How to Interpret Vanity Fair’s Subtitle: A Novel Without a Hero
What does W.M Thackeray mean in giving his novel of manners, Vanity Fair, the subtitle: A Novel Without a Hero?
At first glance, the meaning is certainly clarified in the explanation that Vanity Fair is a panoramic, a novel about society, and not centered around a single protagonist. Yet, it is evident that the subtitle takes on additional meanings when, after reading the novel, one reflects on its key themes and major characters.
To begin, a central theme to the novel is that the world is a stage, that everyone is a puppet under the hand of the Manager of the Performance who observes the Vanity Fair with “a feeling of profound melancholy” (xv), yet himself, “is proud to think that his Puppets have given satisfaction to the very best company of this empire” (xvi). Everyone plays their part in Vanity Fair, including the Manager, is who both an observer and a participant.
Moreover, Thackeray puts forth the view that all are guided, not by free will, but constrained by circumstances, i.e. social environment, to act in a certain fashion. And so, as he illustrates the foibles of his panorama of characters, Thackeray exacts a satiric depiction and critique of the hierarchical, materialist, and thus immoral wasteland that deems itself society. There are few heroic characters among the money grubbing, social climbing, snobby and selfish people whom Thackeray calls Vanity Fair.
Heroine instead?
Part and parcel to Thackeray’s critique is an interrogation of gender roles in Vanity Fair, and in that vein, the novel seems to center around the trajectory of two heroines (not heros), Amelia and Becky. Amelia, however, simply plays her part as the ideal Victorian woman — docile and domestic — and so suffers due to her lack of gumption. This becomes evident when her family loses all their money, and her engagement to Osborne dissolves:
She seemed scarcely more unhappy now when convinced all hope was over, than before when she felt but dared not confess that it was gone. So she changed from the large house to the small one without any mark or difference; remained in her little room for the most part; pined silently; and died away day by day. I do not mean to say that all females are so. My dear Miss Bullock, I do not think your heart would break in this way. You are a strong-minded young woman with proper principles… But there are some souls thus gently constituted, thus frail, and delicate, and tender. (181–2)
Here in contrasting her to Miss Bullock, Thackeray illustrates Amelia’s passivity as weak principles, and finds her far from heroic.
Also in contrast to Amelia, Becky is depicted as the epitome of resourcefulness, if not to shrewdness. She refuses to play the part she is dealt and sets out to change her circumstances.
She was almost mistress of the house when Mr. Crawley was absent, but conducted herself in her new and exalted situation with such circumspection and modesty as not to offend the authorities of the kitchen and stable…A system of hypocrisy, which lasts through whole years, is one seldom satisfactorily practised by a person of one-and-twenty; however, our readers will recollect, that, though young in years, our heroine was old in life and experience, and we have written to no purpose if they have not discovered that she was a very clever woman. (96)
Here, Thackeray admires her intelligence, even as she begins to maneuver and manipulate her way up the ranks of society. However, she eventually loses any sense of moral compass, making her less than heroic.
Anyone manly enough?
While Thackeray seems to have tenderness for Amelia and admiration for Becky, despite both of their shortcomings, he seems to have little respect for such male characters as George Osborne and Jos Sedley. In fact, he uses them-with the Battle of Waterloo as the backdrop-to satire the idea of the war hero. These two men are deemed to be or deem themselves to be war heroes, but too are selfish and vain to fill such a role.
For example, in what is nothing less than satiric stance, Jos Sedley gets the name Waterloo Sedley, yet “His bulk caused Joseph much anxious thought and alarm; now and then he would make a desperate attempt to get rid of his superabundant fat; but his indolence and love of good living speedily got the better of these endeavours at reform, and he found himself again at his three meals a day” (21). Not only does he have no self-discipline, but as Thackery says: “He was as vain as a girl” (22).
Also ironic is that Osborne is deemed to be a hero because he dies at Waterloo, yet in fact he is admired less for his battle skills and more for his social skills. He is adored by his men for being:
a ‘regular Don Giovanni, by Jove’ [which] was one of the finest qualities a man could possess, and Osborne’s reputation was prodigious amongst the young men of the regiment. He was famous in field-sports, famous at a song, famous on parade; free with his money, which was bountifully supplied by his father. His coats were better made than any man’s in the regiment, and he had more of them (123).
In contrast, Rawden Crawley is depicted as less masculine in his activity. He is described as:
A perfect and celebrated “blood,” or dandy about town, was this young officer [Rawdon]. Boxing, rat-hunting, the fives court, and four-in-hand driving were then the fashion of our British aristocracy; and he was an adept in all these noble sciences. And though he belonged to the household troops, who, as it was their duty to rally round the Prince Regent, had not shown their valour in foreign service yet, Rawdon Crawley had already (apropos of play, of which he was immoderately fond) fought three bloody duels, in which he gave ample proofs of his contempt for death. (98)
However, as a dandy and gambler, he is a less than a heroic character as well. Moreover, he gets caught, as does Sedley, in Becky’s web of deceit. Even Dobbin, who is also a soldier, is honorable in his service to Amelia, but he is also deemed weak due to his unrequited love for her.
In conclusion, these leading male characters, even those in the military, show less than typically masculine i.e. heroic qualities, enabling Thackeray to say that Vanity Fair is novel without a hero.
All references are to W.M. Thackeray, Vanity Fair. Norton Critical Edition. New York 1994.
Originally published at http://writingworthreading.blogspot.com.