I think the fundamental issue with Anne Elliot’s character in Persuasion is that some people (eg. idiots writing a screenplay for Netflix because an algorithm told them to) think the fact that Anne in the novel is passive, meek, and self-effacing, is only because she’s a woman in 1817 who is oh so oppressed! Which is like, completely ignorant of the fact that for the time period, she occupies a place of enormous privilege. She’s the white daughter of a wealthy white land-owning male, and while she can’t vote or work, she’s still pretty high up on that regency hierarchy. There’s no reason to conclude that all, or even most, of her personality is due to being a woman in a patriarchal society, and not just her natural disposition.
This is obvious if you’ve read Austen’s novels, and actually find out that plenty of women are NOT passive, meek, and self-effacing (Elizabeth Bennet, Emma Woodhouse, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, etc.). Even within Persuasion itself, there are other women who are not, like both of Anne’s sisters, Lady Russell, and Mrs. Croft. And since nearly all of Austen’s female characters occupy a similar social position, you can assume that they all face nearly identical gendered oppression. And yet somehow still ended up with distinct personalities!
Austen recognizes and admires Anne’s personality, the parts that are compassionate, kind, polite, and modest (in the sense of being unconceited, not sexually). Austen does not see these as negative traits, and neither should the reader.
But, for Austen, moderation is the key to all things, and this is a theme that crops up in a lot of her novels. The whole premise of Persuasion is that you can take even positive traits too far. Anne is a decent and unselfish person, willing to sacrifice her own comfort for others. But before the novel begins, she allows herself to be persuaded to act against her own personal inclinations, in order to please her friends and family. This causes both she and Wentworth a lot of misery, certainly much more pain and distress than would have been suffered by her friends and family if she had just married Wentworth in the first place.
What Austen is saying is that it’s fine, and even admirable, to be unassuming and selfless, if that’s your natural personality, but that you should take care to not let that natural inclination to please others interfere with your own happiness. That in some cases, doing so actually causes more suffering than just doing what is best for yourself. It’s basically a guide for women like Anne, praising them for the sweet and noble aspects in their natures, while warning them to still take care of themselves.
Turning the character into a secret girlboss who’s just living in the wrong century, completely erases this very important theme, and one that resonates even with many modern women, who despite Hollywood’s opinion on the matter, are not all snarky, confident, and assertive. There’s nothing wrong with women who are those things, but women are people, and therefore their personalities vary to a near infinite degree.
The current vogue for only allowing female characters who are quirky, sassy, and confident is as deeply sexist as the idea that only women who are demure, meek, and self-effacing are acceptable. And Austen, a woman born in 1775, never did that. She wrote female characters with a wide variety of personalities and saw the worth (and the foibles) in all of them, from Elizabeth Bennet to Anne Elliot. No two were alike, but they all had something to offer, and a voice that deserved to heard.
gamechangershow
romaincrisis
theartofmadeline
