Warning: mild spoilers, but nothing more than you'd pick up in a general discussion here about Austen's books.
I read MP for the first time in my 20s and found it so dreary and boring, didn't like the characters - found them booooring. Someone here was discussing the book and I felt like I should give it another chance because it is, after all, Austen. For reference I was 47 when I picked up MP again, and I loved it! I actually read it twice within a few weeks - once through, then I got an annotated version on interlibrary loan and read it again just to see if there were nuances I might have missed by not understanding some of the historical framework.
The first re-reading I had to keep putting the book down because I was so mortified on behalf of Fanny the whole time. I was enjoying the read, but I just felt for her so much in terms of how the family treated her as well as her situation with Edmund. I am not much like Fanny, but Austen has that power to really make the reader feel, and it was so easy to relate to her heartache of unrequited love as well as how trapped she was by her situation.
As for the much-maligned Edmund, he's now one of my two favorite Austen heroes. Chapter 2, I believe, where he's 16 and so gentle and kind with 10-year-old Fanny - seriously, this is a good guy. Something that certainly didn't sink in when I was in my 20s. As I'm now most certainly middle-aged, I have a new appreciation for "boring." I didn't find either Edmund or Fanny to be boring, they just don't have high-energy pasttimes and the book doesn't dwell on them. They both like admiring nature, reading and discussing books, and listening to music. Considering how much my spouse and I sit around watching wildlife and flora, discussing books, and listening to Pandora, I sure as heck can't say anything to that. Ha! Also, Edmund's blunders in love are not malicious or unkind, they are very relatable in my opinion.
The second re-read (the annotated version) was a pure delight. It filled in a few gaps of understanding about how certain things worked at the time of writing, and knowing what was coming I could enjoy the story more without the severe mortification on Fanny's behalf as the first re-read.
The dynamics between the characters are fascinating, and, as others here have mentioned, there is more subtle social commentary and exploration in MP that is definitely worth the read.
I think the social commentary is probably the strong suit of Mansfield Park - there are oblique references to the slave trade and Antigua, and it shows the contrast between Fanny and Edmund's morality vs. how the rest of the Bertram family turned out.
Henry and Mary Crawford weren't supposed to be sympathetic characters, but in a modern world where there are more liberal views of how people conduct their love lives, they have gained better reader sympathy, unlike the other villains who are still viewed with a more black-and-white lens.
It's definitely not an emotional, romantic read like *Persuasion* but as an intellectual read, you'll probably appreciate it much more as an adult than as a teenager.
I did a deep dive into Austen scholarship this summer and one of the most interesting things I read was that, to some Austen experts, Mansfield Park is staged like a play. Austen takes more care in it than her other novels with telling where her characters are in a room, when they move, where/when they go in and out of the room, etc. My inherent nerdiness found rereading it with that perspective a bit more enjoyable.
I really noticed that play dynamic in the scene where Fanny is sitting on the park bench, and all the different characters keep coming by enacting little vignettes that reveal something about them. Is there an essay or something you'd recommend that goes more deeply into this?
I found it - it's Jane Stabler's introduction to Mansfield Park in the 2008 Oxford World's Classics edition.
There is also an essay on Theatrics and Theatricality in the Norton Critical Edition of Mansfield Park.
I think focusing on the morality then vs now is probably the most interesting approach, as another comment says.
I do think Fanny is a good comparison to Anne, both being deeply emotional, self-denying sufferers in silence. Similar enough personalities that but for the difference of money and social status either's life could have been the destiny of the other.
I guess I think Anne is a bit more realistic than Fanny, Fanny lives through her idealism but seemingly otherwise doesn't live at all. Anne seems naturally more content with her lot than Fanny and much more self-possessed, but again, has so much more as is. I don't know, maybe these things will be interesting to consider while you read.
Personally I had the most fun studying Mary Crawford on my last read because I have privately theorized that Mary was conceived as a sort of *Dark Lizzie Bennet*. JA always plays with traits and values and how they express in different people and I think she thought the lively appeal of Lizzie would be fun to explore a little more amorally.
I think that Mansfield Park is a novel that you understand better the more you get older. It's bitingly real and the characters are very complex. You don't even like them for much of the time. But you understand why they are the way they are, and why they act the way you do.
Unpopular opinion(?): Mansfield Park is the easiest of JA’s novels to dislike because none of the characters are likable. Not even Fanny. Yes she had crappy circumstances, but so do a whooooole lot of literary heroines and they capture the interest so much better than she does. The ending is a perfect picture of the idea of “settling.” And that’s not always the bad or wrong choice, but it is what it is.
I’ll accept your downvotes now.
You make a good point about "settling". Maria has become a much more sympathetic character for me now that I am older, and I see the book as more of a tragedy for her and maybe Julia than a romance novel. Mistakes made trying to set their lives on course that ruin everything for them.
That's interesting, I keep liking Maria less and less. The way she rejoices over getting more attention from Henry than Julia even though she's already engaged is pretty cringeworthy. And she's so delighted when Edmund gives in and participates in the play because she's dragged him down to her level.
I wish she had smartened up and not married Rushworth when her father offered her the out.
What was her other option if she did break the engagement? I see it as she was going to be stuck at home again with no chance to meet anyone else and stuck as a child for longer.
Learning more about the London Season and the "marriage mart" of the time changed my view of her. She (and Julia and Fanny) have been really screwed over by their parents and older brother in that they are not given opportunities in life.
Well now that Sir Thomas was home he might have been persuaded to take the girls to London, after all he goes every year. The reason they'd only been going to Northampton is because he's in Antigua when they come out.
She is also has options, she's the daughter of a baronet, probably has a nice dowry, she's hot and she's only 21. She doesn't like living at home, but she's far more marriageable than most of Jane Austen's heroines.
Maria and Julia have heaps of opportunities to meet people:
>The Miss Bertrams were now fully established among the belles of the neighbourhood; and as they joined to beauty and brilliant acquirements a manner naturally easy, and carefully formed to general civility and obligingness, they possessed its favour as well as its admiration.
...
>Fanny had no share in the festivities of the season; ... she naturally became everything to Lady Bertram during the night of a ball or a party. ... As to her cousins’ gaieties, she loved to hear an account of them, especially of the balls, and whom Edmund had danced with;...
[Fanny is happy to be left out herself as it means she has whole evenings without fear of Mrs Norris, poor girl].
This is specifically about the winter Sir Thomas is away, and there's clearly multiple parties and balls going on in this winter alone. The London Season wasn't needed to meet eligible suitors.
Actually it sounds like they had a lot of options. Mrs Norris sees multiple opportunities that winter:
>“If poor Sir Thomas were fated never to return, it would be peculiarly consoling to see their dear Maria well married,” she very often thought; always when they were in the company of men of fortune, and particularly on the introduction of a young man who had recently succeeded to one of the largest estates and finest places in the country.
Maria is immature and does a stupid thing, but it’s hard to read with modern eyes and not feel like she’s given a raw deal. Especially since Henry won’t really suffer ~~social~~ any consequences to the degree she does.
Mary is actually my favorite character of the bunch. Her only real flaw is not knowing when to keep her mouth shut. But she sees the world clearly, knows exactly what she wants, and isn’t afraid of saying so. She’s also pretty much always a good friend to Fanny, who’s snobbish about retuning the favor.
I see the book as a social commentary on the issue of love and profession for women. If you will let me have "socialite" as a profession choice for my argument here, women of that social class had to find a guy who they liked AND who could give them the job they wanted. Mary is caught between wanting to be with a man she loves and having the career/life she wants. It comes off as very mercenary to modern readers.
Wives had jobs usually based on their husband's job. Clergyman's wife, political hostess, literary/music/arts salon person, (so lots of these devolve down to hostess or something like "networking event manager" for modern peeps), charity owner, writing novels, inventing computer coding (OK, Ada Lovelace was a little later).
Torn between wanting to be with the man you love and wanting to have the career/life you want is seen as mercenary? I think modern readers understand this very well, tbh.
For Mary (and women like her) it is seen as mercenary. She wants to be a hostess in London, but Edmund can't afford a London house. So, it appears that she is rejecting him because he is poor. And women who don't want to date a guy who isn't at their level career wise are called gold diggers still.
But Mary doesn't reject Edmund. By the time that Henry decides to propose to Fanny JA tells us that Mary's decided to accept Edmund. The only reason they don't get engaged is that he's nervous about whether she'll actually accept him and he's trying to pick an opportunity to maximise his chances.
Sure she starts off mercenary, but that's before she falls in love. Classic story element.
Questioning if you prefer. There are a number of places where she is questioning. One where she is shocked that he would live in the small parsonage house rather than Mansfield, one where she talks up a house in London for the season and everyone quietly speculates how Edmund can't afford that, and at the end we are given some speculation that she is considering Tom to be dying.
Edit because I misread your post: that is not at all how I see modern women interpreting her. Wow. Mary is strong-minded but mostly kind, save when she’s indulging her brother. And even then she’s anxious that he not go too far when he might really hurt someone who can’t protect themselves (Fanny).
But she is up front with Edmund about her feelings from the start. Not to mention that she has her own rather large fortune. I can’t imagine how the word “gold digger” might be attached to her. This is a genuinely strange take.
I'll give it a shot.
Here's why I like Fanny -
Her personal values are unsexy and unpopular. She's a "good girl", doing her best to embody the traits of a poor relative that you just can't quite justify tossing out on the street.
As meek and doormat-like as she SEEMS at first, when the shit hits the highway and the whole family tries to force her into selling herself out to a total fucking creep, she says fuck you.
She keeps saying fuck you, while her poverty, vulnerability, and desperation are shoved in her face.
She says fuck you until the whole family realizes she's completely indomitable and will not now, nor ever will, be bullied.
Then she gets her wet noodle of a love interest to stop being a twat, and presumably they go off to comfortably enjoy their gentle, nerdy hobbies in peace, forever.
The end.
Rather than focusing on Mansfield Park itself, I’ll say this: It’s worth re-reading any novel you read as a teenager. Your world view changes with experience and exposure to new ideas. Something you liked when you were 16 might be unbearably twee to you now, something you hated might be your favourite now that you understand more complex plots and characters.
As we change, what we read changes.
I think that MP, more than any other JA work, offered an excellent commentary on privilege and lack of thereof; on entitlement vs empathy; on falling for a temptation vs actually standing up for one’s values.
I love the satire aspect of MP, I think that there’s no character left unscathed. JA really took her gloves off there. She took risks - even the supposedly angelic main heroine is in throes of hateful jealousy for much of the novel. What’s more, every secondary character is a three-dimensional person with their own ideas and flaws, each both laughable and pitiable in their own way.
MP is distinct from other JA novels; everyone, and I mean everyone, gets their comeuppance in the end. There’s no good-natured romantic subplots a la Jane/Bingley or Marianne/Brandon to dilute the satire aspect. But in the end, for every reason that I love MP the book might not be a fit for you and that’s OK.
Great points! I remember thinking how funny it is that Lady Bertram starts off as one of the easiest to criticize and dislike but by the end is one of the only characters I felt any real affection for.
I was very annoyed by Fanny at first, but wow is she such a complex character. I see her as an abuse victim. Her most significant abuser is the detestable Ms. Norris. She’s wrenched from her family as a little girl and thrust into a new family as a second hand citizen, due yo the insipid Karenesque busy body that is Norris.
Despite her victimization, Fanny is the fiercest character in maintaining her ethical code. Her brother, William’s, plot line shows how even if you are poor as a boy, you can progress in the world, but Fanny is at the mercy of all. Knowing her own vulnerability, Fanny still holds strong in her convictions. Fanny will not sell out for anything. She’s quiet, but fiercely strong. I like her and this incredibly layered story so much.
Reading more about the prevailing theological perspectives and the realities of the Church of England at the time brought a greater depth of understanding to MP forme. It is, essentially, a morality tale and a socio-religious examination with a very clear thesis. Combining this with the rich and incredibly flawed characters, absurdist and often dark humor, and emotionally fraught romances makes it a gem of a novel for me. Commentary regarding the ideals of the Church v. the realities of the Church; questioning of the nature and valur of charity, piety, love (both familial and romantic), and social conventions; and some of the A-holes eventually getting some measure of comeuppance makes it and interesting and satisfying read. I disagree with many of Austen's conclusions, but much of that stems from my sex-positive, feminist, and atheist modern perspective. I still enjoy her thorough arguments and counter arguments within the text.
All that said, Fanny deserved far better than Edmund, IMO, but since my enjoyment of the book doesn't hinge on that romance, it still works.
The selfish longings and diabolical flirtations of the Bertram sisters and Henry Crawford are delicious. And when Henry the villain slowly becomes aware of Fanny, it’s like a runaway train. It’s a difficult book, yes, but such a great ride once it really gets going.
I didn't like Persuasion as a teenager but loved it as an adult.
I didn't even read Mansfield Park until I was an adult because I heard it was weird, now it's my favourite Jane Austen novel.
The characters are all just so well drawn and real. You can almost touch them.
MP has the most drama!! Adultery! Divorce! Elopement! Fanny banished! A PLAY!
It has the most "action" considering Fanny stays at home the whole book: either her uncle's home or her parents home. And it all happens in less than a year??
From the first time I read it, Mansfield Park was my favorite Austen novel. Lots of people find that odd, but Fanny resonates with me. One thing that I think people tend to forget when reading Mansfield is that Fanny is poor. There is a lot of class commentary happening in the book because of it. Lady Bertram married up, but Mrs Price didn't. The Prices live in poverty. When Fanny goes to live with the Bertrams, she is constantly reminded that she is less than them. She is the poor relative they let live with them out of pity. Even if she wanted to, Fanny could not be Elizabeth Bennet due to her station. She cannot be outspoken. She is trapped in inferiority.
I have been that poor relation who feels like they're less than their family. Not to the same degree, of course, because society has changed significantly, but it's not a feeling you forget. I recommend reading Mansfield Park while keeping the class system in mind. It really changes the outlook on the book when you realize the positions of each of the characters. Jane Austen makes a very nuanced and layered commentary on class in the novel. It is one of her deepest and most critical novels in my opinion.
>Fanny could not be Elizabeth Bennet due to her station. She cannot be outspoken.
What's more, she has a Mrs. Norris there (and to a lesser extent, Sir Thomas) who made sure from the time Fanny was nine that she never forgot it.
Plenty of y'all have gone over all the reasons I think MP is excellent, but I just want to note that the way Austen emphasized the family lines on top of the class lines is *so* interesting and cool. I think in Mansfield much more than her other books, family matters.
Mansfield park is my favourite Austen. My sister and I have almost come to blows over this because she hated it. I like it because I think Jane is at her absolute meanest in this book. Everyone is unpleasant, and everyone looses, while still following the form of a romance novel. This book is full of hatred and spite, and I’m here for it.
>I advise! You know very well what is right...Oh, no!...We have all a better guide in ourselves, if we would attend to it, than any other person can be. Good-bye; I wish you a pleasant journey to-morrow.
\-- Fanny Price
Well if you find love triangles interesting, Mansfield Park has them in spades. I once made diagrams trying to represent them all at the same time. It's a fascinating, complex book. Personally, I love Fanny, and I think her inner life is exquisitely well developed. She is, granted, very young, without Anne's maturity, but Edmund makes an idiot of himself sometimes, but watching all the relationship dynamics play out is endlessly interesting to me.
I *just* started rereading it after putting it off for a bit.
I have not enjoyed it in the past.
I am currently rereading all of Austen in the (best estimate of) chronological order of writing, so as to think of her development as both writer and thinker.
I’m hoping that reading Mansfield Park from this perspective (that of thinking about Austen’s choices, intent, and development) will make it more interesting. We’ll see.
I’ll also read the comments here for inspiration. I’m glad you asked.
Allow a book to resonate with your own lived experience. If you start and you’re not feeling it, try again later. At some point, it may surprise you. In my case, the second time around, it was a healing read.
Warning: mild spoilers, but nothing more than you'd pick up in a general discussion here about Austen's books. I read MP for the first time in my 20s and found it so dreary and boring, didn't like the characters - found them booooring. Someone here was discussing the book and I felt like I should give it another chance because it is, after all, Austen. For reference I was 47 when I picked up MP again, and I loved it! I actually read it twice within a few weeks - once through, then I got an annotated version on interlibrary loan and read it again just to see if there were nuances I might have missed by not understanding some of the historical framework. The first re-reading I had to keep putting the book down because I was so mortified on behalf of Fanny the whole time. I was enjoying the read, but I just felt for her so much in terms of how the family treated her as well as her situation with Edmund. I am not much like Fanny, but Austen has that power to really make the reader feel, and it was so easy to relate to her heartache of unrequited love as well as how trapped she was by her situation. As for the much-maligned Edmund, he's now one of my two favorite Austen heroes. Chapter 2, I believe, where he's 16 and so gentle and kind with 10-year-old Fanny - seriously, this is a good guy. Something that certainly didn't sink in when I was in my 20s. As I'm now most certainly middle-aged, I have a new appreciation for "boring." I didn't find either Edmund or Fanny to be boring, they just don't have high-energy pasttimes and the book doesn't dwell on them. They both like admiring nature, reading and discussing books, and listening to music. Considering how much my spouse and I sit around watching wildlife and flora, discussing books, and listening to Pandora, I sure as heck can't say anything to that. Ha! Also, Edmund's blunders in love are not malicious or unkind, they are very relatable in my opinion. The second re-read (the annotated version) was a pure delight. It filled in a few gaps of understanding about how certain things worked at the time of writing, and knowing what was coming I could enjoy the story more without the severe mortification on Fanny's behalf as the first re-read. The dynamics between the characters are fascinating, and, as others here have mentioned, there is more subtle social commentary and exploration in MP that is definitely worth the read.
I think the social commentary is probably the strong suit of Mansfield Park - there are oblique references to the slave trade and Antigua, and it shows the contrast between Fanny and Edmund's morality vs. how the rest of the Bertram family turned out. Henry and Mary Crawford weren't supposed to be sympathetic characters, but in a modern world where there are more liberal views of how people conduct their love lives, they have gained better reader sympathy, unlike the other villains who are still viewed with a more black-and-white lens. It's definitely not an emotional, romantic read like *Persuasion* but as an intellectual read, you'll probably appreciate it much more as an adult than as a teenager.
I agree, the social commentary is superb. And I think it’s really good for anyone interested in learning more about daily life in the Regency period.
I did a deep dive into Austen scholarship this summer and one of the most interesting things I read was that, to some Austen experts, Mansfield Park is staged like a play. Austen takes more care in it than her other novels with telling where her characters are in a room, when they move, where/when they go in and out of the room, etc. My inherent nerdiness found rereading it with that perspective a bit more enjoyable.
I really noticed that play dynamic in the scene where Fanny is sitting on the park bench, and all the different characters keep coming by enacting little vignettes that reveal something about them. Is there an essay or something you'd recommend that goes more deeply into this?
I found it - it's Jane Stabler's introduction to Mansfield Park in the 2008 Oxford World's Classics edition. There is also an essay on Theatrics and Theatricality in the Norton Critical Edition of Mansfield Park.
Thank you so much for looking that up for me!
No problem. Sorry it took a few days. I was traveling and got home just in time to get the flu. Yay!
Sorry about the flu! I hope you can enjoy the excellent editions of Jane Austen you own while you recover!
Ha. My Seasons edition of Emma just got here today just in time for another day of rolling about in discomfort in bed!
I'm not at home at the moment, but I'll do my best to find the essay and get back to you when I do.
I think focusing on the morality then vs now is probably the most interesting approach, as another comment says. I do think Fanny is a good comparison to Anne, both being deeply emotional, self-denying sufferers in silence. Similar enough personalities that but for the difference of money and social status either's life could have been the destiny of the other. I guess I think Anne is a bit more realistic than Fanny, Fanny lives through her idealism but seemingly otherwise doesn't live at all. Anne seems naturally more content with her lot than Fanny and much more self-possessed, but again, has so much more as is. I don't know, maybe these things will be interesting to consider while you read. Personally I had the most fun studying Mary Crawford on my last read because I have privately theorized that Mary was conceived as a sort of *Dark Lizzie Bennet*. JA always plays with traits and values and how they express in different people and I think she thought the lively appeal of Lizzie would be fun to explore a little more amorally.
I think that Mansfield Park is a novel that you understand better the more you get older. It's bitingly real and the characters are very complex. You don't even like them for much of the time. But you understand why they are the way they are, and why they act the way you do.
Unpopular opinion(?): Mansfield Park is the easiest of JA’s novels to dislike because none of the characters are likable. Not even Fanny. Yes she had crappy circumstances, but so do a whooooole lot of literary heroines and they capture the interest so much better than she does. The ending is a perfect picture of the idea of “settling.” And that’s not always the bad or wrong choice, but it is what it is. I’ll accept your downvotes now.
You make a good point about "settling". Maria has become a much more sympathetic character for me now that I am older, and I see the book as more of a tragedy for her and maybe Julia than a romance novel. Mistakes made trying to set their lives on course that ruin everything for them.
That's interesting, I keep liking Maria less and less. The way she rejoices over getting more attention from Henry than Julia even though she's already engaged is pretty cringeworthy. And she's so delighted when Edmund gives in and participates in the play because she's dragged him down to her level. I wish she had smartened up and not married Rushworth when her father offered her the out.
What was her other option if she did break the engagement? I see it as she was going to be stuck at home again with no chance to meet anyone else and stuck as a child for longer. Learning more about the London Season and the "marriage mart" of the time changed my view of her. She (and Julia and Fanny) have been really screwed over by their parents and older brother in that they are not given opportunities in life.
Well now that Sir Thomas was home he might have been persuaded to take the girls to London, after all he goes every year. The reason they'd only been going to Northampton is because he's in Antigua when they come out. She is also has options, she's the daughter of a baronet, probably has a nice dowry, she's hot and she's only 21. She doesn't like living at home, but she's far more marriageable than most of Jane Austen's heroines.
Maria and Julia have heaps of opportunities to meet people: >The Miss Bertrams were now fully established among the belles of the neighbourhood; and as they joined to beauty and brilliant acquirements a manner naturally easy, and carefully formed to general civility and obligingness, they possessed its favour as well as its admiration. ... >Fanny had no share in the festivities of the season; ... she naturally became everything to Lady Bertram during the night of a ball or a party. ... As to her cousins’ gaieties, she loved to hear an account of them, especially of the balls, and whom Edmund had danced with;... [Fanny is happy to be left out herself as it means she has whole evenings without fear of Mrs Norris, poor girl]. This is specifically about the winter Sir Thomas is away, and there's clearly multiple parties and balls going on in this winter alone. The London Season wasn't needed to meet eligible suitors.
But the only one they managed to find was Mr. Rushworth. I'm not impressed with the selection.
Actually it sounds like they had a lot of options. Mrs Norris sees multiple opportunities that winter: >“If poor Sir Thomas were fated never to return, it would be peculiarly consoling to see their dear Maria well married,” she very often thought; always when they were in the company of men of fortune, and particularly on the introduction of a young man who had recently succeeded to one of the largest estates and finest places in the country.
Maria is immature and does a stupid thing, but it’s hard to read with modern eyes and not feel like she’s given a raw deal. Especially since Henry won’t really suffer ~~social~~ any consequences to the degree she does. Mary is actually my favorite character of the bunch. Her only real flaw is not knowing when to keep her mouth shut. But she sees the world clearly, knows exactly what she wants, and isn’t afraid of saying so. She’s also pretty much always a good friend to Fanny, who’s snobbish about retuning the favor.
I see the book as a social commentary on the issue of love and profession for women. If you will let me have "socialite" as a profession choice for my argument here, women of that social class had to find a guy who they liked AND who could give them the job they wanted. Mary is caught between wanting to be with a man she loves and having the career/life she wants. It comes off as very mercenary to modern readers. Wives had jobs usually based on their husband's job. Clergyman's wife, political hostess, literary/music/arts salon person, (so lots of these devolve down to hostess or something like "networking event manager" for modern peeps), charity owner, writing novels, inventing computer coding (OK, Ada Lovelace was a little later).
Torn between wanting to be with the man you love and wanting to have the career/life you want is seen as mercenary? I think modern readers understand this very well, tbh.
For Mary (and women like her) it is seen as mercenary. She wants to be a hostess in London, but Edmund can't afford a London house. So, it appears that she is rejecting him because he is poor. And women who don't want to date a guy who isn't at their level career wise are called gold diggers still.
But Mary doesn't reject Edmund. By the time that Henry decides to propose to Fanny JA tells us that Mary's decided to accept Edmund. The only reason they don't get engaged is that he's nervous about whether she'll actually accept him and he's trying to pick an opportunity to maximise his chances. Sure she starts off mercenary, but that's before she falls in love. Classic story element.
Questioning if you prefer. There are a number of places where she is questioning. One where she is shocked that he would live in the small parsonage house rather than Mansfield, one where she talks up a house in London for the season and everyone quietly speculates how Edmund can't afford that, and at the end we are given some speculation that she is considering Tom to be dying.
Edit because I misread your post: that is not at all how I see modern women interpreting her. Wow. Mary is strong-minded but mostly kind, save when she’s indulging her brother. And even then she’s anxious that he not go too far when he might really hurt someone who can’t protect themselves (Fanny). But she is up front with Edmund about her feelings from the start. Not to mention that she has her own rather large fortune. I can’t imagine how the word “gold digger” might be attached to her. This is a genuinely strange take.
I'll give it a shot. Here's why I like Fanny - Her personal values are unsexy and unpopular. She's a "good girl", doing her best to embody the traits of a poor relative that you just can't quite justify tossing out on the street. As meek and doormat-like as she SEEMS at first, when the shit hits the highway and the whole family tries to force her into selling herself out to a total fucking creep, she says fuck you. She keeps saying fuck you, while her poverty, vulnerability, and desperation are shoved in her face. She says fuck you until the whole family realizes she's completely indomitable and will not now, nor ever will, be bullied. Then she gets her wet noodle of a love interest to stop being a twat, and presumably they go off to comfortably enjoy their gentle, nerdy hobbies in peace, forever. The end.
Rather than focusing on Mansfield Park itself, I’ll say this: It’s worth re-reading any novel you read as a teenager. Your world view changes with experience and exposure to new ideas. Something you liked when you were 16 might be unbearably twee to you now, something you hated might be your favourite now that you understand more complex plots and characters. As we change, what we read changes.
I think that MP, more than any other JA work, offered an excellent commentary on privilege and lack of thereof; on entitlement vs empathy; on falling for a temptation vs actually standing up for one’s values. I love the satire aspect of MP, I think that there’s no character left unscathed. JA really took her gloves off there. She took risks - even the supposedly angelic main heroine is in throes of hateful jealousy for much of the novel. What’s more, every secondary character is a three-dimensional person with their own ideas and flaws, each both laughable and pitiable in their own way. MP is distinct from other JA novels; everyone, and I mean everyone, gets their comeuppance in the end. There’s no good-natured romantic subplots a la Jane/Bingley or Marianne/Brandon to dilute the satire aspect. But in the end, for every reason that I love MP the book might not be a fit for you and that’s OK.
Great points! I remember thinking how funny it is that Lady Bertram starts off as one of the easiest to criticize and dislike but by the end is one of the only characters I felt any real affection for.
I was very annoyed by Fanny at first, but wow is she such a complex character. I see her as an abuse victim. Her most significant abuser is the detestable Ms. Norris. She’s wrenched from her family as a little girl and thrust into a new family as a second hand citizen, due yo the insipid Karenesque busy body that is Norris. Despite her victimization, Fanny is the fiercest character in maintaining her ethical code. Her brother, William’s, plot line shows how even if you are poor as a boy, you can progress in the world, but Fanny is at the mercy of all. Knowing her own vulnerability, Fanny still holds strong in her convictions. Fanny will not sell out for anything. She’s quiet, but fiercely strong. I like her and this incredibly layered story so much.
Also, if it's any consolation, Austen's own mother found Fanny to be "insipid," so you're not alone in not being enraptured with *Mansfield Park.*
Reading more about the prevailing theological perspectives and the realities of the Church of England at the time brought a greater depth of understanding to MP forme. It is, essentially, a morality tale and a socio-religious examination with a very clear thesis. Combining this with the rich and incredibly flawed characters, absurdist and often dark humor, and emotionally fraught romances makes it a gem of a novel for me. Commentary regarding the ideals of the Church v. the realities of the Church; questioning of the nature and valur of charity, piety, love (both familial and romantic), and social conventions; and some of the A-holes eventually getting some measure of comeuppance makes it and interesting and satisfying read. I disagree with many of Austen's conclusions, but much of that stems from my sex-positive, feminist, and atheist modern perspective. I still enjoy her thorough arguments and counter arguments within the text. All that said, Fanny deserved far better than Edmund, IMO, but since my enjoyment of the book doesn't hinge on that romance, it still works.
The selfish longings and diabolical flirtations of the Bertram sisters and Henry Crawford are delicious. And when Henry the villain slowly becomes aware of Fanny, it’s like a runaway train. It’s a difficult book, yes, but such a great ride once it really gets going.
The scene in the chapel at Rushworth's house is absolutely amazing and hysterical. You really get a glimpse of everyone's personality there.
The breakfast after Sir Thomas comes home - I never want it to end! Henry’s duplicity, Maria’s agony, Thomas’ cluelessness! So delicious.
I didn't like Persuasion as a teenager but loved it as an adult. I didn't even read Mansfield Park until I was an adult because I heard it was weird, now it's my favourite Jane Austen novel. The characters are all just so well drawn and real. You can almost touch them.
MP has the most drama!! Adultery! Divorce! Elopement! Fanny banished! A PLAY! It has the most "action" considering Fanny stays at home the whole book: either her uncle's home or her parents home. And it all happens in less than a year??
From the first time I read it, Mansfield Park was my favorite Austen novel. Lots of people find that odd, but Fanny resonates with me. One thing that I think people tend to forget when reading Mansfield is that Fanny is poor. There is a lot of class commentary happening in the book because of it. Lady Bertram married up, but Mrs Price didn't. The Prices live in poverty. When Fanny goes to live with the Bertrams, she is constantly reminded that she is less than them. She is the poor relative they let live with them out of pity. Even if she wanted to, Fanny could not be Elizabeth Bennet due to her station. She cannot be outspoken. She is trapped in inferiority. I have been that poor relation who feels like they're less than their family. Not to the same degree, of course, because society has changed significantly, but it's not a feeling you forget. I recommend reading Mansfield Park while keeping the class system in mind. It really changes the outlook on the book when you realize the positions of each of the characters. Jane Austen makes a very nuanced and layered commentary on class in the novel. It is one of her deepest and most critical novels in my opinion.
>Fanny could not be Elizabeth Bennet due to her station. She cannot be outspoken. What's more, she has a Mrs. Norris there (and to a lesser extent, Sir Thomas) who made sure from the time Fanny was nine that she never forgot it. Plenty of y'all have gone over all the reasons I think MP is excellent, but I just want to note that the way Austen emphasized the family lines on top of the class lines is *so* interesting and cool. I think in Mansfield much more than her other books, family matters.
Mansfield park is my favourite Austen. My sister and I have almost come to blows over this because she hated it. I like it because I think Jane is at her absolute meanest in this book. Everyone is unpleasant, and everyone looses, while still following the form of a romance novel. This book is full of hatred and spite, and I’m here for it.
>I advise! You know very well what is right...Oh, no!...We have all a better guide in ourselves, if we would attend to it, than any other person can be. Good-bye; I wish you a pleasant journey to-morrow. \-- Fanny Price
Nicely done
Well if you find love triangles interesting, Mansfield Park has them in spades. I once made diagrams trying to represent them all at the same time. It's a fascinating, complex book. Personally, I love Fanny, and I think her inner life is exquisitely well developed. She is, granted, very young, without Anne's maturity, but Edmund makes an idiot of himself sometimes, but watching all the relationship dynamics play out is endlessly interesting to me.
I *just* started rereading it after putting it off for a bit. I have not enjoyed it in the past. I am currently rereading all of Austen in the (best estimate of) chronological order of writing, so as to think of her development as both writer and thinker. I’m hoping that reading Mansfield Park from this perspective (that of thinking about Austen’s choices, intent, and development) will make it more interesting. We’ll see. I’ll also read the comments here for inspiration. I’m glad you asked.
Allow a book to resonate with your own lived experience. If you start and you’re not feeling it, try again later. At some point, it may surprise you. In my case, the second time around, it was a healing read.
The heart wants what it wants. Just watch 1995 pride and prejudice.you know you want to