My good friend Google gives two main definitions for "heroine," one of them basically being the main "good" female in a book, the other being the female "hero" who does awesome and amazing things over the course of the novel. I found these two definitions interesting and relevant to Northanger Abbey because I believe the latter definition is what people (including myself) traditionally think of with regards to a heroine, while the former is much closer to Catherine's character. That being said, I don't think the author intended for Catherine to be identified by readers as a textbook heroine by any means.
Throughout the entire story, particularly on page 133 when she is examining the mysterious chest, I was waiting for an event to take place in which Catherine "saves the day" despite her plain appearance and personality. However, when the narrator describes the return of Catherine to her home and juxtaposes it with the return of a traditional heroine, I realized that (in my opinion) the sole purpose of calling Catherine a heroine during the course of the story was to satirize characters with this title. Following her description of Catherine's return to Fullerton, the narrator goes on to show how Mrs. Moreland thought her daughter to be a "shatter-brained creature" (185) and that she would be a "sad heedless young housekeeper" (196), which further suggests that Catherine is still nothing to write home about. After considering Austen's motives for calling Catherine a heroine, I think it is pure coincidence that she matches one of Google's definitions for this title, and I am sad to admit that Catherine did not ever have a chance at doing anything spectacular, and Austen dubbed her "an heroine" (8) in order to bolster this book's identity as a satire on gothic novels.
Tate,
ReplyDeleteI think your recognition of different possible definitions of a heroine is extremely significant. I definitely agree that Austen characterized Catherine in the manner she did, making her to be ordinary and failing to complete a stupendous task, to satirize the traditional heroine of gothic novels. However, I don’t think Catherine is completely undeserving of her title. Just as Ned Kelly represented a sort of “pragmatic hero” in True History of the Kelly Gang, Catherine may be the “pragmatic heroine.” Catherine does arguably undergo some sort of maturation or transformation throughout the novel. She becomes more self-reflective (especially after Henry confronts her about her wild imagination with regard to Mrs. Tilney’s death (158)) and independent and begins to see the disparity between genuine and false relationships. Through this subtle development, Catherine’s character is seemingly more realistically-minded and relatable. Throughout the novel, she makes an honest effort to act in accordance with her morals, as did Ned Kelly (although Catherine’s circumstances are much more mundane), and to live up to the expectations that have been set for her. “…felt greatly relieved by Mr. Allen’s approbation of her own conduct, and truly rejoiced to be preserved by his advice from the danger of falling into such an error herself” (85). Because of this, Catherine may not only be a heroine as she is the “main ‘good’ female” in the novel, but could possibly be classified as a pragmatic or realistic heroine.