Ashley Wilkes. Marius Pontmercy.  Who are these literary fellows, and why are they bashed repeatedly by modern fangirls?

 

Ashley and Marius (from Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind and Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, respectively) are two gentlemen with plenty in common.  They are considered weak men because they seem “wishy-washy” to many modern female readers.  Is their similarity coincidental?  Quite likely.  But it is possible that Margaret Mitchell was aware of Marius’s personality—Les Miserables was a book carried around by many of “Lee’s Miserables” (as the Confederate soldiers learned to call themselves), and Mitchell was exceptionally thorough in her research.  One scene of her novel, in fact, features the ladies reading Les Miserables (in the movie it was switched to David Copperfield—most likely because of its more impressive opening-lines). 

 

So, are Marius and Ashley wishy-washy?  I think it’s quite the contrary. 

 

Their similarities: They are young men who are smitten with “perfect girls.”  They take part in revolutions.  They are pursued (knowingly? unknowingly?) by girls they have no or little interest in romantically.

 

So what’s so great about Marius, I hear you ask.  I think he’s fantastic because he has his own story—while he’s mingling with Cosette and the revolution, and Eponine, he’s also learning the truth about his own past.  He has a lot to deal with.  And what does he do?  He gets over it and moves on.  When he falls in love with Cosette, he sets his affection aside and committs to the revolution he and his friends support.  He faces his death on the barricade, but good fortune (in the form of Jean Valjean) gives him a second chance.  He is saved, and he is able to marry Cosette.  What’s wishy-washy about being in love during a time of revolution?  Or surviving because of someone else’s heroic efforts?  Is Marius weak because he faces his emotions?  Or is he weak because he’s in the company of the stoic characters of Enjolras and Javert?

 

What’s so wondrous about Ashley, then?  He is a conflicted character who repeatedly does the right thing.  He goes to fight in a war he doesn’t believe in because he won’t turn his back on his people.  He tenderly refuses Scarlet’s affections, trying to treat her nicely. (Alas, he doesn’t realize that the woman is quite the banshee, and misinterprets his kindness as affection he is too noble to act upon…)  When the going gets tough, Ashley picks up the hammer and tries to split rails.  He does what he can to pay his debt to a woman who saved his wife and baby’s lives.  But he is human—when young, beautiful Scarlet asks him to run away with her to Mexico and throws herself at him, he kisses her back.  For a fleeting moment, he considers her offer—and then he hates himself for doing so.  Ashley is constantly facing temptation and the pressure of the society he disagrees with.  Only Rhett Butler—the rake who can easily recognize the least bit of rake in anyone else—sees him for who he can be.  And so we’re painted a negative image of Ashley through Rhett’s words.  He’s considered to be a man who can’t be faithful in his mind, but is too noble to be unfaithful in his actions. 

 

But I ask you—is this really a flaw?  Is it not admirable that Ashley can overcome his temptations and stay with someone he loves and admires and understands, rather than running off with the fiery Scarlet? Or is it seen as something weak because he’s being contrasted with two characters (Scarlet and Rhett) who are able to justify their actions and screw people over with gusto?

 

The common link between Marius and Ashley: they are romantic figures who follow their consciences. 

 

I’ll be honest—when I read Les Miserables and Gone With the Wind, I am much more drawn to Javert and Rhett Butler.  They’re the characters I can sink my teeth into, that I can empathize with.  But I don't dislike Marius and Ashley.  I enjoy them for what they are—noble, good men who are stuck in very bad positions, and have to conquer their own issues in order to come out on top.  They are not masters of their destinies.  They are constantly placed in the “rebuilding” position.  Marius has to recover from the revelations about his father, he has to face the potential loss of his newfound love as well as his life in order to do what’s right, he has to deal with survivor’s guilt, and reshape his life after the revolution.  Ashley is a Southern gentleman fighting for a cause he does not believe in, but that he must support in order to maintain the lifestyle (classical education, life of leisure, love of philosophy) that he enjoys.  He has to go home to burnt out lands and restart his life.  He must fend for his family and face the temptation to give up. 

 

They are not “weaker” than other characters—they are just different, and in different circumstances.  They play similar roles within their stories, roles that must be there in order to compare and contrast with the other “movers and shakers” of their sagas.  They complement female characters and male characters alike, not in portraying the “bad” sides of a personality (as villians and anti-heroes do), but to show differences among characters.  They play parts in novels where virtue (as society deems it) is questioned and challenged repeatedly, and they are the boys who do the right thing.

 

 

April, 2003