondered how Lucy's and Robert's marriage would go. Now I know. She will have Robert raised into nobility. 😅
She can drop the act if she has sons of her own and her husband is dead. Her road is to become the new Mrs Ferras, not just in name. She will probably be just as manipulative with her own children.
When Mrs. Ferrars is dead and Robert has inherited the rest of the estate. Divorce was extremely rare in those days, usually only if the wife was publicly caught out in adultery, so her position as Robert's wife is secure. All that's left is to get the rest of Mrs. Ferrars' wealth. There is a hint in the novel that she does drop the act with Robert when it refers to their disagreements.
Great reading Dr Cox. I like how you remind us of Austen's word choice. "Procure/ procurement" and the derivative "procurator" have merchant/legal applications, while "secure" and the related word "security" have financial and legal associations. These are not neutral words. Austen has chosen them carefully to suggest the calculating element in Lucy Steele's actions.
Wealth and status always attract flatterers and sycophants, like a flame attracts moths, and Austen was right onto them; her observation of flatterers in her novels as they enmesh, or attempt to enmesh their targets, are razorsharp.
Austen is an interesting contestant. She is enrolled by birth in the Regency Future Wife Influencer industry. She fashions herself into the announcer and makes money off of commentating the lives of other competitors instead.
I usually conclude that Jane Austen‘s characters are really archetypes - and can be found in any generation, not just amongst the Georgians. I think you could find Lucy Steele amongst us very easily. Having said that - as usual, A brilliant video! Thank you 💕💕
This was wonderful - thank you.
I love the rest of the line which you started (in Ch 50) - "They settled in town...were on the best possible terms with the Dashwoods: and setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands took part....." My money has always been on Lucy in these "little jealousies" - Fanny doesn't stand a chance. But she helped create the monster that Lucy becomes, and what you sow, you reap.
But Lucy can be pretty vicious and spiteful in a petty way when she knows that she can get away with it - allowing Elinor (through their servant) to believe that she (Lucy) had married Edward.
You cannot possibly like her - but you have to admire her - she knows what she wants (a rich husband) and she knows how to get it.
Delicious comment! I have always wondered how Lucy could have known the manservant would report their conversation in the way he does. Sure, he'd call her "Mrs Ferrars", but he might have mentioned "Mr Robert" too soon. I agree Lucy wanted to give Elinor pain - Sense and Sensibility is about women fighting other women through the men. Fanny gets rid of her child's rivals for the inheritance through manipulating John Dashwood, and Miss Grey dictates Willoughby's cruel letter to Marianne. Elinor and Lucy fence directly with each other while outwardly co-operating on a very feminine craft project. Col. Brandon and Willoughby fight an actual duel, and, presumably, since both are alive and well, both miss. When the women duel, they don't miss. Lucy Steele (even her name suggests a weapon) is a worthy opponent for Elinor, and, as such, immensely entertaining.
She is also a kind of shadow Elinor - the elder of two sisters, the one with more social "nous" and appreciation of economic realities. At the end there's even a suggestion that Elinor sucks up to Mrs Ferrars just enough to get Edward a slightly better income. What an interesting sister-in-law relationship that will be.
@@londongael Great insight of Lucy as a “shadow” Elinor!
I feel there is nothing to admire in sneaky, tricky, false person, so I cannot agree here, but yes I was always curious about the future life of Lucy and Fanny as relatives and "friends".
@@kittykatz4001 Yeah, the Steele sisters are a (very funny) parody of the Dashwoods. Where Elinor is realistic and sensible, Lucy is calculating and devious. Where Marianne is honest and open, Anne is a tactless blabbermouth. Both sets of sisters have secrets from each other: the Dashwoods suffer nobly in silence, while the Steeles listen at keyholes and hide behind chimney boards (which involves crouching in a disused fireplace!). In short, "the sweetest girls in the world". 😂 BTW, I was wrong before - Anne is the elder sister.
@@londongael I can't remember exactly how the servant reported Lucy's message, but Robert Ferrars was lying back in the coach and could not be seen clearly: I shall have to check the book: if Lucy simply reported that she was married to "Mr Ferrars" or that she was now "Mrs Ferrars" the (wrong but natural) assumption would be that she and Edward had married.
On your other points (essentially "Women Beware Women"),
a) I don't think that Fanny and John Dashwood's child's inheritance was in any danger - except that it might be reduced by £9,000 (admittedly a large sum in the Regency era, but an amount which John and Fanny could easily afford);
b) "Miss Grey dictates Willoughby's cruel letter to Marianne": as one of the Males of the species, I am amazed at how easily women can be duped: we only have Willoughby's word that his wife dictated the letter (and, if this were true, no honourable explanation of why he didn't refuse to co-operate), and I cannot understand how Elinor could be so trusting of this serial seducer of under-age girls, who has been so totally dishonest in all his dealings.
Yes, Elinor (ever practical) did persuade the reluctant Edward to ask for a marriage gift from Mrs Ferrars - they got £10k and the narrator tells us that Mrs Ferrars was the only one of the three who was surprised that more wasn't requested.
I think a lot of readers ignored Edward's less than honorable behavior because he's 'sweet'.
Lucy didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to propose. He was young, he was foolish, but he did it on his own, knowing the rules said he couldn't break it.
What really bothers me is how he treated Elinor. Until Lucy told her about the engagement, she had every reason to think he was free. Edward had to suspect her feelings, but continued to come around.
I just discovered you. Have you ever analyzed Mrs. Elton? She is a riot! Sometimes I just skim through Emma to read her dialogue is, and to see how quickly she changes the topic back to herself.
I'd love to see a video on Mrs Elton and her caro sposo!
Dr. Cox did a video on Stream of Consciousness in Jane Austen in which she spoke at length about Mrs. Elton. I bet you’d like that one!
This was even more interesting than my high expectations were prepared for!
What I always found funny about the portrayal of Lucy was that she always makes some grammatical errors when talking and writing. So it makes the reader think of her as a bit stupid and ridiculous. But of course Lucy isn't stupid. She's rather clever but uses it to be underhand which shows that she's not ridiculous as well.
I've tended to think of her as having a low, instinctive cunning which does not require the greatest education or intelligence (this lack being indicated by her grammatical errors) but enables her to intuit and exploit the weaknesses of others, but I may be confusing her lack of education with a lack of intelligence. I don’t suppose she would waste her time on intellectual speculation. What intelligence she had would be concentrated on maximising her advantage.
@@richardyates7280 Yes that's a possibility. I guess it comes down to the fact that she uses what intelligence she has to be cunning and scheming. She knows that most people underestimate her and she uses that to her advantage. Luckily she only used that side of her to "get the guy" 😅
I'm rereading S&S and am watching and listening to every word and look and tone of Lucy Steele very closely throughout the novel thanks to your close reading of her.
From all that we see and hear of her we can imagine how she will have first found out about all of the pupils her father taught and how she will have worked on edward right from the start.... How many others had she tried to secure before?... Perhaps she had an understanding with others that we don't even know of???
Someone like Lucy wouldn't put all her eggs in just one risky basket after all would she.... She's proved she can keep huge secrets... and can switch allegiances at the drop off a hat!
A very worthy subject and an exceedingly timely one. The closing 'moral' can be applied without changing a syllable to US politics and its surrounding 'polite society. '
I appreciated this commentary as you make Lucy Steele seem more understandable, relateable and sympathetic and less vindicatively manipulative. Not so much the counterpoint to Mrs Ferrars but, the antidote to her.
Such an excellent breakdown of the character. Lucy is enterprising, in a time when a woman if her "station" didn't have much else to go on.🤷🏾♀️
Living in this polite society from sense of sensibility "feels" exhausting but I guess one had tot engage with these people like Lucy Steele to "survive". I don't like it at all, to have to manipulate Lucys way in this society, but it takes a lot of courage to live authetically and that"s why I like Elinor and Marianne for having authethically integrity. Kind regards Elise from the Netherlands.
Thank you, Octavia, this is wonderful. I feel much more sympathetic to Lucy as a result of it. Life at the time offered very little in the way of opportunities for someone like her who had no advantages of class or money. And I feel Austen may be somewhat mischievously understating the cost to Lucy of her chosen course - time and conscience, yes, but also she must spend the rest of her life flattering these hideous people and enduring (that word again) their company. Personally, I think Elinor got the better deal, marrying the man she loved and - while admittedly still relatively poor - living free of the influence and interference of her supposed 'betters'. Perhaps Lucy's mistake was in being too ready to buy into the values of her 'betters', but that's more the fault of that society than of her personally.
One of the big differences between Lucy and Elinor is that Elinor was much more welcome in polite society because she was born into the gentry.
Delightful anthropological deep-dive. Thank you!
15 minutes of a PhD politely trying not to say "arse kisser"! I love it! 🤩😆
Perhaps we should admire the work ethic of the Miss Steeles. They appear hard-working, resourceful, apt to please their patrons. Every employer's dream.
No. We shouldn't. :)
Very interesting analysis!
Some of the people who dislike the gentry have a lot of sympathy for Lucy Steele. It is thus ironic that she wanted to be a member of that class!
I had always thought Lucy was silly and naive. I thought Robert was silly and naive. They were a good match. Now I know that she fooled me. I have always struggled with subtle social niceties. I tend to point out what I see when others will not admit them. I don't always understand what is going on. When I do, I feel torn on the issue of playing the game. I don't particularly enjoy the game. With my mental and physical health, I don't often have the energy to play it. Perhaps due to ADHD and other disorders, learning the rules and remembering to use them is difficult. Understanding and following directions is hard. The rewards are often embarrassing, yet lucrative for the skilled, which I am unlikely to become. I feel both jealousy and disgust for the game's top competitors. I feel obligated to enter the game, as my financial resources are few. When I try, I become so frustrated that my anger bursts or so bored that I forget to even bring out the popcorn in the face of free drama. Either way, I am excluded for my disinterest and disrespect for the game and its players. I'm not sure what to do. What does one who can be cold like Eleanor, or bursting with fury like Maryanne do in these circumstances? If they had understood the rules, what could they have done differently?
Lucy Steele: social climber? Survivalist? You could compare her to Charlotte Collins and Mrs. Elton. Now I have to go watch S & S after dinner.
Charlotte Collins was not very much like the other two women. I see more of a connection between Lucy and Mrs. Elton. Charlotte had a moral center. She was not trying to pretend to be someone greater than she was. She was not unkind. Neither of the other woman had any internal compass, and neither hesitated to do whatever was to her advantage.
Love the analysis! Looking forward for more videos❤
Thank you for this video. Greetings from Brazil!
I always felt that Robert's comments about Lucy, were more likely a snub towards Elinor then a complete snub towards Lucy.
Wonderful, as always. Thank you very much!
I love this channel and often listen before bed, but is it just me or is the audio often slightly out of sync? It often seems to me that Dr. Cox's mouth moves slightly after the audio.
And yet Lucy Steele did not do as she was told and instead committed the very crime that Fanny convicted Elinor of -- aspiring beyond her means to form an attachment with her brother.
Thanks for this discussion. I always found the preference of Lucy over Elinor confusing.
'Fond', like 'nice' & 'pretty', has nuance in Jane's era's diction that are not present in ours.
": foolishly tender : indulgent sense 1
a fond mother" (Merriam Webster) or Shakespeare's Luciana's 'How many fond fools serve mad jealousy!'
So I don't know how accurate this is to the books, but I always thought it funny that Lucy Steel is thrown out by Fanny upon revealing her secret engagement is to Fanny's relative (in the novel I guess it's Lucy's sister Anne that reveals this). Then in Vanity Fair a similar scene is rehashed when Becky reveals to the aunt that she's engaged to her nephew. Is this meant to be parallel? Was Thackery referencing Austen (even outright copying her)?
I understand that the Dashwood sisters were left with little money after the death of their father, but they were born and were raised in a high social sphere. They were given a good education, one is a very good musician, the other very good at painting/drawing, and even though they had to leave Norland Park and would've come down a little financially, they would've stayed in the same social sphere I think. So all this to ask, why does Fanny hate them so much? I know Elinor doesn't have a fortune so Fanny wouldn't want Edward getting attached to her. But they are still her own husband's sisters. Her husband's family was good enough for her to marry him at one time, so why is their connection so bad to her now? Every time I re-read or watch the movie, I loathe Fanny when she talks her husband out of helping his sisters and breaking his promise to his dying father.
Fanny, in my opinion, is just an ornery and disagreeable person who really likes no one very much, probably including her husband.
Lucy Steele is such a piece of work. Her ambition is pretty understandable - but she's vicious about how she pursues her goals, especially to Elinor whom she 'reads' as pretty nice and easily hurt. It is pretty telling that she has that big scene with Edward (in private) where he begs her to release him because of no money and she's saying no, no, she loves him anyway - but she publicly reports it as the other way around.
There's this other scene in the novel, which I find pretty telling about how Mean Girl politics work in this society. It's this whole fussing about making the filigree basket for Annamaria. It _could_ wait until the morning, and it's obvious that Lucy was hoping to play whist, but instead Lady M makes a big fuss of saying "Oh no, I hope you won't feel yourself in a hurry about it" which nudges Lucy to get back to work. To me, it feels like Lady M is deliberately causing a little bit of a rub in Lucy's evening, on purpose, to assert her status as the boss lady. Elinor understands this game enough to play along to get what she wants (a private conversation with Lucy); but later on in London when the same kind of pissing contest is going on about how tall Lady M's and Fanny Dashwood's sons are - Lucy plays the game by rhapsodizing about how tall they both are, and Elinor messes up by giving her unvarnished opinion that "William is the taller" and is thus unpopular.
It could be interesting to compare Lucy Steele to Becky in Vanity Fair - I sense a lot of similarities, but also some differences. For example, Becky, unlike Lucy, never managed to get forgiveness from the family of her husband, although she was very skilled in charming people
The key attribute an English Literature scholar must have is to be very, very careful. Every insight must be indelibly documented. It's called a close reading because other "scholars" are always breathing down your neck.
Lucy Steele is a Chameleon. She can be everything.
I feel a little more sympathetic to Lucy Steele than the narrator. Lucy was no worse in character than those with money and status. She did what she needed to do, as she saw it. I love the bit in the novel where it is stated that she makes £200 a year look like £500 (I don't remember the exact amounts, those may be off). Today Lucy would be a businesswoman, but that opportunity didn't exist for her.
Lady Middleton's mother was unpolished, but she was still a member of the landed gentry, right?
Lucy seems to be a precursor to Becky Sharp, don't you think? Only more skilled.
Hey Octavia, have you done a playlist with the different novels that you have checked on? Because I'm willing to read Pride and Prejudice in english for the first time (I'm a native spanish speaker - and reader -) so I feel like I'm going to need extra help
I like the lines where's Lady Middleton observes her children's physical misbehavior towards the Misses Steel and feels "no doubt of its being a reciprocal enjoyment." That reminds me of some pet owners, too.
Yes, and she talks of Lucy and Anne as if they were pets, too. Too many pets in that house!
Thank you - I loved this talk and it has made me re-think the beginning and the end of 'Sense and Sensibility'. I always wondered about the last paragraph, pointing out the sisters getting on with each other and where it fit. To e, it's always seemed random and an odd place to end. Now I think Austen meant it to bookmark Fanny and Lucy's continual jealousy for Mrs Ferrars' favour - into which they dragged their husbands - and then the very last paragraph where Austen writes the Dashwood sisters
".....could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands"
Highlights how Fanny's own meanness had brought down on her the worst possible fate. By contriving jealously against the Dashwoods she had opened the way to a much more cunning and successful competitor for all the lovely money and status which she will now have to live with forever - while the Dashwood sisters continue to live in loving harmony. So haha to Fanny - how do you like those apples 😉
OMG there it is! I sadly hadn't caught onto this before and always felt Fanny and her horrid husband never got enough of a punishment for their cruelty (acknowledging of course that realistically the world doesn't play out with such neat punishments and rewards). But you're 100% correct that karmically it's perfect that Fanny gets her worst fears materialized where before they didn't even exist.
Jane Austen: "I am a witty and urbane master of subtlety in the English language."
Also Jane Austen: "Imma name my antagonist Lucifer-y Imma-STEAL-Yo-Man. Oh yeah, I'm brilliant."
I love this kind of alive imaginative response much better than just the mechanical extraction of effects like teeth from the text. It's more like Coleridge's literary criticism.
I loved this close reading. It makes explicit Austen’s criticism of fashionable society’s values.
It tells us something about a section of upper class society but Lucy Steele would have got short shrift from other members of the upper class.
Further to my previous comment, some of Jane Austen’s upper class characters are admirable, like Elinor Dashwood, Anne Elliot, Colonel Brandon, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Knightley. Moreover, all in all Mr Darcy is a good man.
Furthermore, Jane's middle class figures are also a mixed bag. Some we can admire like Mr and Mrs Gardiner, Captain Wentworth, and Mr Weston, but others are socially insecure and unpleasant like Mr and Mrs Elton and the haughty, spiteful, Bingley sisters who despite their high society lifestyle are from a middle class background. In addition, Mrs Bennet is a daft woman of middle-class origin who talks about her desire for her daughters to marry rich men when rich men are present and does not grasp the seriousness of her youngest daughter’s marriage to one of Austen’s most sinister characters, an unprincipled man who was almost certainly of lower birth than “uppercrust twits” like Sir Walter Elliot. Hence if we are supposed to conclude that Austen had a negative view of the upper class (a popular view) her portrayal of the middle class is certainly not universally positive.
I'm actually really impressed with Lucy's maneuvering. Her level of manipulation seems very high, she must be a very keen observer and her stamina to act pleasingly to these rather horrid people (i.e. Mrs. Ferrars, Fanny, etc etc) is IMPRESSIVE. I mean, she's not very nice to Elinor but I totally tip my hat off for her for her persistence. She wanted to be 'elevated' in rank and she got what she wanted.
I think her behaviour towards Elinor is meant to highlight her true nature, because Elinor is of absolutely no use to her, and she also stands to receive some of the “charity”, of the rich Lucy wants for herself.
Lucy would do well in a corporate office environment. Yes gotta respect that hustle
After this analysis I can't say I blame Lucy for some of her machinations. However, her treatment of Elinor is abhorrent. It's okay to stake her claim, especially when that was a woman's way of securing her future, but to fix Elinor to her side while she plays with people's honor, in Edward's case, and vanity, in the case of everyone else, is indicative of something more malicious. Lucy might not have KNOWN that Elinor truly loved where she didn't, but judging from the behavior we know about, I don't think that would have mattered to Lucy.
I think that Lucy hated Elinor. The reason I think so was because I believe she purposely did not admit which Mr. Ferrars she married to the Dashwood's man-servant when he saw and spoke to her in Exeter(?). I think she wanted one more little dig at Elinor.
Indeed, she might have valued it as making her victory sweeter: not even true love could stand in her way.
@@kataw0404 Even if she didn't hate her. To me she appears like one of these totally emotionless characters who only care for themselves and do not suffer remorse when they hurt others. Her charm is superficial and totally contrived, and works only on similarly self-absorbed people. To Lucy, Elinor was just an obstacle to be removed, and maybe that last performance was meant for Elinor to withdraw from the Ferrars family for good.
I blame Lucy most for how she treated Edward. She knew how seriously he considered the engagement, even if it wasn’t for emotions by the time of the novel, but to her them being engaged was like a game. She could have just ended it herself and still tried to scheme good match some other way.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Lucy would never have allowed the fish she caught to swim away until she caught a bigger fish! She lucked out at being able to interact with Edward to begin with and her connection to him was the only thing that gave her the ability to interact with people in his social circle. If she let him go, she'd end up back at Plymouth or with the Middletons/Mrs. Jennings and have to start back at square 1.
So Robert was forgiven for marrying the girl his brother got disinherited for...and Edward was sent off into the abyss? Classy family.
My impression from the novel was that the legal means used to disinherit Edward were so effective and severe that they couldn’t be undone, deliberately so in order to prevent Edward marrying Lucy in the hope of a reconciliation. So when Lucy switched her affections the family had no other possible choice of heir.
I believe the inheritance was irrevocably settled on Robert, meaning that there was some legal arrangement that prevented Robert from being disinherited.
@@davidwright7193 So, Lucy couldn't lose, as long as she didn't care which brother she married, and was confident of her ability to catch him. And got in fast, before any rivals to the newly attractive Robert.
I personaly found Robert as manipulative as Lucy . He made himself more pleasing to his mother in order to secure the inheritance
@@mariar3767Lucy and Roberts are peas in a pod , both just as self absorbed, and as manipulative, as dismissive of anybody else's feelings . Robert could have given Edwards a part of his fortune for doing this to him , but he didn't!
Lucy is a next-level manipulator. It's so funny too because poor Anne is so hapless in comparison. As you were talking about these characteristics of Lucy's, I was thinking about how the 1995 adaptation left Anne out, as well as the Dashwoods' son and the Middletons' children, and those changes made Lucy less sycophantic and also more sympathetic. Instead of doting on a whole passel of wild kids, she gets cuddly with Fanny's little terrier. And she's the one who divulges her secret engagement to Fanny instead of Anne accidentally spitting it out. They're interesting work-arounds, but they change so much about who she actually is.
"Viper at my side!" Or did I get that line wrong?
@@bethliebner1060 Watched it yesterday - it's 'Viper in my bosom!' And then she proceeds to grab Lucy by the nose and push her outside. It's hilarious.
Lol if Anne was around now she would be addicted to reality TV and instagram. She is a great little character.
The BBC Sense and Sensibility from 1981 is my favorite for Fanny's reaction to Lucy's engagement to Edward. She just shrieks, and keeps shrieking, and acts like a two-year-old, which I suppose was normal for when rich, entitled people didn't get their way back then.
Even Emma Thompson’s adaptation didn’t give Lucy much in the way of pleasant. She was a conniving simperer.
Sense and Sensibility, from Lucy's perspective, would read much more like Lady Susan.
I think Lucy is very like Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair like Becky she has to be her own mama.
@@EmoBearRights I think that this is totally unfair to Becky Sharp, who is capable of acting with disinterested decency.
A sign of the times. Yet , what has really changed?
If the society was different and women had options- Lucy would not exist. Lucy was made by her society
Eleanor will aways be a favored Austen character for me but this reading gives me a better appreciation for the accent of Lucy Steele into better society. In today’s world she would be called fake and even a gold digger, but the stakes were so much higher in her time for her survival let alone her comfort in life. One commenter said don’t hate the player, hate the game. I totally agree. Props Lucy, props.
You point out that the Steele sisters are swift to understand other people and how to deal with them. It's occurred to me that Lucy must have taken Elinor's measure very quickly and accurately. She knew Elinor was honorable and would not reveal her secret, even at the cost of her own happiness. Really, since she confided in Elinor *before* asking for her secrecy, one could argue Elinor was not obliged to keep her secret, but she did, and Lucy knew she would. If Elinor had been a different sort of person, she could have ended Lucy's engagement, or at least imperiled it, very easily, just by telling Mrs. Ferrars.
Absolutely right, and indeed Elinor could simply have told her brother John or her sister-in-law Fanny.
I think Lucy was incredibly shrewd. I can't stand, her but I get her.
Considering how Lucy was able to get pardoned and even admired by the Ferrars family, she probably would have found some way to rectify the situation anyway.
Lucy has an uncanny skill for reading people. Had Elinor been a different person, she wouldn’t have told her.
@@someonerandom256 When you consider the importance of marriage to a young woman in this time period, you do realize why she feels the need to hustle and it puts her actions into context. but I agree, I dislike her intensely bc she does take advantage of Elinor's character.
I dont think the Steel sisters would have been so welcome if the Dashwood sisters hadn't been there. Being nice to them was an excuse for cutting elinor and marianne.
I have long thought that the Steele sisters were the epitome of the ideas of sense and sensibility. While Elinor appears to be all sense and Marianne sensibility, we see that they both have a balance within them of each quality. Lucy, however seems to be all "sense" of a sort - manipulative, cunning and remorseless without allowing empathy to influence her behaviors and her sister, Ann is just pure emotional impulse.
Spot on !
And where Marianne is a bit neglectful of social duties, Anne has no sense at all of appropriate behaviour and language.
Lucy Steele has always appeared to me to be a “villainess” by necessity. She did what she thought she had to do to get by in the world. Thank you fo this brilliant analysis!
She's like Becky Sharpe in Vanity Fair, though comes across more as a villainess because we compare her to Elinor.
Elinor was always one of my favourite Austen characters. I always thought she had so much inner strength! But I did also see what Lucy Steele was up to and why. It was not easy for women back then- your only chance of a “comfortable “ life was marrying well. I still think she was awful as a person though.
But S&S has one of my favourite lines in it too. When Elinor is at a ball being talked at by Robert there is a line “ Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not believe he deserved the compliment of rational opposition “, it is such a mood!
Elinor deserved better. Edward had no business courting her while engaged to another. He was cheating on Lucy and Elinor, both. He even lied about the lock of hair in the ring. Lucy was dreadful, but that doesn't excuse Edward's behavior. Lucy was at least letting Elinore in on a secret she needed to know.
THANK YOU. Edward had to know how Elinor felt about him. His deception kept her in limbo; and he knew her financial situation. It was selfish of him not to tell her.
@@jmarie9997 I think he is the weakest of Austen's heroes.
She is scheming, treacherous and vindictive, yet I have more respect for Lucy Steele than those she preys upon, Mrs Ferrars, Mrs Fanny Dashwood (née Ferrars), Robert Ferrars and even maybe Edward Ferrars, though he has some redeeming qualities.
Jane Austen's insight on how the game is played, its rules are written, and what the players will do, is universal. It's similar to what goes on here in America. The warped absurdities of the past 5 years show that people will shamelessly abase themselves in order to have status, power, and wealth.
No god but Allah
Islam way for peace and the real monotheism
Search for the truth and right way with honest heart And ask him for the right way for his mercy.
I might be the outlier but I always had a kind of grudging respect for her. When she was pretty young, mid teens maybe? she recognized that Edwards was an opportunity to have a better life. I dont think she would have even made Edward a bad wife really since she was so determined to "get on". It wouldnt have been a great marriage but would have been a better marriage than many Austen has shown us. She's of a lower class than Elinor, no connections and no money. She saw the brass ring and grabbed it. Then to have the skills to suss out that Elinor was a threat, it might be against the whole Jane Austen spirit but I kind of admire it in a female antihero way like maybe Becky Sharp or Scarlett O'Hara. And in the end, there wasnt a lot of harm done. Edward didnt want her, Elinor got him and most people were happy. And she had the social skills to end up being old Mrs Ferrars favorite daughter in law which probably means her kids with Robert end up being the favorite grandkid and that's got to rightly tick off Fanny Dashwood. I know Im supposed to loathe her but every time I read it and find out she traded Edward for Robert so skillfully I just think "that girl's got spunk"
Here, here!
I think 'grudging respect' is the right response. She isn't a _nice_ character, but by her own standards, she is very successful.
I never figured out how Lucy found out about Elinore in the first place. Gossip?
@@ladykemma3 I assume Edward talked about Elinor to Lucy when he visited? But I don't know if I'm flashing on the 1995 adaptation, where there's a scene of Lucy saying "if Edward had ever talked about _one_ woman more than the other, I would be instantly suspicious, but of course he wouldn't" because, you know, twisting the knife. Does anyone know if there's something like that in the book?
@@DaisyNinjaGirl Yes, it's in chapter 24 - Lucy says she is "inclined" enough to "suspicion to have found the truth in an instant if [among other things, all of which were clearly true of Edward] he had talked more of one lady than another . . . "
And she is cruel as well: she thoroughky enjoys slowly torturing Eleanor.
@Luise Herpich I agree. She had no real hold on Edward except for his need to keep his word to her.
@Luise Herpich Interesting observations, here. I think I'M enjoying Lucy's and Elinor's interactions so much, that I'm not quite sure how Lucy feels about them!
Re the cruel trick of allowing Elinor to think she (Lucy) has married Edward - how could Lucy be sure that the manservant would report their meeting in the way he did? It seems very chancy - though certainly the malice is of a piece with her character. I imagine that someone who has to suppress their true feelings so much of the time must let the bitterness out sometimes, when she feels safe to do so.
Let's not forget that, as sisters-in-law, Lucy and Elinor will remain in each other's social circles for life. Could Lucy's wiles work even on Elinor...?Perhaps they won't have to spend much time together, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they do! 😁
Only because she fears Elinor. Lucy does not make unnecessary enemies. She doesn't give herself that luxury.
@@dorothywillis1 Right! I think Lucy is too shrewd to make unnecessary enemies that might undo her! She’s pegged Elinor as too honorable to do so.
She was a mean girl. Like when she deliberately gave the servant Thomas information she knew would hurt the whole Dashwood family.
The verb "procuring" applied to the devious doings of Lucy Steele always puts me in mind of the meaning the word "procuress" traditionally had in the English language... maybe Jane Austen was trying to convey that particular shade of meaning as well?
Women in that era, unless well born and wealthy, had few choices. If poor, they had to work, if middle class but impoverished, they also had to work. In the gentry, women had to marry well, if possible, or remain spinsters. Why does Charlotte Lucas marry Mr. Collins? So she can be Mrs. Collins and have an establishment of her own.
It is difficult nowadays to consider that women had so few choices but many novels show the reality; many of Austen's works and those of the Bronte sisters highlight this.
Always a good day when Dr Cox uploads new videos😁🥰😀
I agree with everything you said. But you left out an important aspect of Lucy's character - her vindictive cruelty towards Elinor. This appears several times in the book - in her insisting on sharing the details of her relationship with Edward with Elinor, again and again, her endeaver to make Elinor jealous when they are invited to the Ferrars, and finally, in her message to the Dashwoods after her marriage - a piece of gratuous cruelty.
The psychologist Robert Sternberg was the first to define social ability as a kind of intelligence. And I definitely agree with him, that the ability to read the society you are in and plan your actions in order to succeed in that society is an ability (an an enviable one, in my opinion) rather than a crime. But doing it by stepping on others, and more than that, being deliberately cruel to others, is a moral crime. And Lucy is guilty of that crime.
Elinor is definitely too severe about Lucy, blaming her for doing the best for herself in a difficult situation. But Lucy deserves censure for her viciousness.
And does Lucy really win? We are told in the end (again, with exquisite irony), that "setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands of course took a part, as well as the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves, nothing could exceed the harmony in which they all lived together." Can we really set these discords aside? Has Lucy really achieved her "happily ever after"?
And if you are not convinced, compare Lucy Steele's behaviour to Charlotte Lucas's actions. They are both in similar situations, and both make choices to marry unpleasant men (to say the least) for money and security. And both are censured by the heroines for their choice, which offends their delicacy and ideal of love and respect in marriage. But what a difference! Charlotte, like Lucy, takes her destiny into her own hands, and actively pursues the man she wants to secure. But she doesn't hurt anybody on the way there. And the huge difference - Charlotte, once she has secured her marriage, does everything in her power to make it work harmoniously - she uses her social skills to make her life bearable while making her husband happy, satisfied with his choice and admiring and loving her. While Lucy - as I quoted above, "the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves." She got what she wanted, but isn't prepared to pay the price.
And she is also vindictive towards Edward, Mrs. Farrars and the Dashwoods in general and gets revenge with Robert as the dupe. The only thing I don't understand is how Robert could want to marry a penniless cast-off when he is always trying to aggrandize himself - unless it's just pure vengeance towards Edward - a sort of "haha, I got your girlfriend and your inheritance" thing.
@@LadyIarConnacht I think it's exactly that - it's even stated in the book: "He was proud of his conquest, proud of tricking Edward, and very proud of marrying privately without his mother's consent." The stuffed up dandy was too dense to realize that Lucy was no great catch, and that Edward was completely disenchanted with her and would be delighted to be released from her. After all, staying with a girl he didn't fancy just because decency demanded he wouldn't dump her wasn't something he could comprehend. For him, if Edward stayed faithful to Lucy, he must be madly in love with her, and therefore if he, Robert, could steal her away, it would be a triumph over Edward.
George Wickham wish he was Lucy Steele. She can read the room and knows everyone's weakness. Her con is much better than his.
Lucy Steel was a survivor. I don't justify her ways, but in the time, place and circumstances that she was born, it was either be cunning and don't look back or end up on a street or as a pauper. So I kind of admire her talent for manipulating people in an almost artistic way.
The devil works hard, but Lucy Steele works harder 😂
What I admired about Lucy was that she always aimed a bit higher than what she had already. She secured her engagement to Edward and then when he was cut off by his mother, she married Robert instead. When Mrs F cut Edward off, she secured Robert's fortune on him so he didn't make the same financial decision that Edward did in marrying her. Lucy was now married to a wealthy gentleman. She then went about procuring Mrs F's forgiveness to improve her situation even further. Eleanor however was quite happy just being married to the man she loved with no desire to increase her fortune or position in life.
Today she would be in advertising. Or in politics, where she would do such more damges.
I see Lucy as a gold digger. She quickly switched her affection from Edward to Robert after Mrs. Ferrars stripped Edward of his inheritance and gave it to Robert. Doesn’t she realize Robert married the same girl Edward was once engaged to? But Robert gets to keep the inheritance?
Yes, because she’s didn’t want to appear ridiculous
At that point, Mrs. Ferrars had settled it "irrevocably" on Robert. To me, it doesn't sound like she could do much to alter it even if she wanted to. Also agree that she didn't want to appear ridiculous.
Robert was her favorite son. Probably because his personality was so similar to hers. She was greatly disappointed that Edward, her eldest and heir, turned out to be an unambitious, shy, modest and gentle soul. Whereas Robert was just as awful as his sister and mother and Lucy is more like her than Elinor is. She may dislike Lucy but she hates Elinor for indulging Edward's personality and for basically being a non-materialistic and kind person.
I agree! When I read this, I was like the mother is dumb. She didn’t want him to keep his engagement going with Lucy. Even told Elinor’s brother that she would’ve liked to believe the rumors of Edward’s affection for Elinor vs being engaged to Lucy. Then allows Robert and Lucy to marry.
@@urahotmess She could not legally take the money back with Robert, so it didn’t matter
I have always disliked Edward Ferrars... He was weak enough to fall for Lucy and her fake charms, he flirted with Elinor (in his own dull and stiff way!) even though he was engaged to another. Then when Lucy followed the money and swapped her affections, Edward came creeping back to Elinor and his bad behaviour was rewarded by acquiring an honourable, educated and truly genteel wife.
The episode, Elinor and Maryanne Dashwood (Engagements & Hair), first made me think of Elinor as an unreliable narrator. How much of our understanding of Lucy is flitered through Elinor's criticle eye?
Elinor is very snobbish towards Lucy, even before she finds out about the engagement. Good for Austen, that her heroines are not perfect.
I think Lucy Steele and Charlotte Lucas are both survivors in a world where there choices are limited. And there really isn't a lot of difference in their actions - except that Lucy in addition to securing her future, also trades up when the opportunity presents. If Austen's brief mentioned of "Mary being persuaded to take him (Mr. Collins)" were read into in detail, Charlotte took the security of all the Bennet girls when she so quickly stepped in (and Mary and Mr. Collins may have made one of the happiest couples in Austen, not pleasant to be around, but happy with each other). Lucy's trading up to Robert could have been written as a generous act (of course it wasn't) in that she knew Edward loved Elinor. I've also often wondered if Lucy couldn't figure out how Elinor felt about Edward - certainly Elinor showed the Austenian virtue of not wearing her heart on her sleeve and hiding her feelings. So its possible to extrapolate a situation where Lucy is unwilling to give up her chance of security in favor of a woman who has no more romantic affection for Edward than she does. And as for Edwards affection, Lucy knows it to be fickle. (But Lucy is such a good villain written as she is)
Oh please, do not drag Charlotte to Lucy's level. Lucy is indeed a great, Regency era female villainess. Charlotte saved Lizzy from exposing her emotions, controlled as Lizzy might be, not to insult Mr Darcy whereas Lucy torments girl who lost her fortune with delight and does everything to harm the chances of whole family.
@@julijakeit While Charlotte probably used her influence on her husband to help the Bennets.
And Mr Collins never looked at Mary so it's not like she stole him from her.
While Mr Collins was unable to have any introspection about himself I think he was very aware that Mary would have been looked upon askew by people around him and that she may have angred a congregation rather than placate it. He is a selfish man, but is selfishness is also what allows him to understand that he needs a wife that makes him look good. While Mary may be more aligned with his personality she would never make him look good, so Mr Collins vanity means he would never have considered her. So Charlotte is not taking anything from the Bennet girls that isn't alredy taken the moment Elisabeth declines his proposal. Charlotte marrying Mr Collins certainly hurt the feelings of the Bennet familiy in some ways, but as outsiders we can see that she wasn't swooping in and taking anything that wasn't alredy of the table for them. As such any hope of marrying Mary of to Mr Collins was only the Bennets wishful thinking and not a realistic plan. That said, yes, the societal circumstances that pushes both Lucy Steel and Carlotte Lucas into their respective actions to secure a marrige are the same.
Mary and Collins would have been miserable as a married couple. As far as one can tell, she has no practical training useful in running a house or being a vicar's helpmeet. I can't imagine her going out of her way to make a husband comfortable. And I can't imagine how she would have dealt with Lady Catherine. As both she and Mr. Collins like to be the center of attention and enjoy lecturing others, there would definitely have been some conflict there; both are narcissists.. And, even though it was not reciprocated by any of them, Mr. Collins has an eye for a pretty woman, and Mary is the least pretty of her sisters. Charlotte may not be beautiful, but she seems to have been the more womanly of the two.
Charlotte is no Lucy. She never hurts anyone; Lucy is continually prodding Elinor. I don't think that Charlotte, knowing that Jane had no interest in Collins and that Lizzie had rejected him, could really have felt that it was likely the younger three girls (can you picture Lydia as Mrs. Collins?) were going to accept him. I don't think she was endangering their security. She only wants a respectable home, and when she achieves it, she makes it as comfortable and convenient for her husband as she can. She has no particular taste that I see for social climbing, and I can't imagine her dumping her fiancé if someone richer came along. No, she's no Lucy.
Were we to give Lucy a modern Dickensian name, she would have been Miss Dyson or Miss Hoover, becuase she sucks up harder than a vacuum cleaner.
Oh wow, i loved this! I feel for Lucy Steele. It takes skill to suck up to people and endure spoiled children. I doubt i could do all that "pleasing." But i say, kudos to her. She has a personal mission in life and she works with what she has. Thanks so much for this.
On the other hand, we are reminded of Miss Bates' remark, "One mustn't compliment, I know, but...." when trying to tell Emma how lovely she is at the ball, and we know that Miss Bates is a lady in the social sense, because Emma calls on her. So in truly polite society, the Steele sisters' flattery would not have been seen as polite, but quite the opposite, which is an indication that Lady Middleton's own interpretation of excellent manners come from a shallow school.
Could you do one on Mary Bennett? I never understood her. Why is she so inept if she studies all the time?
Because Mary doesn't really understand what she studies or reads just as she probably plays all the right notes on the piano but does not interpret the piece correctly. And then she goes one step farther and brags about her talents in all fields and looks down on others who prefer to actually dance at a party and enjoy themselves.
@@gisawslonim9716 Nice.
I think it's interesting how often Austen stresses Lucy's lack of education. The uncle she often stays with is the one who educated Edward but his own neice are uneducated. Of she were better educated Edward might not have lost interest.
I agree. Edward was initially charmed by Lucy's appearance and flattering ways, but that was all she had to offer. Lucy didn't "wear well" over the long term with a man of education.
Excellent video. I would love to see a comparison between Lucy Steel and Becky Sharp from the novel Vanity Fair. Two female characters that live by their wits, and attain material security through their own efforts.
Oh, I would love to see that!
Lucy acted in her own interest, understandably so because she had nothing but her smarts and pretty face to get her secure establishment in life. I can even forgive telling Elinor about the secret engagement to deter her from Edward. But then she purposely and maliciously rubbed it in at every ocassion. For no other gain than to give Elinor pain.
The faux moral at the end is something that I find myself quoting very often. One of the most brilliant examples of Jane Austen’s social commentary. It rings as true as ever, especially in our age of overexposure when scenes, both private and public, worthy of her novels, are splashed all over the Internet.
Much as I love Jane Austen' s novels, your analysis makes me enjoy them even more!
I wouldn't mind reading a (well-written) Jane-knockoff novel about Lucy Steele's life and story.
Has society truly changed since the Regency Era; I think not.
I really hated Lucy when i read it the first time. I want to re-read it and see if I can see her story from a different perspective. Because overcoming her status like that is pretty impressive.
You certainly hit the nail on the head when you described the alacrity with which the Steele sisters abandon one perch as soon as they're offered a more comfortable one! It reminds me of teenage girls planning to get together on the weekends, with the understanding that if one of them is asked on a date by a boy, *naturally* all these plans with the girlfriends go out the window!
Lucy takes self-interest to an entirely different level when she finally snags Robert. For those absolving her of cruelty, don't forget that she abandons her own sister Nancy, after taking all their money and leaving her quite destitute, a comic re-enactment of Catherine Morland's predicament. Mrs. Jennings had to come to the rescue and give her enough money to travel to some friends. This was quite cold-hearted and needless, as Lucy was marrying a rich man, but compared with her own advantage, even family ties mean nothing.
Not to defend Lucy's actions, but I read it that she needed some cash to get to Robert, and left Anne cashless, rather than destitute (not that that makes it OK to steal from her!). There must be some money around for Lucy and Anne to dress so smartly that Lady Middleton, no less, thinks they look alright. I imagine Lucy knew that Anne would have done the same to her (like those teenage girls you mentioned), and that, once married she can help her to a rich husband. To me, it's comic, as you say, rather than tragic.
Many people in these comments have described Lucy and her sister as "poor", but I don't think they are. They are just lower on the social scale, and less genteel than the Dashwoods - they may well be better off, financially.
Having said that, I wouldn't put it past Lucy to abandon or make use of anyone to get what she wants.
Thankyou for pointing this out. I had forgotten that she dumped her sister. She really was out only for herself. I don’t blame her for trying to survive, but I do blame her for dumping Nancy. Perhaps Mrs Jennings took her in; that lady had a kind heart.
It is interesting to compare Lucy Steel with Harriet Smith. I don’t think anyone really sees Harriet as a monster/villain. Yet I think many of the traits in Lucy are echoed in Harriet who is described by Emma herself as “She is not a clever girl, but she has better sense than you are aware of, and does not deserve to have her understanding spoken of so slightingly. Waving that point, however, and supposing her to be, as you describe her, only pretty and good-natured, let me tell you, that in the degree she possesses them, they are not trivial recommendations to the world in general . . . Her good-nature, too, is not so very slight a claim, comprehending, as it does, real, thorough sweetness of temper and manner, a very humble opinion of herself, and a great readiness to be pleased with other people. I am very much mistaken if your sex in general would not think such beauty, and such temper, the highest claims a woman could possess." Emma is of course correct in that these traits, when weaponised as Lucy Steel does, are indeed formidable tools in the social climbing game. The difference being that Harriet is somewhat naïve and Lucy far more worldly and perhaps Machiavellian? My point is that even Emma knows these rules about polite society that in S&S Elinor seems more blind too.
What a fabulous insight into Lucy Steele who's always discussed as one dimensional. Two things that come to mind:
1. In Lucy Steele and Mrs Ferrars, JA seems to explore in more detail the idea of self interest and how it manifests itself between two self interested individuals. We of course have the Crawford brother and sister in Mansfield Park but these and other examples are usually focussed on self interest on the inside and not on one such as Lucy Steele attempting to work their way in.
2. Again, you provided an insight into Marianne that added a further dimension to her personality ie her ideas about Lucy Steele and how she could be improved. The suggestion Lucy might be improved by education comes from a definitive place of privilege, to use as 21st but appropriate idiom. Not only would the plot line disappear but in doing this Lucy would never be able to better herself had she been equipped with ideas that would prevent her behaving as she does but she would no doubt be the best educated farmer's wife (Mrs Martin?) or dependent on others (Mrs and Miss Bates?).
In the context of Georgian society I don't "blame" Lucy Steele or decry her for the only way a woman had to better herself: marriage. It was a society based on respectability which continued as a concept in one for or another until the early 70s.I grew up under it myself and can see how Lucy uses it to her own benefit and it was only my own privilege and education during that time that allowed me to see it and dislike it for myself.
Thanks again for another great lecture.
I've always found Lucy Steele to be the girl you love to hate. "Steele" is exactly the name for her. She is Becky Sharp in real life and her career is what it would be in the real world, not the sentimental puppet show of Vanity Fair. (I have never believed in Becky's Bad End!) Lucy doesn't make unnecessary enemies and, unlike the less intelligent Lady Middleton and Fanny Dashwood, she will be praised by all the World all her future life. You make a good point about toadying being expected of those in "inferior" positions. As my husband and I watched your video I told him, "This reminds me of something," and afterward I looked up and read to him Dickens' description of the large family at Astley's in Sketches by Boz. "... one of the little boys was seated behind a pillar and could not see, so the governess was stuck behind the pillar, and the boy lifted into her place. .. "... the poor governess peeped out from behind the pillar, and timidly tried to catch ma’s eye, with a look expressive of her high admiration of the whole family." And when her employer laughs, "the governess peeped out from behind the pillar again, and whenever she could catch ma’s eye, put her handkerchief to her mouth, and appeared, as in duty bound, to be in convulsions of laughter also." Here is the average toady. Lucy is an expert. But they are both playing by the same rules.
But Lucy wasn’t on anyone’s payroll. The governess was dependent on those ppl for her livelihood. Though governesses had education to qualify for employment in educating children, Lucy was lacking in this area. Even the woman “fortunate” enough to be qualified to seek employment to work in that capacity, their life was hard and precarious.
Lucy has such “good for her” energy. Like, she had no prospects but managed to marry a rich man and become the favorite daughter in law through the power of flattery and acting. She is why I say I respect gold diggers: because it does take work and it is hard and not everyone can keep it up, and I sincerely applaud the women who pull it off and laugh all the way to the bank.
On an unrelated note, I love your channel! You have inspired me to do a Jane Austen listen-through for my personal 2021 goal, and I’ve immensely enjoyed it. I’m currently on Northanger Abbey, (which quickly shot up to 2nd favorite after P&P), and overall the experience had given me a burst of creative energy for my own writing. Thanks so much for sharing your passion with the rest of us!
Yes, I don't really have that much sympathy with these rich men, in a world where people starved, and girls who made a minor mistake easily could lose everything, even in the book. If they are to vain to notice their being played, the joke's on them.
Superb lecture as usual, Dr. Cox! ❤️ I never liked Lucy Steele because she was so obviously favoured over Eleanor and Marianne despite being fake AF! The fact that she promptly moves her "feelings" from one brother to another as soon as she understands the money dynamics further proves the point that many mechanisms of British society (especially upper classes but also in the baby boomer descendants of the cushy middle-classes today), are locked in the sense of the self-perceived superiority, which favours the ones who pretend to play the game and give them the desired validation. As soon as you challenge it - or show that you recognise and refuse to believe in the game they play - it's game over for you, especially if they are your superiors at work!
People in every social group suffer from self-perceived superiority. For example, a lot of working class people like to refer to their own class as "the salt of the earth." That is very self-congratulatory.
@@glendodds3824 Perhaps, but at the same time it is true. If they completely refused to do the jobs they do, we wouldn't enjoy the cushy lives we have. And the white collars, professionals, and high society types certainly won't pick up the slack. Ironic, when you consider that the traditionally the working class is considered to be "below the salt."
I have to admire her skill in gaining herself security in the only way open to her.
I agree. What else was available to her: marriage to a Mr Martin or dependent as Mrs and Miss Bates? There was nothing elegant in poverty.
Jane Austen had no love for the ingratiating Steele sisters, as well as George Wickham and Mr. Collins in P&P, and their like. She often takes pleasure in exposing them for the avarious amoral social climbers that they are. Their “betters” may be aware of their true motives but choose instead to take them at face value. The royalty choose their courtiers by the false heart, not the true head. Frank Churchill, in Emma, tries to ingratiate himself to Miss Woodhouse, but he doesn’t try all that hard … only hard enough to injure the steadfast feelings of his betrothed.
All the Austen villains are of this type and are seen through by her heroes and by her readers. They exist today - they always have and ever will, like remora servicing sharks, humpback whales benefiting from barnacles - and those who are susceptible to their charms will ever be so. Parasite, the recent film, had willing-to-believe royalty that were actually sympathetic to the audience. BIG mistake. They never fooled Austen and her heroes, and they never fool us. Or do they? Sometimes it’s hard to take the measure of a person with a black heart.
Praise can be true or false. Jane Austen delineated the difference between sincerity and insincerity, imbued her heroes with a quiet moral superiority and her villains with a loud falseness. There are the praiseworthy and there are the players.
ETA: Emma Woodhouse was susceptible to praise from the insincere yet had the heart of a heroine. It took Mr. Knightley to set her aright. He judged her and did not find her wanting in the realm of what truly matters. She had been indulged, as a self-important Lady lording it over a very small fiefdom, but it was Mr. Knightley and only Mr. Knightley who saw her true worth.
Lucy Steele was well portrayed in the movie (Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant version), except that the actress I felt, was not pretty enough. I throughly despised Lucy Steele and was disappointed that she was so well rewarded at the end, but if she had not used her wiles to advantage, there would have been no other way for her to succeed. Therefore, I do admire Lucy Steele for her skilfulness and determination to win at this game.