Happy Mother’s Day. Let’s talk about bad mothers and Jane Austen.

Austen shows us that sometimes the best family is the one we create for ourselves.

This is the Austen Connection newsletter. You can see all of the Austen Connection conversations, including the podcast, here. If you are not signed up yet, you can take a few seconds to sign up for free, or support at any level - below - and get all of the conversations dropped right into your inbox. Thank you for joining us!

Hello dear friends,

Happy spring, happy end-of-semester wherever you are, and happy Mum’s day to all the mothers, daughters, and the people who support them. 

But let’s also talk with the people who are not mothers, and throw in a reminder that not only was Jane Austen never a mother; she also does not have a lot of fantastic things to say about motherhood. She is the opposite of sentimental - and in fact, her novels suggest, motherhood can be a problem. It can make you selfish. It can make you, in Austen, downright wicked. Jane Austen is the antidote to Mother’s Day!

And here at the Austen Connection, Mother’s Day is something we’ve been looking forward to for a full year now because of the opportunity it presents to look at Jane Austen’s mothers and to explore a bit around what Jane Austen is doing with these difficult mothers. She created them after all. They are there for a reason. What are they doing there and what is their purpose? 

From ‘Pride and Prejudice’s’ Lady Catherine and Mrs. Bennet to ‘Sense and Sensibility’s’ terrible mother-daughter team Fanny Dashwood and Mrs. Ferrars, Jane Austen’s fiction is full of motherly awfulness. Photo:©Katerina Solovyeva | Dreamstime.com

Well. One thing that Jane Austen is always doing is holding a magnifying glass up to power and to traditional power structures, especially the inherited ones: who has power, how did they get it, and how do they use it. And parents, especially in the early 19th century, hold power.

One thing that Jane Austen is always doing is holding a magnifying glass up to power and to traditional power structures, especially the inherited ones: who has power, how did they get it, and how do they use it. And parents, especially in the early 19th century, hold power.

One of the most delightful and surprising things Jane Austen does is to exult in showing us the many ways that parents can abuse that power. And as always, she’s not only doing this highly effectively - but she’s doing it with humor. She’s, as New Yorker Louis Menand says, letting us in on the joke. 

So, let’s get down to the mothers of Austen. Who’s your favorite? Is there a good one in the bunch? Is there a favorite baddie? Or do you have a theory or comment on what Austen is doing with motherhood and parenthood in her novels that you want to share? Share away, friend, right here: 

Here’s our countdown of the Bad Moms - taking it from bad to baddest. 

Cheers!

5. Mrs. Bennet: bad, yes, but the better of the Bs 

Because of the popularity of the novel - and the films, the films! - Pride and Prejudice, Mrs. Bennet may be Austen’s most famous bad mum. 

Let us count the ways: She is notoriously vulgar, or as the Brits put it, “mercenary.” She is loud. She is jealous, even of dear Charlotte, whom has presumably grown up around her but who dares to sweep in and get a proposal from Mr. Collins right under the Bennets’ nose. 

Which brings us to: Mrs. Bennet has terrible judgment. And judgment - rationally sizing up and navigating through people and structures - is very important in Austen.

Mrs. Bennet fails. And she does so in hilarious ways: She covets the proposal of the foolish and actually mean Mr. Collins; she carelessly sends Lydia to Brighton and when Lydia is actually preyed upon, Mrs. Bennet hilariously (and tragically?) can only see this ending in glorious marriage. She’s entirely irrational.

And her worst error of judgment might have been in her own choice, we are subtly shown, are we not? The problem is not desire: Mr. Bennet desired her not only at the beginning but through an endless series of ill-advised (given their situation) pregnancies; desire is not at a deficit. But he shows zero respect for his wife (except for her looks, which he praises), even in front of her children. 

So maybe yes, bad mom; but even more: Bad Dad! (We’ll discuss this further for Father’s Day - you’re not getting away with this, Bennet.)

But what motivates Mrs. Bennet? As far as we can see (and please weigh in!) Mrs. Bennet is almost entirely motivated by considerations for the future of her children. And yes she is a bit desperate and a bit loud, and Austen is clearly showing her as ridiculous. But when we look again at how things work out at the very end, Mrs. Bennet does some prevailing. It all comes out right - largely because of Mr. Gardiner, her brother, and Mr. Darcy, sure; but it’s also clear that as bad as the Missus is, she’s better than the Mister, and she’s also better than Darcy’s equivalent of bad family: Lady Catherine de Bourgh. 

As far as we can see Mrs. Bennet is almost entirely motivated by considerations for the future of her children. And yes she is a bit desperate and a bit loud, and Austen is clearly showing her as ridiculous. But when we look again at how things work out at the very end, Mrs. Bennet does some prevailing.

Austen shows up everybody in Pride and Prejudice - but Mrs. Bennet comes out looking better than at least half of the cast purely for her loud, obnoxious love for her daughters. 

Well then: Cheers to Mrs. B! 

4. Terrifying Catherine de Bourgh as a mother - can you imagine?! 

If you want a true baddie in Jane Austen, look for the titles. And when you see a “Sir” or a “Lady” attached, beware: Whatever you’ve dealt with in bad characters before, Austen seems to say, when the aristocracy arrive it is going to get worse.

We can and do spend a lot of time unpacking why that is, but it’s Mother’s Day and we have brunch to get to so let’s be satisfied with simply naming it for now, and to say that Lady Catherine exemplifies all that is bad and worse in whatever it is Austen is trying to show us about the aristocracy, including: random and unjust entitlement, unrestrained rudeness, innate snobbery, and abuse of power. That’s an offhand list; there’s likely much more. 

[I]f you want a true baddie in Jane Austen, first look for the titles. And when you see a “Sir” or a “Lady” attached, beware: Whatever you’ve dealt with in bad characters before, Austen seems to say, when the aristocracy arrive it is going to get worse.

But what do all these combined attributes mean for a mother?!

We don’t know much about Lady Catherine’s mothering. Instead we simply see the fruit of the mothering, in the sad, creepy daughter Anne de Bourgh, a silent spectral presence who says not one word on the stage of this novel and has been selected to marry hero Mr. Darcy. 

We see that Lady Catherine is domineering, outspoken, and ultimately cruel. And we see that her daughter is “thin and small,” “sickly and cross,” and possibly also “abominably rude” according to the nonjudgmental Maria Lucas. (Yet Mr. Collins of course finds her beautiful because of her “distinguished birth”!)

However, we are grateful to both Lady Catherine and sad Anne for their aristocratic, sickly presence in this favorite novel, and for giving us one of the best talk-back-to-power scenes in all of literature. 

3. Whiney Mary Musgrove

While Persuasion’s Mary Musgrove is not as bad a personage as Lady Catherine, she gets more points on this particular Mom’s Day bad list for being an entirely indifferent mother; even Lady Catherine has some ambitions for her daughter (even if that ambition is actually more about uniting the two estates of Pemberley and Rosings, a significant detail Austen throws in to the game.) 

Mary is just entirely selfish. And we love it because it is hilarious. Her argument with her rational (at least in contrast to his wife) husband is one of the best arguments in all of Austen. 

And it’s actually an argument about motherhood: Trying to get out of looking after her little boy, who has just had a serious fall, so that she can go to a dinner party, Mary attempts to convince her husband to stay with the boy instead: 

“I hope I am as fond of my child as any mother — but I do not know that I am of any more use in the sick-room … I have not nerves for the sort of thing.”

Austen is doing one of our favorite things in this argument, which could almost be read as anti-feminist because Mary is arguing that you don’t have to be a woman to care for their child - her husband could easily fill this role in their luxurious household. But while Austen is, yes, turning on its head our established notions about family roles, she is at the same time challenging Regency women to not be “elegant females.” This, she is saying, is what that looks like.

In the late 18th century, the elegance of ladies was considered an attribute to work for. Austen is asking: How’s that going for ya? And she’s showing how empty-headed and irresponsible those “elegant females” can be. They’re bad family members, bad people, and bad mothers. Women and humans, Austen argues, are better than that.

In the late 18th century, the elegance of ladies was considered an attribute to work for. Austen is asking: How’s that going for ya? And she’s showing how empty-headed and irresponsible those “elegant females” can be. They’re bad family members, bad people, and bad mothers. Women and humans, Austen argues, are better than that.

And then Mary gets even worse: When the generous Anne volunteers to stay with her nephew so that both parents can attend the dinner, instead of a thank-you Anne gets from Mary an off-handed comment that this is simply as it should be since Anne isn’t herself a mother: “You, who have not a mother’s feelings, are a great deal the properest person.” 

And thus defying logic, off to the party she goes! Bad Mum Mary! 

2-Fanny Dashwood: motherhood can make you mean

Sister of the beloved if weak-willed Edward Ferrars, Fanny Dashwood also delivers one of the best marital manipulation arguments in all of Austen. And her expert manipulation of her husband John Dashwood makes the resistance of Charles Musgrove look like Iron Man. 

Fanny, in three exquisitely cruel conversations as described in our podcast with Austen biographer Claire Tomalin, dissuades her husband from honoring his father’s death-bed request that he look after his sisters and their mother financially, convincing him and confounding logic with the argument that because they are going to poor and lead simple lives, they won’t need any money!

Fanny’s motivation? In a way, it’s motherhood itself. It’s a cautionary tale showing that the generosity of motherhood sort of doesn’t count that much; true generosity is thinking of others that are more other than your very own mini-me progeny. It’s showing how thinking of one’s own children can truly lead to selfishness and monstrosity toward others outside your circle. Perhaps society needs to be arranged better - creating more generous and better humans, inside and outside the family circle.

Mothers and humans of the world - Austen seems to be asking us to look after each other, and to build strong ties based on true affection and love, irregardless of rank, class, and blood ties. 

Fanny’s motivation? In a way, it’s motherhood itself. It’s a cautionary tale showing that the generosity of motherhood sort of doesn’t count that much; true generosity is thinking of others that are more other than your very own mini-me progeny.

Austen is strongly showing what those in difficult, dogmatic and abusive families have long known: that through astute navigation and good choices we can work to build our own families based on like minds and affections, even while we show respect and care for the ones we are related to. 

And Fanny has learned from the best: Her own mother tops our countdown as the worst mother in all of Austen: 

1-Awful Mrs. Ferrars and her awful money

If you are a reader of Jane Austen or a watcher of Austen films, you may have encountered the treachery of Mrs. Ferrars without even realizing it. Mrs. Ferrars is the formidable mother of Sense and Sensibility heartthrob Edward Ferrars.

And Mrs. Ferrars does not appear until late in this book (and possibly not at all in the film? Someone advise!) but her formidable presence pervades it. The mild Edward is struggling to find his place in life. He’d like to be a thoughtful, intellectual clergyman, but we learn his family finds this too unimpressive.

Ultimately, mean Mrs. Ferrars disinherits Edward because of that disastrous engagement to meanie Lucy Steele, and purely out of spite she gives that inheritance to the flamboyant younger son Robert, who turns around and flouts her trust by marrying …. Lucy Steele! The very woman Edward had been disinherited for being attached to. That clears the way for Edward to marry Elinor, and they proceed to do that and scrap together what financial and familial love and support they can, sans Mrs. Ferrars. Instead of family ties on either side, it’s the friendship with Colonel Brandon - who himself has experience with terrible family - that comes through for Edward, for Elinor, and for Marianne.

If all this sounds like a lot, the main thing to know is that Austen is showing some radical stuff through Mrs. Ferrars: 

She’s showing that the traditional structures we think we can rely on for our health, wealth and happiness can fail us. One thing that fails us is the English inheritance laws and the practices of primogeniture that were being debated in Austen’s era. Some philosophers like Edmund Burke felt that handing down wealth through the aristocracy and eldest child (usually sons) would maintain stability in England, even while revolutions simmered in France and North America. Others like Tom Paine argued that these inheritance laws were unfair, especially to younger sons. 

Austen is - if not taking an actual blatant stand either way - examining this practice of inheritance and family money and power can be abused in ways that harm the lives and loves and happiness of young people. 

Austen shows us that sometimes the best family relationships transcend class, rank, and blood ties. And sometimes our best family is the family and community we create for ourselves.

One thing that’s surprising and really fun to shock people with about Austen? Is this way she has of showing us - with humor - that family ties can as often bring harm and abuse as they can love and support. The latter, her novels show, are way harder to come by, and rarer.

We see in Austen’s stories that sometimes the best family relationships transcend class, rank, and blood ties. And sometimes our best family is the family and community we create for ourselves.

---

Thank you for being here, friends! Let us know your own thoughts on mothers, relationships, and family in Jane Austen!

Also, check out this wonderful post on Bad Mothers in Fiction from my Substack pal Elizabeth Marro whose newsletter is Spark, which I subscribe to and adore. Thank you, Betsy, for inspiring this post! 

If your family ties are tolerable, or even wonderful, Austen is a reminder of how rare and wonderful this can be.

Go forth and brunch! 

Yours truly,

Plain Jane 

Community and Links

• Here’s Substack writer Elizabeth Marro’s celebration of bad mothers in literature from her newsletter Spark, which I love - and her Mother’s Day post includes a contribution from me on the Mrs. Ferrars portion of this post.

• Debating Darcy YA author Sayantani Dasgupta talks with Chelsea Clinton on Tuesday, May 24, in a discussion hosted by the wonderful DC bookshop Politics and Prose - I signed up for this!  

• See a fantastic talk on the power of Mrs. Ferrars and what Austen is doing with this character, check out Dr. Octavia Cox’s YouTube lecture. 

• And to see more on bad family in this post from the Austen Connection, and more on the awfulness of Mrs. Ferrars, Lady Middleton, and just about everybody in ‘Sense and Sensibility’ in this post, Death by Drawing Room.

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to share it!