關於珍‧奧斯汀的研究，大多為主角的分析，或是一些社會相關議題像是婚姻、階級、財富、儀態和道德的討論。卻罕見將評論重點置於作者創造的反派角色。因此，這本博士論文企圖分析珍‧奧斯汀主要六本小說裡男性的反派角色：包括浪漫的反派角色諸如《理性與感性》中約翰‧韋勒比；紳士般的反派角色像是《傲慢與偏見》裡的喬治‧韋克翰；花花公子般的反派角色好比《曼斯菲爾莊園》裡的亨利‧克勞福德；偽善的反派角色如同《艾瑪》裡的法蘭克‧邱吉爾；粗魯的反派角色像是《諾桑覺寺》裡的約翰‧索普；還有見風轉舵的反派角色一如《勸服》裡的威廉‧艾略特。奧斯汀將她的反派角色安排在通常都只有三到四個家庭組合而成鄉間的小型社區裡面，賦予他們迷人及特殊的特質，並描繪他們瑣碎的日常生活裡的活動、在社區裡與其他角色的互動及經驗。奧斯汀的反派角色如同在舞台上「表演」特定的或是符合期望的角色，建立他們討喜卻經常誤導別人的印象及形象，來達到既定目的。這些知覺的、自我反思的、有目的的反派角色，展現他們的模範行為，並依據社會的要求-而表演。像是個「他者」或是「英俊的陌生人」一樣，每個反派角色各自善用其特殊特質積極的「自拍」，藉此吸引女主角的注意力，卻還是無法贏得女主角的芳心。依據爾文‧高夫曼的劇場理論來說，在每一個社交互動場合中，每一位反派角色都像是在舞台上「表演」、「傳達」、「呈現」自己，並同時展演式地形構自我。當他退到後台，才能夠比較放鬆並發展出真實的自我。然而，自我是無盡的社交互動之下的動態產物。換言之，不同的社交互動中，自我就會不斷地被形構與重塑。再者，依據喬治・赫伯特・米德所言，自我是由「主我」與「客我」所組成的。「主我」是自我裡比較衝動的、非社會化的及自然的那一部分。「客我」則是規訓的及社會化的那部分自我。為著不同且多為自私的目的，奧斯汀的反派角色，通常呈現出來的都是合宜的行為，並能立即成為社區的焦點。他們知道如何型塑他們留給別人的好印象。換言之，當他們尋求達到特定的目的時，通常展現社會化「客我」的一面而隱藏了衝動的「主我」。可惜隨著劇情的發展，因為無法維持前後一致，最後無以為繼，變成相對矛盾於他們給人完好第一印象的他人。而這一類的行為前後矛盾性及虛偽正是讓他們成為反派角色的原因。

Most of researches on Jane Austen’s novels pay attention to the protagonists and such social issues as marriage, class, property, manners, and morals. However, critical focus is rarely given to Austen’s villainous characters. This dissertation thus attempts to analyze Austen’s male villainous characters in her six major novel: romantic villain like John Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility, gentleman-like villain such as George Wickham in Pride and Prejudice, dandy-like villain such as Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park, hypocritical villain like Frank Churchill in Emma, boorish villain like John Thorpe in Northanger Abbey, and chameleon-like villain such as William Elliot in Persuasion. Austen sets her villainous characters into a small community, which usually comprises only three or four families in a rural countryside, characterizes them with charming or unique traits, and depicts their trivial everyday activities, social interactions, and experiences. Placed within a wide range of social interactions, Austen’s villainous characters “perform” certain or expected roles on the stage to create favorable but often misleading impressions and images in order to reach their goals. Conscious, self-reflexive, and purposive, these villainous characters exhibit their exemplary behavior and act in accordance with social requirements. As “the other man” or “the Handsome Stranger,” each villainous character utilizes his distinctive qualities to selfie himself positively and attract the heroine’s attention, but he is never able to win her heart. In terms of Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical theory, in every social interaction, each person acts, gives, and gives off himself on the stage, constituting his self performatively. When he withdraws to the backstage, he can relax and reveal his true self. However, the self is a dynamic product, constructed and reshaped through endless social interactions. Besides, according to George Herbert Mead, a complete self is composed of the impulsive, non-socialized, and spontaneous “I” and the disciplined and socialized “Me.” With different and often selfish purposes in mind, Austen’s villainous characters usually appear to be agreeable and immediately become the foci of the community. They know how to make good impressions on others; that is, they usually present their socialized “Me” but hide their impulsive “I” in order to reach their specific goals. Nevertheless, with the development of the plot, they fail to remain consistent in their behavior so that they turn out to something quite contradictory to what their first impersonations suggest. It is this type of inconsistency and hypocrisy that makes them villainous characters.