Manipulation, Vindictiveness, Passive Aggression, and Other Character Traits that Hit Too Hard

 I recently finished reading the Wilkie Collins novel No Name.  I discovered this amazing author thanks to another book I read this year, The Solitary House by Lynn Shepherd.  Until then, I had not heard of Collins. He was friends with Charles Dickens. While I respect Dickens and have even used some of his writing as sources for my own study of how industrialism affects the poor, I consider Collins the better writer of the two.  Thus far, I have read four of his books.  In addition to No Name, I have read The Woman in White, The Moonstone, and The Dead Secret (listed in order of my reading rather than in order of publication). No Name is the first that I could not completely enjoy.  

While I adore Collins' tremendous writing style, respect his ability to wrap everything up in a neat package and tie it with a beautiful bow, and enjoyed the fact that everything - and I do  mean everything - in the book has a purpose; the character Magdalen Vanstone ruined the reading experience.  I describe Magdalen as a cross between Emma Bovary from Madame Bovary and Scarlet O'Hara from Gone With the Wind.  Emma in Madame Bovary is a narcissist who will do anything to have her own way.  While I do not consider Scarlet a narcissist, she is a spoiled brat who will do anything to get what she wants.  So is Magdalen Vanstone in No Name.  

Magdalen is one of two sisters born out of wedlock.  A series of circumstances leads Magdalen and her sister to lose the inheritance their father planned for them, because they are children with no name when he is killed.  I want to mention that I love that Collins tackled the topic of illegitimacy in the Victorian era.  This was a bold move. Collins, himself, never married.  He did have two mistresses.  He had children with one. I also love the idea presented in the book that someone can be both good and evil, a meaning Collins wrote about in his preface to the book.  It's just Magdalen.  I cannot deal with the manipulation, the hunger for money at any cost.  

Maybe it comes down to my own experiences.  Maybe Magdalen's manipulation, vindictiveness, passive aggression, and sneakiness hit too close to home for me.  I grew up in passive aggression.  I have experiences with way too many people (I hate to say, mostly women, but that is my experience.  Men are more overt when it comes to their selfishness.  They'll let everyone see it) who exhibit such traits.  Abusers often display such manipulation and deceit in order to keep control.  Maybe that's why I can read about most villains and people who have very in-depth flaws and seek to understand.  Even in fiction this is the case.  I could empathize with Anna Karenina.  I am amazed at Edgar Allan Poe's tales of madness and murder.  Heck, I am reading Lolita and can stomach the psychopathy of Humbert easier than I can take the vindictiveness of Magdalen.  

I also detest the fact that everything for Magdalen is based upon money and revenge.  She will hurt anyone for money.  Money is all.  Again, that mindset about the so-called importance of money is one that I have experienced in people and have distanced myself from.  My dislike of this book's character has to be because of my experiences.  

Isn't it interesting how that works?