Vanity Fair

by William Makepeace Thackeray. (1848) Published by Penguin Classics. 814 pages.

Up to page 426. Reviewed 19 July 2008.

In his introduction to this book, J. I. M. Stewart makes it clear that Vanity Fair is a second-tier work as far as 19th Century British fiction goes. Why even read a book that’s not the best of the best, especially if it’s such a long and involved endeavor as this one?
I’m interested in books from different periods of time for the same reason that I’m interested in learning foreign languages, because it lets me distance myself from the place I live and the habits of thought that I otherwise take for granted. I’m especially interested in the way that humor has evolved over time. Vanity Fair has a few bits of good comedy. For instance, there’s the comedy of mistaken intentions when William Dobbin, the novel’s most sympathetic character, sits down with Miss Jane Osborne, who is dearly smitten with him, and tries to have a conversation with her. The poor Jane interprets every word as a sign that William Dobbin is about to propose. It’s just a short scene, but each little turn of the conversation is so well played out that it comes alive.
Later on in the story we watch the young wastrel Rawdon Crawley as he prepares to go to war, bidding farewell to his young wife Rebecca before going off with Wellington’s army to stave off the advance of the Napoleonic army. Touched by the sudden intimation of his own mortality, Rawdon scrambles to think of every last possession that Rebecca might be able to pawn off in case he dies. At the same moment that we’re amused Rawdon’s venality we’re also touched by the fact that this is the closest he’s going to get to real romantic love. And as soon as he leaves, we take a look into Rebecca’s head and see how she’s already scheming about how she might actually be better off if her husband dies on the battlefield.
Brilliant little Becky Sharp is probably the best reason to read this book. She’s a character calculated to defy every expectation of her era’s class-consciousness. An orphan girl of humble origins, she uses all her assets (a keen intellect, a perfect command of French, a nasty sense of humor and a remarkable beauty) to make the rich and powerful fall head-over-heels in love with her. She has generals making fools of themselves, she brings her best friend’s marriage to the brink of collapse, and she makes herself the toast of Belgian high society after Napoleon is defeated. Those who are won over by her let their imaginations run wild, ascribing to her the noblest, most romantic origins they can think of. In the same way, Thackeray encourages us to let our imaginations go as well when it comes to this character, so that by the time the novel is halfway finished we no longer need Thackeray to remind us of Becky’s ruthless character because we already feel as if we have an intimate understanding of her gloriously amoral style of getting a leg up on the whole world.
Although Thackeray claims this is “a novel without a hero,” it is also not a satiric comedy that’s all pitched at the same level. There are plenty of characters that we’re meant only to find ridiculous, such as the spinster Miss Crawley and the swarm of sycophants who gather around her hoping for a bit of her inheritance. But there are also characters who are more tragically than comically flawed, such as old Mr Osborne, who wants deeply to come to peace with his dead son George but is too stubborn to forgive the way George defied his father’s will and married without permission.
What makes this book worth reading is to see how even a second tier novelist of Thackeray’s era devoted himself to the nuance and texture of the world he created, creating space on the stage for humor and sarcasm to give way to moments of true emotion when the need arises.



pp. 426-660; reviewed 2 August 2008


At the end of a hectic day in our hectic world, it’s such a pleasure to sink into the world of a writer like Thackeray who, writing as he did in a serialized form, had every reason to draw his story out, to linger at every little point of interest, to wander off into idle jokes and contemplation. Especially after the battle of Waterloo has been put behind us, Thackeray seems to sit back and let his plot unfold at a slow pace.
This is a book about waiting. Becky and Rawdon and all their relatives wait for the wealthy Miss Crawley to die and pass on her inheritance. Amelia waits for her bitter father-in-law to forgive his grudges against his rebellious son. Poor William Dobbin waits for himself to build up the courage to finally reveal his love for Amelia. And as readers, we’re waiting for the Becky and Amelia’s sons to grow up. Young George Osborne is the spit and image of his dead father, and develops all his father’s overconfidence and bravado. Young Rawdon Crawley’s father is still alive, but has undergone a sort of spiritual death at the hands of the scheming Becky Sharp, who has encouraged him to dull his wits and go to seed while she pursues her own ambitions to penetrate the highest levels of society and especially to take as much advantage as she can of the lecherous Lord Steyne.
A different, more deliberate novelist might have recognized that the story has a natural climax in the battle of Waterloo. All the themes of the book are present there. We can see clearly the rivalry between Becky and Amelia, the inevitable cuckolding of Rawdon Crawley and the frustrated love of the honorable William Dobbin, who makes so many sacrifices to Amelia and yet can’t bring himself to admit his love for her. Once the smoke has cleared and we learn that George has died in battle, the story proper could end, and we could skip ahead to an epilogue where young Rawdon and George are grown, where Amelia and Becky confront each other, as they must inevitably do.
Such a plot structure would be far more economical and probably better. With all the wooly digressions done away with, this would be the sort of precise, clever book that actually makes a point about some theme, be it the vanity of all our worldly pursuits or the virtue of those who live a life without pretense. As it is, though, the novel is beautiful because it’s so inefficient, because it sprawls and wanders so much as Thackeray moves from point A to point B. We get lovely glimpses of the way old Rawdon Crawley nearly finds fulfillment in fatherhood, but doesn’t quite have the wit to understand what’s happening to him. We get to cringe at the injustice as Amelia not only loses her beloved son George, but also is all but forgotten by him. And all of Becky’s bad characteristics, already established prior to the Waterloo episode, get to come forward and develop fully.
More than half of this book is an extended epilogue, slow paced and idle, but what better form for a book whose purpose is to draw a vast mural of all the idle pursuits that people are guilty of.

p. 660 to end. Reviewed 16 August 2008

The most interesting part of this book’s end is the section where, after spending his entire adult life pining for Amelia Osborne nee Sedley, William Dobbin finally stands up to her and declares that he’s realized she isn’t worthy of him by dint of the fact that she’s spurned him all these years when anyone with sense would have recognized and embraced the worth of so much devotion. It stands out because it’s the closest thing there is in the book to a heroic monologue. During the course of the novel, Thackeray finds few emotional causes worthy of his endorsement. Those tract writers and parliamentarians who oppose the slave trade meet only with scorn. The plight of those less fortunate characters, such as Miss Briggs, are recognized, but only as an afterthought; after we get a dark laugh at the way Becky Sharp cheats Briggs out of her small fortune, we’re comforted by the fact that in the end someone looks kindly on her and provides her with a small income. But Thackeray doesn’t seem outraged at the lot of the poor in the way Dickens often was; he’s merely cushioning the novel out so as not to let Briggs distract from the central theme of the book. There are various devout Christians in the book, but we’re led to believe that, while they may be correct in their beliefs, they’re all rather dull.
In the sections leading up to the battle of Waterloo, we witness a literal overnight transition of George Osborne from a philandering good-for-nothing to a man with noble and heroic character who suddenly recognizes the great debt of love he owes his dear wife, Amelia. Here especially, Thackeray seems to be intentionally filing off the sharp edges of his claws. He admits outright that his domain as a writer encompasses only the activities of civilian life, and so here at the border of the military world he feels obliged to drop his own cynical view of the world and bestow Osborne with a fiction of nobility that Thackeray neither believes nor disbelieves, but one from which he can easily distance himself because it’s not of his own design.
But if the battlefield between warring armies is outside Thackeray’s narrative grasp, the battlefield between those who are celebrated and those who are jilted is firmly within it. That’s why Dobbin’s speech jolts us awake after we’ve spent nearly an eternity snoozing through the descriptions of Amelia and Dobbin’s trip to Germany. In Thackeray’s world, the wounds of a man who’s loved his entire life in vain are far more real than the wounds suffered by soldiers in war or by the widows of those soldiers who find themselves left behind to raise their children.
Dobbin’s speech is foreshadowed by the impassioned outburst of Lady Jane against her husband, Sir Pitt, who is on the verge of granting safe harbor to the scheming Becky Crawley. Lady Jane would be a totally forgettable character if it weren’t for this speech that comes out of nowhere in which this character suddenly finds her voice, reminding her husband of her unwavering loyalty and demanding asserting that in this one instance she must be able to make the rules: she will not be under the same roof as Rebecca Crawley.
Becky is the common denominator in both of these outbursts. Even though William is rejecting Amelia, his eyes have been opened to her flaws only because she’s willing to welcome Becky into her home.
Becky is central to the novel, but it’s difficult to understand what she represents. If I were pressed, I’d have to say that she represents the fact that the social world as Thackeray sees it is a zero-sum game. In order for one person like Becky Sharp to prosper and thrive, to gain the recognition of nobility and royalty, to be considered of “good character,” a whole range of people must unwittingly suffer.
There’s a great story here, but it feels as if Thackeray arrived at it almost by chance. Our own age of efficiency-in-fiction would demand that, having discovered his central theme, Thackeray must then go back over his whole narrative, trimming the fat, carefully orchestrating all the subplots and sideshows of the novel so that they somehow resonate with the story of Becky Sharp and her cursed ambitions.
I’ve no doubt that that sort of creative process would have resulted in a better book. However, for the student of writing it’s worthwhile to examine Vanity Fair as it exists today precisely because it’s so easy to see the novels flaws and its potential resting side-by-side. Each of us would probably revise the novel in our own way. If I were to take the story and run with it, I would first try to expand on the story of Becky’s lover, Lord Steyne. Having established the character of Becky, Thackeray needed to create a temptation worthy of her. Steyne is the Darth Vader of this novel. When Thackeray describes Steyne’s world in the chapter Gaunt House, his language immediately heightens itself, and we get a sense that we’re wandering into a territory where there are many ugly secrets. Later on we see how, confronted with the prospect of a duel with Rawdon Crawley, Steyne is able to essentially buy the man off with the offer of an out-of-the-way post as a colonial governor. And near the end of the book, when Becky is tempted to try to win Steyne back, one of his henchmen gives her an ultimatum that essentially tells her that she’s nothing but an embarrassment to the man, and can either get out of town now or face being killed in the dead of night. It’s a portrait of darkly varnished evil that’s all the more fascinating because Thackeray seemed to stumble on it inadvertently. If he’d been a more organized writer, Thackeray doubtless would have seen the value of the character and “capitalized” on it, introducing him earlier and fleshing him out and making him more central to the books narrative. There’s a lesson here to be learned by any young writer. But perhaps the sword has its double edge. I would wager that if Thackeray had been a less spontaneous, less meandering author, Thackeray never would have wandered into this character at all.