Besides this he suffers from a lack of confidence. He himself discovers in the end that she is cold and selfish and not at all worthy of his devotion. But his very devotion to Amelia smacks of stupidity.
It is he who brings George Osborne and Amelia, and later on it is through him that Amelia is reconciled to old George Osborne. No doubt he is chivalrous and self-sacrificing in the way in which he constantly helps Amelia. Most of the time, he remains in the background as a kind of wooden norm.
William Dobbin, no doubt, is noble, generous, and self-sacrificing, but he, too, has nothing heroic about him. His appearance on the scene is brief and fitful and he remains off the stage for long periods. Neither is he the centre of interest in the story. Finally, he falls a victim to Becky Sharp and is (most probably) poisoned by her. He is a coward who runs away from the war-torn Brussels, leaving even his own sister alone and unprotected. Jos Sedley, fat, shy, boastful and gormandizing is a figure of fun, and not a hero. There are four male characters- Jos Sedley, George Osborne, William and Rawdon Crawley-none of them has the qualities. Judged from these standards none of the male character in the novel can be called its hero. Secondly, he must be the centre of interest in the novel and the rest of the story should be surveyed through his eyes. He must be heroic enough to master his circumstances.
He must be brave, a man of valour, fearless, noble, generous and self-sacrificing. First the hero must have certain qualities which are considered heroic. Before discussing whether Thackeray’s masterpiece has a hero or a heroine or not, let us first examine the qualities of the hero of a novel. Thackeray has called Vanity Fair, “a novel without a hero” and other like Elizabeth Drew, have said, “if the novel has no hero, it has two heroines”. Vanity Fair as a Novel Without a Hero Introduction
0 kommentar(er)
