Kyle,
I was going to start another thread regarding the same character, but since you’ve started the discussion, I’ll just respond to you. I appreciate your interpretation of Frank’s character. And although, Frank rubbed me the wrong way, it was for different reasons. But I’m opposed Kim’s and your interpretation of Frank. Maybe this is going backwards from my usually feminist approach, but women used the conditions of status and wealth for suitable suitors for marriage. Social/gender norms made it that men “without either a profession or twopence” (1797) were unworthy “of keeping a wife” (1797). I understand that women exploitation of status and wealth in a suitor were to secure a livelihood for herself and family, especially when their main role was to keep the house. But Vivie doesn’t meet these circumstances. She is an educated woman who has her own status and means to support herself, even though she is currently living off her mother’s wealth. While his unconventional methods of obtaining wealth and status, Frank is self-aware that “since [he has] neither brains nor money, [he’d] better turn [his] good looks to account by marrying somebody with both” (1793).
I found a few things deplorable about Frank, which I will rank from least to worst. First, it’s deplorable that Frank holds no true ambition to master a profession or skill for his financial independence. As I mentioned earlier, Frank is aware that his looks are the best thing he has going for himself and he lacks books smart. After being turned down as a worthy suitor by Ms. Warren, Frank quotes an excerpt of “My Dear and Only Love” by the Marquess of Montrose hinting that he is more than capable. Secondly, Frank is irresponsible when it comes...
