We have discussed at some length the “making of heroines” based on “Tabula Rasa” and Northanger Abbey. I would like to believe that heroines are made based on their choices and development rather than born fully formed, but the episode and the novel actually seem to me like they argue for, rather than against, the innateness of heroism (or any other qualities). Although the title “Tabula Rasa” implies that the characters will be blank slates after their memories are erased, we see them slip into the same roles that they have always played, regardless of the memories that accompany their actions. Buffy is a hero even when she calls herself Joan, as we have already discussed. Each character has certain proclivities that come into play even after they are given the opportunity to recreate themselves entirely.
We see the same thing, I would argue, in Northanger Abbey. The first thing we are told about Catherine Morland is that she is a very unlikely heroine, as she has no heroic or outstanding qualities. While Catherine does learn a few things over the course of the novel, I don’t think that she ever actually becomes a heroine. This is one of the reasons that Northanger Abbey is an effective parody of the gothic novel. Austen uses Catherine to show her readers that protagonists need not be heroes or heroines, and novels can be just as interesting (and much truer to human nature and experience) when they provide glimpses into the lives of characters with ordinary, everyday conflicts rather than supernatural or horrific obstacles. At the end of the day, Catherine is just not heroic. When the novel ends, she has learned to reject her mean friend and not to make crazy assumptions, and she gets the guy—these lessons and events don’t make her a different, heroic person, they just show us that she is maybe a little more grown up and a little less dramatic.
This lack of complete personality overhaul is what makes us sorry for Willow and not so sorry for Isabella Thorpe. For five and a half seasons now, we’ve seen Willow be loyal and sweet. She might be the bad-mannered friend for now, but it’s only a brief interlude based on very specific circumstances, and this is why we can make excuses for her. Isabella, on the other hand, has been introduced to us as a vain, rash, and incredibly self-centered character, and she continues to behave in the same ways throughout Northanger Abbey. I don’t think that she is a sympathetic character, because we don’t get any glimpses into her character besides her negative, false attributes.
Buffy shows us that we are what we are, and Northanger Abbey tells us that it’s ok to be normal. We don’t have to fulfill heroic expectations that are instilled in us by whatever forms of media surround us. It is enough to live realistically, and we should really do our best to be good people. But, that having been said, if you happen to be dealt the ass-kicking card in life (as Buffy was), good for you.
Although Catherine isn't the typical hero compared to Buffy or other Gothic novel heroes, she does develop into some kind of hero. I think that it is absolutely correct to say that what makes this an excellent parody of a Gothic novel is the lack of heroic actions, but I'm not sure that I agree that Catherine Morland isn't a heroine. I say this more from thinking about the heroines in Jane Austen's other novels, in particular Jane and Elizabeth Bennet from Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth, in particular, is very strong-willed and intelligent, however, she falls into traps and makes mistakes along with everyone else. There is very little, action wise, that really makes Elizabeth stand out as a heroine, except that she is different from most of her sisters and the story is about her and her trials. Catherine, I would argue, demonstrates more dramatic character development and isn't a clearly defined heroine because she doesn't have the action of a Gothic novel. She does grow and she does learn to do what is right, which is what allows her to step away from the bad influence of Isabella and choose how she wanted to live her life. For Jane Austen, this is what made a heroine, even if she started out as much less, she was able to develop into a relatively intelligent woman, despite the hurdles and difficulties of being led astray by the misguided.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katherine in the sense that Catherine's development and change over the course of the novel helps us view her as a heroine. However, I think the most obvious aspect of Northanger Abby that makes it a parody of the gothic is the use of the narrator. We talked about how in Dracula we knew what was coming, and it frustrated us as readers to see the characters figuring things out so slowly that we had known all along. Through the use of the narrator, Austen lays the entire story out on the line for us. From the first lines, we know that something will happen to Catherine that will make her take on the role of heroine. We also know from the very start that Isabella is phony, and it is a little frustrating as a reader to see Catherine slowly come to the realization that this girl is not so much a doting friend but rather is very selfish. We see this growth, and we know the outcome, and I think that is what ties it in so well with the gothic tradition.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, Grace, I clicked to comment on your post to say something else, but then got carried away and made it my post, and then I read Katherine's comment and decided to expand on it, so read my post for further reflection on yours!
Katherine, I agree with you that Catherine Morland develops throughout the novel. Still, she is not a heroine, but simply our protagonist. We can identify and sympathize with her, but I really don't think we are meant to admire or idealize her. We are told that she is a heroine, but she is a heroine within a parody, which makes her, in a certain way, the parody of a heroine. She is naive and unprepossessing, and her role in the novel is largely passive. She does nothing for herself, the only reason that we might call her a heroine is because we are told she is one. So, yes, she grows up and becomes a woman, but this hardly makes her a heroine. The fact that Austen calls her one tells us only that she is drawing a parallel between Catherine and the heroines of gothic novels, not that Catherine is actually heroic, especially because Austen habitually draws sharp contrasts between Catherine and traditional heroines. As far as Elizabeth Bennet goes, she is strong-willed and brave, not to mention her independence and lack of greed, and her actions are much more heroic than Catherine's. Still, I don't think Austen cares if any of her protagonists are heroines, I think she cares much more about portraying humans as they are than creating heroes, which Northanger Abbey tells us fairly explicitly.
ReplyDeleteI guess I would come down on the side of Catherine Morland not being a heroine, but instead as Grace said a parody of a heroine. The thing that stuck out most to me that caused me to decide this way was the manner in which Catherine responds to Isabella's social scheming. She removes herself from Isabella's society and is glad that her brother is not to be married to Isabella. On the other hand, later when Willow goes off the deep end, Buffy sticks around and refuses to give up until she's brought Willow to her senses. Buffy makes it her mission to save Willow from all-encompassing evil, while Catherine simply scampers away from Isabella. Therein lies the difference between heroine and not heroine for me.
ReplyDeleteGrace, I think you are defining the role of "hero" to strictly here, as I believe it can be argued that all the members of the Scooby Gang act heroically at one time or another during the series. While I certainly agree with the point that this episode states that for the most part, we are who we are, I would not be quite as quick as you are to say that heroism is one of these innate qualities. You define Buffy as a hero in this episode because she exhibits bravery and leadership in the face of danger, which I would agree, are often qualities that we associate with heroes, but I think that you are too quick to associate a personality with a hero, rather than judging a person's heroism based on their actions.
ReplyDelete