Author Q&A: Haley Stewart, Author of Jane Austen's Genius Guide to Life
Haley Stewart is a Catholic writer, speaker, podcaster, and homeschooling mom of four. She interviewed me two years ago about one of my books, and now it’s my turn to ask her some questions about her thoughtful and perceptive new book, Jane Austen’s Genius Guide to Life: On Love, Friendship, and Becoming the Person God Created You to Be. If you know Jane Austen’s work, you’ll be able to follow our conversation with ease. If you have yet to read Austen, you should still do okay—but do start reading Austen as soon as you can!
Q: When you’re examining a great author through a moral or spiritual lens, there’s often a risk of turning his or her books into mere tools to be used for a didactic purpose, rather than respecting them as the rich and full and witty stories that they are. How did you avoid that trap when writing this book?
A: Well, thank you for the affirmation that I avoided that! I think part of it is simply that Austen’s novels are so rich, full, and witty that making them dull is almost impossible. But perhaps it’s also because I’ve loved Austen for so long that she was forming my moral imagination before I even knew it was happening. I enjoyed her novels because of how delightful they are before thinking about them through a moral or spiritual lens.
Q: You describe both of Elizabeth Bennet’s parents in Pride and Prejudice as foolish, even though so many of us really like Mr. Bennet. Why is it important to remember that he’s foolish in his own way?
A: I have such great affection for Mr. Bennet! His dialogue is hilarious, and while his love for his daughters does not motivate him to protect them the way a father should (financially and morally), the reader has no doubt of his love for Elizabeth and Jane. So I think we tend to see him through Elizabeth’s affection for her father, but we also experience her frustration as she attempts to avoid the errors that are the result of his negligence.
While Mrs. Bennet is cringeworthy and embarrassing, it’s easy to forget that much of the contempt towards her is perpetuated by Mr. Bennet. Yes, she is irritating and flawed, but can we fault her for obsessing over financial security when her husband seems uninterested in what will happen to her after his death? I think we are often quick to blame those who irritate us while giving a free pass to those we are fond of who are equally at fault. Austen doesn’t let us get away with that! But she also reminds us that we can love flawed people, speak truth to them (as Elizabeth tries to do!), and forgive them for their faults. Austen puts us in a strange position. We know that the entire plot is set in motion by Mr. Bennet’s apathy and failures while we also want to be invited to his study to share some jokes.
Q: I have to confess that I am one of those people who just can't get into Fanny Price from Mansfield Park, even though as a general rule I tend to like the really good characters (such as Dickens’s Amy Dorrit and Wharton’s May Welland). But you draw some interesting comparisons/contrasts between Fanny and Anne Elliot of Persuasion. Why do you think it’s easier for so many of us to like Anne than Fanny, when they have so much in common?
A: While Anne and Fanny are both introverted and thoroughly good, Anne has a quiet confidence that we admire. Fanny’s tendency toward diffidence (perhaps due to childhood trauma? Or simply her natural bent?) makes her ability to maintain a strong sense of self all the more impressive, but I don’t think it endears us to her. And while the reader is privy to both Anne and Fanny’s judgments about the moral decisions of others, Fanny comes across as more judgmental. Perhaps (although she is correct about Mary Crawford’s flaws) knowing that Fanny is in love with Edmund makes her dislike for Mary harder to swallow. Anne also seems like someone who you could sit down with for a cup of tea and really enjoy. And (although defending her goodness is a hill I would die on) a date with Fanny sounds like a bit of a chore!
Q: You share some interesting thoughts on Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility. I've sometimes wondered, is Austen saying that if he had confessed everything, given up his inheritance, and married Marianne, they could have had a happy marriage despite his flaws? What do you think, and why?
A: Unless Willoughby went through a serious transformation, there could be no happy future for him with Marianne. I think that in hindsight, Marianne realized that had the stars aligned for them to wed, he would have been resentful towards her for her lack of fortune and it would have poisoned his affection for her. I also think that even Marianne’s blind love for Willoughby would not be able to overlook his seduction and desertion of the young woman he impregnated. I think that blow would have undone her admiration for him. Willoughby is such an interesting character because we do feel for him. We are fond of him. We want him to do better! And I think a part of him wants to do better, too. But it’s not enough to spur him on to change or experience true repentance for his actions.
Q: You wrote the best explanation I’ve ever seen of the commonly used line “This is not who you are!” I’ve always thought that was silly when I heard it in movies and TV shows, but you showed that it really makes sense when we start thinking about who God created us to be. How do Austen’s characters—both the virtuous ones and the flawed ones—help us keep this concept in mind?
A: I think that Austen often makes us interested in characters’ potential. Willoughby is the perfect example! He could have been a selfless, devoted, courageous man. We can imagine him that way! But we know he has not become all that he might and it disappoints us! Henry Crawford is this way, too. Despite his moral weakness, we can envision him being transformed by love for Fanny. How gratifying that would have been!! And then we also see in Austen’s heroes and heroines how things might have been different for them as well. What if Emma had not conquered her selfishness and just become smaller and smaller souled? Or what if Anne had been so crushed by disappointment that she could not recover? But the best version of each person is who they were designed by God to be (which is why we celebrate as the heroes and heroines triumph over their vices and grieve over the Willoughbys and Henry Crawfords who were made to be so much more).
Q: You did a great job covering Austen's best-known characters here, but are there any characters that you wish you could have spent more time on, or any that you didn’t get to cover that you wish you had?
A: There are truly no “throwaway” characters in Austen. They’re all so fascinating! I would have loved diving more deeply into Lucy Steele, Sir John Middleton, Lady Middleton, Charlotte Lucas, Mr. Bingley, Jane Bennet, and also the Eltons of Emma.
(Cover image copyright Ave Maria Press)
Book Links:
Jane Austen’s Genius Guide to Life on Amazon
Jane Austen’s Genius Guide to Life on Bookshop