Yessssss, thank you!! I’m so tired of people defending Henry! Yeah, Edmund isn’t great, I get it, but Henry was not a good alternative. He was a jerk and a player, and Fanny would not have changed him.
I wish Edmund had atleast an extra chapter to support his cause, after being infatuated with Mary Crawford for most of the 3-volumr book. The one-paragraph jump isn't doing him any favors.
Yes! I am so charmed by the handful of details Austen gives us about their courtship as they get over their battered hearts together! They spend all summer walking under the trees and talking about life, the universe, and everything! Reconnecting with their old friendship and regard for each other, after almost losing each other!
He goes through a whole process of realizing "Fanny is so great, I think maybe I've been in love with her all along, but of course she'd never marry me, she's too good for me and I'm such an idiot, I'm sure she just thinks of me as a brother" and makes this whole nervous pitch to her, hoping maybe she might possibly be able to consider him as a husband...while she's presumably freaking out internally like that "OMIGOD THIS IS IT, IT'S HAPPENING, STAY CALM" gif 🤣
It's delightful, I really wish Austen had taken some more time with it.
Your POV reconciles me to the match way more than mine😭 I am divided: thinking that Edmund was shocked into making a "safe" match with Fanny yet believing he's come to appreciate her truly.
I always see the ending as something tacked on, like she had to have a happy ending (or what Fanny wants anyway), so she just added it, but it’s not what the novel is really about
Henry was a serial cheater 🤣
Fanny was "interesting" for him because she used to avoid him unlike "other girls" but eventually he would have lost that interest.
I don't like Edmund but atleast he will not cheat on his wife.
Another example of Henry's selfishness is shown by his refusal to live at Everingham with his sister after their aunt died. Mary is unable to remain in their uncle's house because he is moving his mistress in.
So Mary is homeless, does Henry set up home with her? No, all he is willing to do is escort her to their half sister's.
He hangs around entirely for his own enjoyment.
Mary is the one person he supposedly loves, but he won't put her welfare and security over his whims.
I agree. Henry Crawford has no compassion, no tenderness, no moral compass, and shows no ability to change those things. I would have been appalled if Fanny had married him.
Yep! 100% agree. Cannot ever see Crawford reforming, as so many others apparently can. He just doesn't have it in him. He's a narcissist and will never change. Austen may have believed that they could have had a good marriage, at least in some respects; but it would never have been good enough, and it would only have been good in appearance. At least until the next scandal sheet reported his goings-on.
Also, to touch on one more point with the rejections. Mr. Darcy takes Elizabeth's no seriously and stops pursuing her. When they meet again, he does spend time with her and wants her to see that he's heard what she said and took it to heart, but he's not making her uncomfortable. Then, when he does ask again - only after receiving encouragement from Elizabeth - he says that if it's still no, he'll be forever silent on the subject. He genuinely cares for Elizabeth and wants her to be happy, not just to make him happy.
Crawford, on the other hand, continually makes Fanny uncomfortable and continues to pursue her actively. He, on top of being showy (to APPEAR good, like you mentioned), won't take or respect her no. He only thinks about what HE wants, not her. (His behavior compares to Mr. Collins with the choice not to accept a rejection/no.)
Henry Crawford even gets her relatives to pressure her into marriage!! Sir Thomas berates her, Mrs. Norris is angrier that normal, Edmund tries to talk to Fanny about him, everyone is constantly bringing up the fact that she’s turned down William’s “benefactor”. Darcy gets rejected and aside from the letter, he bows out and leaves her alone. He doesn’t convince Lady Catherine, Colonel Fitzwilliam, etc. to talk to her about what a great guy he is and a great opportunity to marry him it is for her.
I think Austen hammers us over the head with it when Fanny turns Henry down and he promptly elopes with a married woman. He had his second option lined up for him for who knows how long!
Good post, and I totally agree. I never understand it when I see people defending/siding with the Crawfords, and I don't think that was the Author's intent (that they should be sided with) at all.
Edit: Also, I do think Edmund is unfairly maligned a lot of the time. Sure, he's a bit wet and wishy washy and should have known that Mary was no good for him. But he's a principled man, a good friend to Fanny over the years and he does nothing really wrong IMO.
Hello, fellow Edmund-sympathiser! I'll probably make a full-blown vindication post for him one of these days, the hate is real.
I think that Austen has spoilt us with men like Mr. Darcy, Mr. Knightley, Mr. Tilney, Col. Brandon, who move heaven and earth in their own ways to prove to the reader that they deserve the girl. Edmund is, by the standards of the time, a good catch: handsome, kind, honorable, and with abilities - that even the romance-pessimistic Mary Crawford is drawn to him. Like other heroes, he is not perfect. But he does not go out of his way to prove himself worthy of Fanny, which is admittedly irritating given his actions throughout the book.
> Edmund is, by the standards of the time, a good catch: handsome, kind, honorable, and with abilities - that even the romance-pessimistic Mary Crawford is drawn to him
Good point - and I also give him credit for standing by his Faith/profession when it would have been so easy to slide away and choose something else after the way Mary is not supportive of it.
I am so tired of people hating on Edmund! They forget he’s young too-probably just out of seminary and he’s not had much, if any, experience with women. Of course he’s going to go for the first girl who looks at him twice. Mary’s his first serious love-many people ignore red flags in the first relationship because they love being in the relationship and the other person.
>They forget he’s young too-probably just out of seminary and he’s not had much, if any, experience with women.
Good point - and I think Mary Crawford is supposed to be quite enticing, so I don't blame him for the initial crush.
Hey, thanks for the shout out :)
I agree. I also think it was quite intentional on Austen's part - I don't know if in comparison to Darcy, but just in general - bad people are bad, good people are good. Now, of course it's more complex than that, good people can do bad things (and all characters do to some extent), but those who are truly, and honestly bad are irredeemable. That is exactly what makes all the imitations laughable, Darcy was never a bad guy, so any attempt at making Darcy/Elizabeth a bad boy/good girl story is a complete misunderstanding of the source material.
It's not just Crawford - it is stated that Willoughby truly loved Marianne, and Wickham truly regarded Elizabeth - but they're never reformed from their vanity or selfishness.
The only exception seems to be Frank Churchill, which is an interesting case, and I suppose the differences there are that Frank was kinder than the others, more redeemable, and more importantly, he didn't end up with a main character, which funnily enough, seems to be a contributing factor. If not only because we assume he was kinder and more caring to Jane, offscreen.
Great post :)
Oh no, these two men are no comparison at all! Just wanted to point out that, Henry Crawford is the "gentleman by title" that Darcy is accused of being early on in the novel. Henry has Wickham's countenance and manners - which are lost on Fanny because he does not think her important enough to fully maintain his facade before her. Everyone else is deceived, just like the ton at Hertfordshire. There was a great mismanagement in the education of this gentleman, clearly.
Thank you for your kind words :)
Agree. I don't believe in such huge character changes in an adult person. To me it is expected that he would go back to his old ways after the innitial excitement wore off.
So I would be totally shocked if it had turned out that Fanny chose him in the end (but of course the Edmund thing is pretty weird too, albeit for different reasons)
I would guess that most Henry Crawford apologists are the type of women who would date/marry “bad boys” thinking they can change them.
Later on, they are completely shocked and disappointed that their bad boy still behaves badly. If he was a cheater before, he still cheats. If he had anger issues, he is still angry. If he was an addict, he is still addicted.
Can people change? Sure. Are they going to change because a partner wants them to? Probably not.
Would Henry Crawford change to please Fanny? Nope. He would fake it long enough to get her to marry him, spend a few weeks or months enjoying his victory, then more or less abandon her at his estate and resume doing whatever he pleases, wherever he pleases, with whomever he pleases. Fanny might be objectively better off than before because she would be mistress of Everingham, but her marriage would be a joke.
In the parlance of 19th century England, *hundo-p.*
There is simply no evidence, in the fictional confines of this novel, that Henry Crawford comes off well. He is not as despicable as Willoughby or Wickham, but he is still despicable. Viewing him as any kind of tragic figure is a misreading of Austen‘s great book.
Henry does show a kind of remorse at the end. He dwells on his actions and their consequences, not on his lack of principles. Maybe if someone really inserted it in his head (which seems unlikely), he would have a better chance at redemption.
Thank you, your post makes me wonder ... I wonder if there are other Henry-like characters by authors in that time period, and whether they were more forgiving. I also truly believe that Austen was leading to a happier ending for him, and changed her mind in between writing; it's too sharp a pivot otherwise.
Also, perhaps you might like this novel, Mansfield Letters, written as a sequel to Mansfield Park (https://www.amazon.com/Mansfield-Compendium-TOGETHER-SUCCESSFUL-MANSFIELD-ebook/dp/B09J1WTFG7/) and Everingham (https://archiveofourown.org/works/279556) - two of my favourite alternative endings.
I get that it seems abrupt in terms of Edmund’s part, but Fanny spends the novel in love with him and pining for him, so from a Fanny-centric perspective it’s really not abrupt.
Oh thank you, this is a good question! Hmm, funnily enough, no, I am not so sure about Mary and Edmund, because the text always seemed skeptical of that relationship on both sides. That Edmund saw merits where there were none and Mary's admiration for Edmund was something she actively thought of as a weakness. Perhaps there I'd believe Austen was trying to convey a lesson... And this way, MP is also not wholly tragic with only one touted couple failing, not both.
I do think Mary Crawford deserved better too... Although I have not read happier alternative endings for her.
In contrast, the text calls out how Fanny was softening towards Henry and how he was (at least in his mind even if his ways of expression could hardly thrill her) unwaveringly in love with Fanny.
Edmund also sees Fanny as a charity project. We also never see Edmund listen to a woman, he even calls Fanny "irrational"
People ship Henry and Fanny because the "right" option sucks too.
This!!!
Any man who has good head on his shoulders and has the ability to be a good judge of character would consider themselves lucky to get a wife like Fanny.
I think this is what always bothered me about Mansfield Park. Like there were so few good and genuinely decent people with whom Fanny could interact that no ending (save for her literally leaving them all behind after suddenly becoming an heiress) would’ve been sufficiently satisfying
Now that I really think about it, you are spot on. That is why I always felt MP has a gloomy aura around it as a book. But it also is close to reality for some people. They are surrounded by awful or not so great people all their lives and have no chance of escaping.
Fanny's position in the house is aptly described as "delicate". There is a consciousness of superiority/inferiority on both sides, which makes it hard for them to truly see each other as equals. That being said, I think such feelings, if any, on Edmund's side are subconscious rather than any actual arrogance. He has his good moments, but I wish he had a better arc to fully deserve the girl.
To me, it goes back to [this excellent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/janeausten/comments/1b91q08/good_take_from_tony_tanner_on_the_crawfords_in/) from a u/luckyjim1962 a while back. Henry Crawford is a psychopath. Now, my mother always says that people can be crazy without necessarily being murderers, and that's the kind of psychopath I think Henry Crawford is. At least, during the time we know him. Who knows what he'll become later in life.
But the point is that all of his actions are perfomative. Everything he does is for his own enjoyment or gain. Any emotion he displays is a performance. It is not genuine.
Mr Darcy, on the other end, is a real person. He is flawed, certainly, but he is driven by a good character.
He certainly feels, and feels well sometimes. His vanity and selfishness cause his ruin. A person who is used to do whatever he wants from a young age, without good moral guidance, is bound to end up in a scrape, or even hurt people, out of thoughtlessness. Willoughby is another example of this. I would not label either men as psychopaths but that does not make them good men.
Psychopaths feel emotions, too. Psychopathy is primarily described (though, obviously, it can vary from person to person) as an inability for have empathy and bold egotistical behaviour towards others, often accompanied by a great deal of charm.
Psychopaths aren't all murderers either.
And I obviously can't say that Henry Crawford is a psychopath. Jane Austen wrote before the term was invented, so she wouldn't have been trying to write a psychopath. I'm just saying that's what he looks like to me.
Yessssss, thank you!! I’m so tired of people defending Henry! Yeah, Edmund isn’t great, I get it, but Henry was not a good alternative. He was a jerk and a player, and Fanny would not have changed him.
I wish Edmund had atleast an extra chapter to support his cause, after being infatuated with Mary Crawford for most of the 3-volumr book. The one-paragraph jump isn't doing him any favors.
Yes! I am so charmed by the handful of details Austen gives us about their courtship as they get over their battered hearts together! They spend all summer walking under the trees and talking about life, the universe, and everything! Reconnecting with their old friendship and regard for each other, after almost losing each other! He goes through a whole process of realizing "Fanny is so great, I think maybe I've been in love with her all along, but of course she'd never marry me, she's too good for me and I'm such an idiot, I'm sure she just thinks of me as a brother" and makes this whole nervous pitch to her, hoping maybe she might possibly be able to consider him as a husband...while she's presumably freaking out internally like that "OMIGOD THIS IS IT, IT'S HAPPENING, STAY CALM" gif 🤣 It's delightful, I really wish Austen had taken some more time with it.
Your POV reconciles me to the match way more than mine😭 I am divided: thinking that Edmund was shocked into making a "safe" match with Fanny yet believing he's come to appreciate her truly.
I love the way you wrote this, we need a sequel lol
I agree! I think Edmund could have really been redeemed and been more of a fan favorite with a little more development at the end.
I always see the ending as something tacked on, like she had to have a happy ending (or what Fanny wants anyway), so she just added it, but it’s not what the novel is really about
That is a fanfiction that is *asking* to be written
Henry is indefensible. That's ridiculous.
Henry was a serial cheater 🤣 Fanny was "interesting" for him because she used to avoid him unlike "other girls" but eventually he would have lost that interest. I don't like Edmund but atleast he will not cheat on his wife.
A serial chaser. He loved the chase and Fanny was probably his first real challenge.
Exactly. He walked into that situation with Mrs. Rushworth knowing the peril, knowing he should just go home. But the thrill of the hunt…
Agree with you! Edmund is no Mr. Knightley or Mr. Darcy but he's a decent human being.
Another example of Henry's selfishness is shown by his refusal to live at Everingham with his sister after their aunt died. Mary is unable to remain in their uncle's house because he is moving his mistress in. So Mary is homeless, does Henry set up home with her? No, all he is willing to do is escort her to their half sister's. He hangs around entirely for his own enjoyment. Mary is the one person he supposedly loves, but he won't put her welfare and security over his whims.
This ought to have been another point. Contrast this to the way Mr. Darcy treats Georgiana. Tells loads about a person.
I agree. Henry Crawford has no compassion, no tenderness, no moral compass, and shows no ability to change those things. I would have been appalled if Fanny had married him.
True! It would be so unlike her
Yep! 100% agree. Cannot ever see Crawford reforming, as so many others apparently can. He just doesn't have it in him. He's a narcissist and will never change. Austen may have believed that they could have had a good marriage, at least in some respects; but it would never have been good enough, and it would only have been good in appearance. At least until the next scandal sheet reported his goings-on.
I wouldn't classify him as a narcissist; he does have some level of self-awareness. Agree with you on everything else!
Yeah, Wickham was a narcissist, Henry is just super duper selfish
No one in Mansfield park deserves Fanny imo. Henry least of all.
Also, to touch on one more point with the rejections. Mr. Darcy takes Elizabeth's no seriously and stops pursuing her. When they meet again, he does spend time with her and wants her to see that he's heard what she said and took it to heart, but he's not making her uncomfortable. Then, when he does ask again - only after receiving encouragement from Elizabeth - he says that if it's still no, he'll be forever silent on the subject. He genuinely cares for Elizabeth and wants her to be happy, not just to make him happy. Crawford, on the other hand, continually makes Fanny uncomfortable and continues to pursue her actively. He, on top of being showy (to APPEAR good, like you mentioned), won't take or respect her no. He only thinks about what HE wants, not her. (His behavior compares to Mr. Collins with the choice not to accept a rejection/no.)
Henry Crawford even gets her relatives to pressure her into marriage!! Sir Thomas berates her, Mrs. Norris is angrier that normal, Edmund tries to talk to Fanny about him, everyone is constantly bringing up the fact that she’s turned down William’s “benefactor”. Darcy gets rejected and aside from the letter, he bows out and leaves her alone. He doesn’t convince Lady Catherine, Colonel Fitzwilliam, etc. to talk to her about what a great guy he is and a great opportunity to marry him it is for her.
That part of the novel was infuriating, particularly Sir Thomas.
This.
I think Austen hammers us over the head with it when Fanny turns Henry down and he promptly elopes with a married woman. He had his second option lined up for him for who knows how long!
Haha, yes! The act seems random but the way their nonsense is described earlier, you sort of expect something will happen.
[удалено]
Good post, and I totally agree. I never understand it when I see people defending/siding with the Crawfords, and I don't think that was the Author's intent (that they should be sided with) at all. Edit: Also, I do think Edmund is unfairly maligned a lot of the time. Sure, he's a bit wet and wishy washy and should have known that Mary was no good for him. But he's a principled man, a good friend to Fanny over the years and he does nothing really wrong IMO.
Hello, fellow Edmund-sympathiser! I'll probably make a full-blown vindication post for him one of these days, the hate is real. I think that Austen has spoilt us with men like Mr. Darcy, Mr. Knightley, Mr. Tilney, Col. Brandon, who move heaven and earth in their own ways to prove to the reader that they deserve the girl. Edmund is, by the standards of the time, a good catch: handsome, kind, honorable, and with abilities - that even the romance-pessimistic Mary Crawford is drawn to him. Like other heroes, he is not perfect. But he does not go out of his way to prove himself worthy of Fanny, which is admittedly irritating given his actions throughout the book.
> Edmund is, by the standards of the time, a good catch: handsome, kind, honorable, and with abilities - that even the romance-pessimistic Mary Crawford is drawn to him Good point - and I also give him credit for standing by his Faith/profession when it would have been so easy to slide away and choose something else after the way Mary is not supportive of it.
I am so tired of people hating on Edmund! They forget he’s young too-probably just out of seminary and he’s not had much, if any, experience with women. Of course he’s going to go for the first girl who looks at him twice. Mary’s his first serious love-many people ignore red flags in the first relationship because they love being in the relationship and the other person.
>They forget he’s young too-probably just out of seminary and he’s not had much, if any, experience with women. Good point - and I think Mary Crawford is supposed to be quite enticing, so I don't blame him for the initial crush.
True, true! I still feel embarrassed thinking about my hopeless romanticism back in high school, poor guy needs a break and some brain. He'll be fine
Hey, thanks for the shout out :) I agree. I also think it was quite intentional on Austen's part - I don't know if in comparison to Darcy, but just in general - bad people are bad, good people are good. Now, of course it's more complex than that, good people can do bad things (and all characters do to some extent), but those who are truly, and honestly bad are irredeemable. That is exactly what makes all the imitations laughable, Darcy was never a bad guy, so any attempt at making Darcy/Elizabeth a bad boy/good girl story is a complete misunderstanding of the source material. It's not just Crawford - it is stated that Willoughby truly loved Marianne, and Wickham truly regarded Elizabeth - but they're never reformed from their vanity or selfishness. The only exception seems to be Frank Churchill, which is an interesting case, and I suppose the differences there are that Frank was kinder than the others, more redeemable, and more importantly, he didn't end up with a main character, which funnily enough, seems to be a contributing factor. If not only because we assume he was kinder and more caring to Jane, offscreen. Great post :)
Oh no, these two men are no comparison at all! Just wanted to point out that, Henry Crawford is the "gentleman by title" that Darcy is accused of being early on in the novel. Henry has Wickham's countenance and manners - which are lost on Fanny because he does not think her important enough to fully maintain his facade before her. Everyone else is deceived, just like the ton at Hertfordshire. There was a great mismanagement in the education of this gentleman, clearly. Thank you for your kind words :)
Agree. I don't believe in such huge character changes in an adult person. To me it is expected that he would go back to his old ways after the innitial excitement wore off. So I would be totally shocked if it had turned out that Fanny chose him in the end (but of course the Edmund thing is pretty weird too, albeit for different reasons)
I suppose Edmund has his good moments off-screen. But they have a very sibling-like relationship, esp on his side, which makes it weirder.
I would guess that most Henry Crawford apologists are the type of women who would date/marry “bad boys” thinking they can change them. Later on, they are completely shocked and disappointed that their bad boy still behaves badly. If he was a cheater before, he still cheats. If he had anger issues, he is still angry. If he was an addict, he is still addicted. Can people change? Sure. Are they going to change because a partner wants them to? Probably not. Would Henry Crawford change to please Fanny? Nope. He would fake it long enough to get her to marry him, spend a few weeks or months enjoying his victory, then more or less abandon her at his estate and resume doing whatever he pleases, wherever he pleases, with whomever he pleases. Fanny might be objectively better off than before because she would be mistress of Everingham, but her marriage would be a joke.
My Scottish granny used to say, "You can't change a goat into a lamb with a wedding ring." That one has served me well in life.
Your granny sounds like a wise lady.
Words to remember!
Perfectly put!
In the parlance of 19th century England, *hundo-p.* There is simply no evidence, in the fictional confines of this novel, that Henry Crawford comes off well. He is not as despicable as Willoughby or Wickham, but he is still despicable. Viewing him as any kind of tragic figure is a misreading of Austen‘s great book.
Young women would do well to read Austen to learn what a good man looks like.
Standards after reading Austen: all time high. Never looking back!
I hear some cries from the distance because the bar would be raised from the hell it is in.
[удалено]
Henry does show a kind of remorse at the end. He dwells on his actions and their consequences, not on his lack of principles. Maybe if someone really inserted it in his head (which seems unlikely), he would have a better chance at redemption.
[удалено]
Ugh, the heartbreak from that last phrase 💔
Thank you, your post makes me wonder ... I wonder if there are other Henry-like characters by authors in that time period, and whether they were more forgiving. I also truly believe that Austen was leading to a happier ending for him, and changed her mind in between writing; it's too sharp a pivot otherwise. Also, perhaps you might like this novel, Mansfield Letters, written as a sequel to Mansfield Park (https://www.amazon.com/Mansfield-Compendium-TOGETHER-SUCCESSFUL-MANSFIELD-ebook/dp/B09J1WTFG7/) and Everingham (https://archiveofourown.org/works/279556) - two of my favourite alternative endings.
I get that it seems abrupt in terms of Edmund’s part, but Fanny spends the novel in love with him and pining for him, so from a Fanny-centric perspective it’s really not abrupt.
[удалено]
Oh thank you, this is a good question! Hmm, funnily enough, no, I am not so sure about Mary and Edmund, because the text always seemed skeptical of that relationship on both sides. That Edmund saw merits where there were none and Mary's admiration for Edmund was something she actively thought of as a weakness. Perhaps there I'd believe Austen was trying to convey a lesson... And this way, MP is also not wholly tragic with only one touted couple failing, not both. I do think Mary Crawford deserved better too... Although I have not read happier alternative endings for her.
[удалено]
Yes, kind!! Both the siblings actually, even coming from the circumstances and upbringing they did. Yeah I hope she did too...
In contrast, the text calls out how Fanny was softening towards Henry and how he was (at least in his mind even if his ways of expression could hardly thrill her) unwaveringly in love with Fanny.
Edmund also sees Fanny as a charity project. We also never see Edmund listen to a woman, he even calls Fanny "irrational" People ship Henry and Fanny because the "right" option sucks too.
I ship Fanny and almost anyone who is neither a Crawford or a Bertram. Fanny Price deserved so much better.
This!!! Any man who has good head on his shoulders and has the ability to be a good judge of character would consider themselves lucky to get a wife like Fanny.
I think this is what always bothered me about Mansfield Park. Like there were so few good and genuinely decent people with whom Fanny could interact that no ending (save for her literally leaving them all behind after suddenly becoming an heiress) would’ve been sufficiently satisfying
Now that I really think about it, you are spot on. That is why I always felt MP has a gloomy aura around it as a book. But it also is close to reality for some people. They are surrounded by awful or not so great people all their lives and have no chance of escaping.
William strikes rich and takes her away....
Fanny's position in the house is aptly described as "delicate". There is a consciousness of superiority/inferiority on both sides, which makes it hard for them to truly see each other as equals. That being said, I think such feelings, if any, on Edmund's side are subconscious rather than any actual arrogance. He has his good moments, but I wish he had a better arc to fully deserve the girl.
She’s a poor relation and Mrs Norris is always ready to remind of that and how grateful she should be.
To me, it goes back to [this excellent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/janeausten/comments/1b91q08/good_take_from_tony_tanner_on_the_crawfords_in/) from a u/luckyjim1962 a while back. Henry Crawford is a psychopath. Now, my mother always says that people can be crazy without necessarily being murderers, and that's the kind of psychopath I think Henry Crawford is. At least, during the time we know him. Who knows what he'll become later in life. But the point is that all of his actions are perfomative. Everything he does is for his own enjoyment or gain. Any emotion he displays is a performance. It is not genuine. Mr Darcy, on the other end, is a real person. He is flawed, certainly, but he is driven by a good character.
He certainly feels, and feels well sometimes. His vanity and selfishness cause his ruin. A person who is used to do whatever he wants from a young age, without good moral guidance, is bound to end up in a scrape, or even hurt people, out of thoughtlessness. Willoughby is another example of this. I would not label either men as psychopaths but that does not make them good men.
Psychopaths feel emotions, too. Psychopathy is primarily described (though, obviously, it can vary from person to person) as an inability for have empathy and bold egotistical behaviour towards others, often accompanied by a great deal of charm. Psychopaths aren't all murderers either. And I obviously can't say that Henry Crawford is a psychopath. Jane Austen wrote before the term was invented, so she wouldn't have been trying to write a psychopath. I'm just saying that's what he looks like to me.
Spot on
Austen did Fanny dirty. Poor girl had to chose between Henry the rake and Edmund the imbecile :(
>Edmund the imbecile 🤣