Is She Worthy? by Ricky C.

Editor’s Note: This article contains spoilers for Jane Austen’s book, Emma.

While following the main character of Jane Austen’s Emma, Emma Woodhouse, I found myself wanting to bang my head against a wall periodically. I don’t read a lot of novels, but I’ve been listening to this audiobook in English and Korean to boost my language skills. You may have read this book or seen one of the movies, but in short, this is a story set in a fictional town called Highbury in early 19th-century England. It follows the privileged life of Emma Woodhouse and her circle of friends, with romance, marriage, and conflict peppered throughout.

Due to the period of this book, the language can feel formal and distant, and the emphasis on propriety, decorum, and clear social classes may seem out of touch. I’m familiar with some of Austen’s other books, so this didn’t come as a surprise, but the thing that really irked me about this story was the protagonist, Emma–she’s a brat. She’s perpetually meddling in the business of others: successfully dissuading her “disadvantaged” friend Harriet Smith from marrying a decent man because she felt that marrying a farmer would reduce Harriet’s social standing. Following this, she convinces her friend that another “gentleman”, Mr. Elton, is in love with her when he’s not, and that she should pursue this courtship, which ends in disaster. 

The opening line of the book sets the tone perfectly: "Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her." She’s satisfied with her existence and has "very little intention of ever marrying at all" while finding pleasure in orchestrating the relationships around her. At one point, Emma is attracted to and possibly in love with a charming bachelor, Frank Churchill, but finds a way to talk herself out of this by assessing and calculating until she becomes indifferent.

The one time she starts to feel anything is late in the story when Harriet confesses that she’s in love with George Knightley, brother of Emma’s sister’s husband and close friend of Emma. Emma comes to the realization that Knightley is a good man and that she might love him as well, but this only comes after Harriet reminds her of his decency. George Knightley feels like the voice of reason in this story: he is kind, thoughtful, discerning, and is not afraid to call out Emma when she’s out of line. “It was badly done, indeed!—You, whom she had known from an infant, whom she had seen grow up from a period when her notice was an honour, to have you now, in thoughtless spirits, and the pride of the moment, laugh at her, humble her…” In another part of the story, he rebukes Emma, “You have been no friend to Harriet Smith, Emma,” when he finds out that she persuaded Harriet to reject the farmer Mr. Martin’s marriage proposal.

If Knightley is the voice of reason, then I would claim that Harriet Smith is the true heroine. She is passionate, earnest, sweet, and she can perceive the goodness in others. She reflects, "He [Mr. Martin] had gone three miles round one day in order to bring her some walnuts, because she had said how fond she was of them, and in everything else he was so very obliging." Harriet was the first to point out the significance of Knightley’s actions: “Knightley's coming and asking me to dance, when Mr. Elton would not stand up with me; and when there was no other partner in the room. That was the kind action.” She perceived Knightley when Emma didn’t fully appreciate his kindness. However, Harriet’s major flaw was her lack of discernment or wisdom. Had she been wiser, she would have disregarded Emma’s objections to Mr. Martin’s marriage proposal. Had she been wiser, she would not have been so easily influenced by Emma and her ideas of a courtship with Mr. Elton.

Had Harriet Smith been more audacious, she might have embraced the idea that she is worthy and that drawing closer to Knightley was not so far-fetched. That would have been a moving narrative and was the love story I was hoping for. There is something sweet and pure in Harriet, and although this can sometimes be viewed as naivety or weakness, these characteristics can be an asset, even—or especially—in a world that is complex and often jaded. As the story unfolds, it seems that Knightley may not be the enlightened gentleman as he is previously portrayed. Despite his kindness and gallantry, he has no interest in Harriet and may not have ever considered her a suitable partner.

Near the end of the story, Emma’s remorse for her past actions is clear; there is a redemptive quality to her self-reflections. She realizes that she was the one to build up the confidence and stature of Harriet and felt responsible for elevating Mr. Knightley in the eyes of her friend. But is Emma’s remorse adequate atonement? In spite of her realization, Emma ponders, “Such an elevation on her [Harriet’s] side! Such a debasement on his! ...Was it a new circumstance for a man of first-rate abilities to be captivated by very inferior powers?” In Emma’s eyes, Harriet is not worthy, and “…that Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself!”

I don’t see the redemption in Emma. Although she is reflective and remorseful, this doesn’t seem adequate, and fundamentally, she is the same. She showed no willingness to encourage or endorse Harriet's ideas of Knightley because of prejudice as well as her own feelings for him, continuing her treatment of Harriet as a personal doormat. In the end, Emma and Knightley realize that after all these years, they love each other and end up getting married; Harriet ends up with the humble farmer, and everyone settles with their predestined lot–this actually makes sense to me. 

Of course, it’s easy to criticize a book that was written over two hundred years ago and viewed through a modern lens. And I can admit that the writing is beautiful and moving at times, but the behaviour of Emma seems offensive regardless of time period. I don’t think you need to live in the 21st century to appreciate the idea of treating people with basic dignity.