Minahil Mehdi's Post: The narrator’s lordship in determining men’s morality

The act of puppetry begs to be considered in a fantastic light, beyond its purpose of entertainment and festivity. The omniscient puppeteer controls in a god like manner. What is more exotic about this superior entity is that the godliness is just a façade (after all the undercover is just a human), the audience of the show hence can always have the liberty to transcend the status of the puppeteer and find flaws in the entire act- oh how dear is criticism. The puppet show, the focus for now, is classic still with all its defects and excellence. It mimics the most powerful creative act; of striking imagination into lifeless objects (reminds of the favors sun does to the moon). It is reeked in nuances. A plethora of perspectives outshine from every act. The puppet master placed on the gallery has his/her own purpose, the puppets their own and the audience add yet another personal dimension. The sight; enchanting. 

What is Jane Austen other than an exquisite puppet master? Her words are not words. They are a breath, they lie in metaphors, in mysteries, in character and echo through her role as an omniscient narrator. It is her (the narrator) who grants Edmund the wisdom, Fanny her innocence, Henry his Byronic attachments, William his sweetness and Thomas Bertram his patriarchal disposition. She ordains. The role of moral and social visions according to none other but the narrator are crucial to the text.

We know the uprightness of Edmund, the openness in his character when needed, especially in welcoming Fanny as a timid child. His sense of justice in propriety and service are well laid out. The strength of character also commendable. Yet in the task that matters most (the heart, what else?) he fails by developing affections for Miss Crawford. We’re taken to their relationship, knowing owing to the narrator the flaws in their coming together. The glory of Edmund is hence undermined, his Christian honor questioned only to be corrected by the narrator to bring the reader in sync with her idea of moral and social visions. The men are at her disposal.

Next, the mischievous dimensions in Henry are presented as unforgivable. The refusal to his proposal embeds in the readers mind as a victory in Fanny’s confidence and independence of will. Finally his affair with Maria reinforces the presence of a beast that is lurking in his character. The reader is constantly driven by the omniscient narrator’s domestic values. The play of morality and men begs the approval of the narrator who is shaping the readers judgments. She is the upholder of all honor and decency.    

Ironically enough, the only candidate for qualifying as a genuinely decent gentleman, William is largely left out. While Sir Thomas runs his government (of Mansfield) like a tolerably typical patriarch on many occasions accompanied by Mrs. Norris.

All characters are but puppets of the narrator. They are placed as distinct charismas, mesh together on occasions, scream out frictions at others and throughout, constantly the reader is aware of what the ‘right’ thing to do is, courtesy the narrator. The puppet show is well put, there are sufficient flashes of color and drama, sincerity of emotions, towering figures complimented with timid ones but the criticism still follows, as is due.