bad education

 It seems that the 'happy end' of MP comes from the characters' graduation as their education is complete.  Almost everyone is said to have learned from the errors of their ways and almost everyone is rehabilitated into MP.  And though this is the ending we've been expecting of a morally didactic novel, Austen's rushed ending leaves me wondering whether anybody's learned anything and whether even I, as a reader, have learned anything.  Maria and Henry’s elopement happens from their chance encounter, ultimately leading to Edmund and Fanny’s marriage which also depends on Mary’s support of her brother.  And then Yates and Julia’s marriage seems to come from nowhere.  These events weren’t inevitable and because everything comes from luck and just happens to work out, no one learns anything.  Rushworth is free to walk away from his cuckoldry and stupidity without consequence.  Mary seems to be fine too, and though there’s mention of her missing Edmund I’m sure she’ll soon realize she was too good for him anyway. We don’t really get to see how Edmund’s love for Fanny developed and I’m convinced that Edmund is perhaps experiencing a shortage of women and just settles for Fanny, maybe even recognizing that someone as virtuous and devout as Fanny would only make him look good as a clergyman.  Sir Thomas seems to learn from the error of his tyranny perhaps the most but then also brings in Susan to take care of Lady Bertram.  The rest of Fanny’s family remains in Portsmouth as though they are beyond any possible education.  Only Susan is worthy of moving to MP or even learning from Fanny in the Portsmouth scene.  Yates and Julia apologize and can come back to MP; Tom wakes up from his sickness and is all of a sudden morally cured too; and, of course, Maria and Mrs. Norris are banished because—like Fanny’s family—they can’t be educated and instead must be physically removed.  Fanny hasn’t learned anything but has been rewarded for remaining the same—which makes me wonder why Susan has to come to MP at all if it’s a place that just seeks to corrupt.  Not much has changed by the end of the novel.

So what’s the lesson here: become an obedient, pious girl and the universe will reward me, and through serendipity no less?  (Maybe I should return to McDonnell’s article here.) Austen continues to reward her heroines for sitting around and waiting while demonizing, or at least punishing, those who actively seek their future husbands/fortunes.  So then where do our heroines get their power?  If Elizabeth’s power comes from her intelligent witty thought and speech, then Austen weakens this power at the end of the novel by leaving Elizabeth to question everything that she does.  I understand that epistemologically this is more sound and human even, but if she’s made self-aware of her prejudices that have thus far clouded her judgment then how much more intelligent is she in the end?  Why critique the one thing that sets her apart and makes her stand out from all the other women?  Likewise, if Catherine’s independence and free-spiritedness comes from her candidness then how helpful is her self-awareness in the end?  Austen chips away at what makes these women special by presenting these attributes as juvenile, obstructive of their personal/spiritual/social development, and generally disadvantageous.  Marianne too must let go of her ‘fancies’ of love and charming princes and accept Colonel Brandon.  I’m not sure what Elinor and Fanny really have to give up as they grow though they’re rather pious, prude, and priggish to begin with and their suffering becomes almost Christ-like.  Growing up seems to mean sacrificing and that sacrifice is then rewarded with a proposal.  And yet, the men don’t sacrifice anything except maybe past engagements.  What lessons are we supposed to learn from Austen and could we see those very 'lessons' as parody?