Relationship Between Fanny And Superman

Auerbach’s conclusion being that “Fanny moves beyond the sphere of traditional heroinism to associate herself with a host of dashing British villains” (449). Auerbach spotlights fanny’s behavior and odd quirks to create a correlation to that of Auerbach’s wild comparisons, a similar approach Johnson took with Sir Thomas. For example, Auerbach compares Fanny to British villains because Fanny displays a quality of disassociation with those around her that are compared with an alienating factor found in a degree of British villains. Auerbach goes a step further asserts a metaphorical reason why Fanny’s dining behavior is reminiscent of the folklore of the vampire. Auerbach states that “Like them, this denying girl will not, perhaps cannot, eat; her abstinence makes her a spectral presence at the
(Emotionally/Physically isolated factor) As a vampire or villain Fanny does not eat with her family because in this sense she is distancing herself from everyone. Making her an outcast and a ‘spectral presence.’ Auerbach stacks up her argument by literally associating her Fanny’s eating habits with that of a vampire, “Like Fanny, the vampire cannot eat the common nourishment of daily life, but he feasts secretly upon human vitality in the dark” (449). Auerbach uses the vampire analogy to alienate Fanny from the rest of the group but perhaps takes too much of a literal approach. Auerbach uses these similar themes of isolation to make further comparisons, such as Fanny’s gloomy exile matching that of Frankenstein’s monster or Fanny’s rise up the social ladder to that of Grendel’s invasion of the lighted hall. She confuses Austen’s themes of social mobility to that of aggression and states that like Grendel because “He defines his identity as outsider by appropriating the interior; he invades the lighted hall and begins to eat the