Skip to main content

Jane Austen Art of Characterization in Pride and Prejudice

Pride and Prejudice: Art of Characterization

The range of Jane Austen’s characters is rather narrow. She selects her characters from among the landed gentry in the countryside. Sir Walter Scott very accurately describes this range:

“Jane Austen confines herself chiefly to the middling classes of society … and those which
are sketched with most originality and precision, belong to a class rather below that standard.”


She omits the servants and the labourers. They appear wherever they are needed but they are usually not heard. Aristocracy also is hardly touched and if taken, it is only to satirize. Lady Catherine in “Pride and Prejudice” is arrogant, pretentious, stupid and vulgar. Austen finds herself at home only with the country gentry and their usual domestic interests.

In spite of such a limited range, Austen never repeats her characters. Lord David Cecil says:

“In her six books, she ever repeats a single character … There is all the difference in
the world between the vulgarity of Mrs. Bennet and the vulgarity of Mrs. Jennings.”


Though these characters are so highly individualized, yet they have a touch of universality. Thus Marianne becomes the representative of all romantic lovers while Wickham represents all pleasant-looking but selfish and unprincipled flirts.

Austen usually presents her characters dramatically through their conversation, actions and letters. Darcy and Wickham, Lydia and Caroline are much revealed through their actions, while Collins and Lydia are revealed through their letters. A direct comment is sometimes added. The mean understanding of Mrs. Bennet and the sarcastic humour of Mr. Bennet have already been revealed in their dialogues before the direct comment of the novelist. Similarly before she tells us about Mr. Collins, we have already become aware from his letter that he is not a sensible man.

Though Jane Austen does not conceive her characters in pairs yet her characters are revealed through comparison and contrast with others. Lady Catherine and Mrs. Bennet balance each other in their vulgarity and match-making drills. Wickham serves a contrast to Darcy while Bingley is a foil to him. Elizabeth’s is compared and contrasted with Jane and Caroline Bingley.

Austen builds character through piling an infinite succession of minute details about them. In “Pride and Prejudice”, the Elizabeth-Darcy relationship is traced through minute details, details which look trivial and insignificant in the first instance but whose significance is realized only after reading the novel. Sir Walter Scott makes a fine comment:

“The author’s knowledge of the world, and the peculiar tact with which she presents
characters … reminds us something of the merit of the Flemish school of painting.”


Austen is a great realist in art. Her characters are creatures of flesh and blood, pulsating with vitality. She studies her characters kindly but objectively. Regarding their appearance, she treats them quite generally, fixing them with a few bold strokes. She is constant in providing details about their outlook, attitude, manner and accomplishments. Lord Cecil says:

“Her lucid knife-edged mind was always at work penetrating beneath such impressions
to disown their cause, discover the principles … that go to make up his individuality.”


Austen’s characters are neither embodiment of virtue nor pure villains but real human beings both pleasant and disgusting. Elizabeth is perceptive but her perception is sullied by her initial prejudices. In contrast Wickham has so much charm that it is rather difficult to detest him. Austen often mingles knavishness with folly making villainous characters a source of rich comedy.

Jane Austen’s minor figures are flat. They do not grow and are fully developed when we first meet them. As the action progresses our first impressions of them get confirmed. Mrs. Bennet seems to be stupefied and vulgar right from the first scene. Her appearance at the Netherfield Park or her reaction to Lydia’s elopement confirms her stupidity and vulgarity. This is true of almost all of her minor figures.

But her major characters are ever changing, ever growing. Usually self-deceived in initial stages, they are capable of understanding, growth and maturity. They are complex, dynamic and intricate. Her heroines, blinded by ego, vanity or over-confidence, commit gross errors and suffer bitter reverses. But by virtue of their insight they are gradually disillusioned and, thus, grow.

Minor or major all characters created by Jane Austen may be described as round inasmuch as they are all three-dimensional. E. M. Forster brings out this point quite admirably:

“All her characters are round or capable of rotundity … They have all their proper places and fill other several
stations with great credit … All of them are organically related to their environment and to each other.”


Dull characters are made interesting. An eminent critic, describing Jane as a prose Shakespeare remarks:

“What, in other hands, would be flat, insipid … becomes at her bidding, a sprightly versatile, never-flagging chapter of realities.”

Thus touched by the magic wand of Jane Austen’s art, even the fool and bore of real life became amusing figures. The pompous stupidity of Mrs. Collins and the absurdity and vulgarity of Mrs. Bennet should in real life, prove as irritating to us as to Elizabeth and Darcy. But even these characters become such a rich source of mirth and entertainment.

Still there are a few characters that do not look enough life-like or relevant. Mary Bennet fails to impress, nor is she even vital to the story. Jane Fairfax in “Emma” is shadowy. Margaret is “Sense and Sensibility” never comes to life. But these minor failures do not detract much from her reputation as one of the greatest delineators of characters.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

VLADIMIR AND ESTRAGON ARE REPRESENTATION OF MAN IN GENERAL. ACCEPT OR REJECT THE STATEMENT.

Q:      TO WHAT EXTANT VLADIMIR AND ESTRAGON ARE METAPHORS OF HUMANITY IN "WAITING FOR GODOT"? Q:       VLADIMIR     AND      ESTRAGON    ARE REPRESENTATION OF MAN IN GENERAL. ACCEPT OR REJECT THE STATEMENT. Q:      MAJOR CHARACTERS IN "WAITING FOR GODOT" ARE HUMAN BEINGS IN SEARCH FOR MEANINGS IN THE MEANINGLESS, HOSTILE UNIVERSE. Ans: Authors bring into play different modus operandi in their writings. Samuel Beckett makes use of allusions and references to characters to help the reader understand what the characters stand for. In his drama Waiting for Godot, Beckett's two main characters, Estragon and Vladimir, are symbolised as man. Separate they are two different sides of man, but together they represent man as a whole. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett uses Estragon and Vladimir to symbolize man's physical and mental state. Estragon represents the physical side of man, while Vladimir represents the intellectual side of man. In each way

Walt Whitman Writing Style

  Walt Whitman style Walt Whitman crafted one of the most distinctive styles in world poetry – a style that is instantly recognizable.  Among the particular trait s of that style are the following: a strong emphasis on the individual self, especially the self of Whitman in particular a strong tendency to use free verse in his poetry an epic tendency that tries to encompass almost every possible subject matter an emphasis on the real details of the everyday world but also on transcendent, spiritual themes an emphasis on life as it was actually lived in America , and yet a concern with all humanity; a focus on reality blended with an enthusiastic mysticism an emphasis on democracy and love of other persons an emphasis on speakers (in his poems) speaking honestly and directly, in fairly simple language accessible to most readers an emphasis on freedom of all sorts – physical freedom, social freedom, freedom of the imagination, and fre

Waiting for Godot: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Grave

Waiting for Godot: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Grave By David Kranes  Have you heard the one about the two tramps who were killing time? Or was it filling time? Is Samuel Beckett the stage poet of gloom? Or is he a baggy-pant burlesque comedian? (Bert Lahr acted in Godot; Buster Keaton in his Film.) Does the spirit involuntarily lift in the gaunt Irishman’s grove of denuded trees. . .or fall? Does the flesh fall and the voice arise? “We give birth astride the grave,” Beckett utters at one point. Some critics arm them- selves with the word birth; others with the word grave. Perhaps more of them ought to have chosen the word astride. Samuel Beckett, who always loved the shape and play of language, was fond of the epi- gram from St. Augustine: “Do not despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.” During this past year, in response to Beckett’s 1989 death, remembrances by writers such as Mel Gussow of the New York Times stress his quie