The Villain of Northanger Abbey

The villain of the story does not exist. There are those that antagonize her, such as John Thorpe, with his constant exaggerations, lies, narcissism, and uninvited advances upon Catherine. Perhaps one of the first most major grievances he made against Catherine was when he, "[had] been to Miss Tilney, and made [Catherine's] excuses" against her wishes and multiple refusals, followed by attempting to force her to not refute his lies and apologize to the Tilneys. There were other forces that opposed Catherine or caused her problems throughout Northanger Abbey, such as Isabell and Catherine’s own skewed expectations of life, but I would not qualify these as villains. Similar to our lives, there will be people who oppose us, who possess plans that are not to our benefit, and may actively work in endeavors many would not call righteous or virtuous, but that does not make them villains. If one were to compete in something, such as a game, there will be other players that wish for nothing more for one to lose and be despaired while they claim victory and relish the experience. No matter how much one holds a grudge against these opponents, that does not make them villains. The same is applied in different terms to Northanger Abbey.

I think the entire aspect of a villain should not be asked for the story is not one to possess a villain or a hero, despite how many times the narrator will refer to the protagonist as a hero. In this regard, in response to an idea one of my classmates brought up, I disagree that the narrator is the villain. The narrator tells the story in third person except in the few times they take a moment to insert their own commentary on a given situation or character. The narrator’s voice changes the story’s feel significantly and if it would be told in a different way with a more passive narrator, the story would feel different to the reader. That being said, it would not completely change the story. There is no hero despite how many times the narrator argues otherwise and the story is not one of some grand adventure. Exactly because of this, as a third person narrator never involved in the story or any of the characters, not even as a god-like being watching the action, the narrator does not and cannot act as a the villain. Are narrator’s that kill characters in other stories or cause natural atrocities to occur villains? Not at all, no matter how much they try to insert their own opinion as does the narrator in Northanger Abbey. Northanger Abbey is a parody and the narrator’s part in conveying this to the audience is important, but it is not necessary nor does it stop Northanger Abbey for being a parody. If the narrator would be replaced with a standard, non-involved, third person narrator, the story would remain a parody of gothic novels. This is established through the events of the story and Catherine’s own expectations and actions, especially as the protagonist.

Northanger Abbey is, instead of a story about a hero and a villain, more of story similar to where the characters go on a journey. In such stories where characters go off into the world in such an adventure, is there a villain? There is not. Nature itself does not act as the villain, it may even serve as help. One cannot call a large chasm or a raging river blocking their path as villains either. These are obstacles, antagonizing forces that may cause the characters great harm, or even intend to in the form of animals, but they cannot be called villains. These forces are not evil; they merely exist. Such is also in Northanger Abbey. There are antagonizing forces to the protagonist, and Catherine may even have to overcome or be burdened by these antagonizing forces, but they serve as obstacles, not as villains. Catherine, as in a story about a great journey, has many experiences, some positive, some obstacles that burden her, some teaching her lessons, and after all of the experiences, she has learned as changed as a person. She will not ever defeated a villain.