Relationship Between Fanny And Superman

Auerbach’s conclusion being that “Fanny moves beyond the sphere of traditional heroinism to associate herself with a host of dashing British villains” (449). Auerbach spotlights fanny’s behavior and odd quirks to create a correlation to that of Auerbach’s wild comparisons, a similar approach Johnson took with Sir Thomas. For example, Auerbach compares Fanny to British villains because Fanny displays a quality of disassociation with those around her that are compared with an alienating factor found in a degree of British villains. Auerbach goes a step further asserts a metaphorical reason why Fanny’s dining behavior is reminiscent of the folklore of the vampire. Auerbach states that “Like them, this denying girl will not, perhaps cannot, eat; her abstinence makes her a spectral presence at the
communal feast” (449). Auerbach attempts to show that Fanny Price comes across as a ‘villain’ because she is denying her heroic side and the abstinence within herself.
(Emotionally/Physically isolated factor) As a vampire or villain Fanny does not eat with her family because in this sense she is distancing herself from everyone. Making her an outcast and a ‘spectral presence.’ Auerbach stacks up her argument by literally associating her Fanny’s eating habits with that of a vampire, “Like Fanny, the vampire cannot eat the common nourishment of daily life, but he feasts secretly upon human vitality in the dark” (449). Auerbach uses the vampire analogy to alienate Fanny from the rest of the group but perhaps takes too much of a literal approach. Auerbach uses these similar themes of isolation to make further comparisons, such as Fanny’s gloomy exile matching that of Frankenstein’s monster or Fanny’s rise up the social ladder to that of Grendel’s invasion of the lighted hall. She confuses Austen’s themes of social mobility to that of aggression and states that like Grendel because “He defines his identity as outsider by appropriating the interior; he invades the lighted hall and begins to eat the
eaters. At the end of Mansfield Park, Fanny to has won a somewhat predatory victory, moving from outsider in to guiding spirit of the humbled Bertram family” (450). Once again Auerbach reaches too far and her assertions become less symbolic and more literal.
All three articles share a commonality in that they can be rather inaccessible at times. With Litvak, his thesis and assertions are too broad and in some cases lack specifics which really ground his argument. For example, in his thesis statement Litvak claims that “Actual theatres may be circumcised places that one can have demolished, but in its most generalized form, theatricality is present everywhere though visible nowhere” (479). Litvak’s high fluent themes create an obstacle for the readers to understand. Accompanied by his lack of focus the language of his essay is extremely heavy and inaccessible to the common reader. With such a heavy use of elevated diction, Litvak runs the fear of running off potential readers as well as making it easier for readers to come to conclusions not resembling your initial intentions. Auerbach’s inaccessibility is due to her immediate lack of credibility found within her the openings of her essay. The sheer amount of absolute statements and far-fetched conclusions cripples her credibility and discourages the reader from going any further for they become immediately aware of the non-academic approach found within the essay. Finally, Johnson shares Litvak’s issue in with the lack of focus. Johnson creates strong claims but the last few pages of her essay veers from its initial focus into an unwarranted territory. Even though Johnson speaks truth in her assertions they do not fit the former format of her essay. The majority of her essay focuses solely on Sir Thomas and the later inclusion of small sayings about this or that character breaks up the flow and focus of the essay.
All three critical essays tackle the same subject matter and themes even though in some instances end up in completely opposite directions by their conclusion. They all focus on a particular aspect or character and diagnosis how they are acting within the confines of the novel. Even though a lot of absolutes are found throughout and the language can be a difficulty treading through they are all original in their concept. While they all do not add anything substantial to the Jane Austen conversation they each share glimpses of truth which one can use for inspiration leaving the door open for further ventures into the creative field of literary criticism