Mansfield Park

Rating:
Summary: Fanny's a prig! Fanny's a prig!
Review: "Mansfield Park" is a great book, and no one reviewing here has claimed otherwise. (Well, there are a few exceptions, but they're better left unmentioned.) But there has been a great clamor over the quality of its protagonist, Fanny Price. One camp has her a valiant heroine full of moral rectitude and therefore admirable. The other paints Fanny as prig, passive and odious.

I fall into the latter camp.

There are several common defensive positions taken no behalf of Fanny Price (who, I dare say, is used to having people do all the fighting for her). I've taken these positions and constructed rebuttals to them:

1) "Fanny had to be passive. She was penniless, without strong family connections, and living in a precarious position at the mercy of her guardian, Sir Thomas."

The novelist is god of her creation. Austen created Sir Thomas and Mansfield Park, took Fanny's father and turned him into a drunk, her mother into a slattern, leaving her at the mercy of the world. Fanny's passivity and helpless situation was manufactured by the author. It did not have to be so, as evidenced by Austen's other books.

2) "Fanny's morals are virtuous and to be admired, not to be discredited. She was a strong character, as evidenced by her staying true to her principles."

What are Fanny's principles? She talks bad about no one, unless someone she likes talks bad about them first. She does not laugh, speak on her own behalf, or like to be the center of attention. She is content with small things. She dislikes flirting. Basically, she disdains action, which she considers pushy and rude. And, indeed, she exhibited a constant stream of passivity throughout the book.

First, there's a literary reason why passivity fails to hold the reader. Action reveals character. A character's thoughts and speech are unreliable. It's only in the crucible of conflict we see what a character is made of - we see her make a decision and act on it. Fanny doesn't act. Or rather, her action is not to act. In literature, passivity creates a gap between a reader and a character. We don't care as much.

Then there's a socio-political reason, too. In a society where women could not hold office, vote, or own property, women were at the mercy of men. The Taliban would feel right at home in 1810s England, surrounded by women swaddled under petticoats and dresses, who had no rights of citizenship. Women were expected to be demure, passive, and pretty, like baubles. It is no wonder that modern-day sensibilities object to Fanny, who embodies that time's feminine ideal. Nowadays women can survive on their own. Who would want to go back? Fanny is in this light an ugly reminder of how things could be and, in some places, still are.

Most importantly, Fanny's passivity bogs down the narrative itself. The ending of "Mansfield Park" relies on a series of serendipitous events, none of which Fanny drives herself. First, Sir Thomas is a decent, moral character, and eventually recognizes Fanny's value, but only after a family crisis. Edmund, Fanny's love, almost marries her rival, Mary Crawford, but decides not to only after Mary botches a five-minute conversation. And none of these things happen if Sir Thomas' eldest daughter never abandons her husband on an adulterous fling. Think of the string of events that take place to create the ending! If only one of these events or characters are different, Fanny's in deep trouble! If Sir Thomas had the character of Mrs. Norris, Fanny would be on the street in no time. And while Austen constructed her book to ensure Fanny's happiness, she jumps the plot through so many flaming hoops that the end feels lame and forced.

3) "We must judge Fanny's morals in proper perspective; that is, from 1819, when Jane Austen wrote 'Mansfield Park.'"

A difficult statement that makes us question that very way we read. Should we bring our modern sensibilities to a reading of a book written almost 300 years ago? Should interpretation be based on our personal experience of the text? Yech and double yech.

But fortunately, Austen wrote other books, and we can judge her characters' morality not with our modern-day morals, but against her own.

And Fanny Price comes through like a prig.

One neat thing (among many) about Austen's books is the struggle in her women between security versus spirit. (Security to Austen means money.) Which only makes sense if we imagine how uncomfortable 1810s England was for a woman of Austen's intellect and profession, a woman who no doubt wrote novels desite its impropriety.

In "Persuasion," for example, this conflict is embodied in Anne Elliot, who loves a man her social circle disapproves of. She turned down his first marriage proposal on the advice of a family friend, but spends her life regretting the decision. And that's what the novel is about. Regret for not marrying Wentworth, for not loving, and for choosing convention over emotion. Now this is a conflict we understand. Who among us has no regrets?

In "Mansfield Park," convention and emotion agree. Which is pretty easy, actually, because Fanny exhibits so little of the latter. Fanny is spiritless. She passively watches the outcome of her life unfold before her. She does nothing to aid events along. She never laughs, jokes, or exhibits joy. I can only think that Fanny Price would be the object of disdain and pity by the other Austen heroines. And has anyone realized that Fanny resembles her aunt, Mrs. Norris? Can anyone doubt that after 30 years married to a parson, Fanny, too, will be sanctimonious and self-righteous?

Love Fanny or hate her, "Mansfield Park" still earns 5 stars.

Rating:
Summary: Loved and Hated
Review: "Mansfield Park" has always been Jane Austen's most controversial novel.

The heroine of the book is Fanny Price, a powerless and socially marginal young woman. To almost everyone she knows, she barely exists. As a child, she is sent to live with the family of her wealthy uncle. Her parents give her up without regret, and her uncle only takes her in because he is deceived into doing so. Fanny's wealthy relations, when they deign to notice her at all, generally do so only to make sure she knows of her inferiority and keeps in her place. Fanny is thus almost completely alone, the only kindness she receives coming from her cousin Edmund. Forced by circumstances to be an observer, Fanny is a faultlessly acute one, as well as the owner of a moral compass that always points true north.

Those who dislike "Mansfield Park" almost invariably cite Fanny as the novel's central fault. She is generally accused of being two things: (1) too passive, and (2) too moral.

The charge of passivity is perplexing. Surely it is evident that for her to challenge those in power over her is extremely dangerous - in fact, when she finally does challenge them, on a matter of the greatest importance to her and of next to no importance to them, she is swiftly reminded of the weakness of her situation by being deported back to the impoverished family of her parents, who receive her with indifference.

The charge of morality is easier to understand - many readers feel themselves being silently accused by Fanny, and they don't like it. The interesting thing is that those same readers often enjoy "Pride and Prejudice", even though it is evident that the same moral standards are in place in both books. So, why do readers feel the prick of criticism in one and not the other?

Part of the answer is that in "Mansfield Park" the stakes are higher, which squeezes out the levity of "Pride and Prejudice". Elizabeth Bennet, the heroine of "Pride and Prejudice", can afford to smile at the follies of others - they are not dangerous to her (at least she thinks not - she comes to think differently before the book is over). Fanny, however, can seldom afford to laugh. Vices that are funny in the powerless can be frightening in the powerful. Fanny's vulnerability to the faults of others is clear to her, and she suffers for it throughout "Mansfield Park".

Another part of the answer is that attractions that are combined in "Pride and Prejudice" are split in "Mansfield Park". In "Pride and Prejudice", Mr. Darcy is both rich and good; in "Mansfield Park", Henry Crawford is only rich. In "Pride and Prejudice", Elizabeth Bennet is both witty and good; in "Mansfield Park", Fanny Price is only good. Readers who liked "Pride and Prejudice" because it had a rich man attracted to a witty woman, will either find nothing in "Mansfield Park" to engage their enthusiasms, or, as is not uncommon, they will actually find themselves drawn to the book's sometimes-antagonists, the Crawfords.

Having dealt with why some people dislike "Mansfield Park", it remains to deal with why other people like it. Its central attraction is the skillful blending of the story of Fanny Price herself, which is the Jane Austen's adaptation of the "Cinderella" archetype, and the story of the other characters, which are of the great Christian themes of fall and redemption.

"Cinderella", is of course the story of hope for the powerless. It has been subject to a certain amount of well-intended misreading in recent decades, but the motive for that misreading really concerns an accident of the eponymous story - the sex of the main character - rather than its real theme, which is universal. "Harry Potter", for example, shows how easily and successfully the Cinderella archetype can be applied to a male protagonist.

Fall and redemption is the other story of "Mansfield Park". At the start, the characters other than Fanny are fallen or falling. Some are so corrupt that we are have no hope for them; their presence is purely malign, endangering those not so badly off as themselves. Others have fallen far, but are not quite so far gone that we do not have hope for them as well as fear of them. Finally, there are those who are only beginning to fall, whose danger is all the more alarming for it.

In "Mansfield Park", these stories are not just side by side, they are interwoven. Jane Austen's Cinderella saves not only herself, but also saves - and almost saves - others as well. All but the worst characters in the book are drawn to the goodness in Fanny, even while they yield to the temptations that threaten them. The book has real tension in that we don't know who will make it and who will not. Those who feel sympathy for the Crawfords are not entirely misreading the story - we are not wrong when we sympathize with a drowning man clutching at a rope thrown to him. Where we can go wrong is not when we wish not for the drowning man to be pulled to shore, but when we wish for the person at the other end of the rope to be pulled in after him.

Rating:
Summary: Not one of Austen's Finest
Review: I cannot agree with Christine from Ohio. I have read all of Austen's books, and while they are all wonderfully well-written (she does weave an alluring web), Mansfield Park falls a little short of what I have grown to love about Austen's writing. I could not grow to like the character of Fanny Price. In past books, I have empathized and loved Lizzie Bennett, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, and all the rest, but Fanny Price lacked that spark which makes Austen's other characters so very real. Fanny is full of her own moral superiority, and never seems to have any fun. As I read, I grew to like (and Fanny would despise me) the character of Mary Crawford more than any other, as the character who was the most real. Mary had her flaws, and knew she did. She did not deserve the censure she received from Fanny and eventually Edmund. Edmund is another case. Throughout the entire book he pays court to Mary, and though they do not seem particularly suited to one another, it is easy to see their affection. Meanwhile, Fanny is forced to watch as the man she loves loves another. But Edmund soon sees that Mary lacks "good principles" and turns to his cousin for moral fiber. I prefer the fictional worlds of Austin where characters (Lizzie Bennet comes to mind--she eventually realizes she has been mistakenly prejudiced) make mistakes and know they are not perfect. Fanny Price, in all her moralistic glory, seems more suited to a convent of holy sisters than an Austen novel.

Rating:
Summary: If you like bad books... This is a must have!
Review: Definitely one of Jane Austen's worst books. At the beginning you think ...What?!! At the middle you think... Pretty good! But by the end you think... Give me a toilet so I can flush it down!!!!!!!!! You wait the ENTIRE book for something that happens in the last 2 pages. I quit 3 pages before the ending positive that Fanny would never get married. But then my sister said, "You just have to be patient." Then I told her that I had been patient for the last 384 pages and I certainly was not going to "be patient" any longer! Well I was patient and finished it, but I must confess I no longer know where the book is. Because when you turn around and throw a book into a cramped toy room. It is incredibly hard to find.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad...
Review: Having read Prode & Prejudice, I can't but feel that Mansfield Park was not quite upto her usual standards. The book was dragging a bit in the middle & I feel, the ending was a little hurried up. I rather thought Edmund would realise his mistake (about Miss Crawford) earlier & would propose to Fanny. The plot of the story was good & I liked the beginning too. Quite like a Cinderella tale. But I feel that she could've described the part where Edmund falls in love with Fanny in a more elaborate fashion. But all the same, a good book, but NOT for people who have read P & P, & think that this book is the same.

Rating:
Summary: One of my favourites, from one of my favourite authors.
Review: Jane Austin was certainly ahead of her time. Her female characters are very well thought out and today's women can associate with their thoughts and feelings.

Rating:
Summary: My all-time favorite book!
Review: Mansfield Park is the most amazing book I have ever read. I consider myself a feverent "Janeite" and I definitely think that this is her best work. It goes deeper than her other novels (which are also amazing) and her characters are incredibly realistic. Every time I read this novel (I have read it four times already) I am in awe of the character Henry Crawford. Her characterization of him is so beautifully accomplished. Don't worry about the length of the book, once you get into it (which isn't difficult at all), you wont feel the length one bit. Just sit back and prepare for a magical journey into the life of Fanny Price.

Rating:
Summary: pretty good
Review: this book was interesting enough. i love jane austen. my two personal faves were pride and prejudice and emma. this was interesting, the plot was intriguing and everything. i just thought that way too much was going on throughout the book. it was event after event after event. it was definitely suspenseful. the end was satisfying enough. fanny is not the best of jane austen's heroines. my favorite character was sir thomas. he was cool. i enjoy reading books of this sort generally. fanny could have been more interesting. i don't get why she was so totally in love with edmund the whole time that he was in love with mary crawford. it is a good read if you have time. it took me a month or so to read it because i had to read in the few spare moments i have aside from school reading and other work. i do recommend it to people who enjoy jane austen and those who are willing to take a good chunk of time out of their day to read.

Rating:
Summary: Mansfield Park, revisited
Review: It's been more than a year since I originally reviewed this book, and since then it's been fun to read the war of words between Fanny-defenders and Fanny-bashers; one reviewer says she can't understand this "hate" of Fanny, while another is amazed at the "loathing" Fanny engenders in some readers, and a third admonishes that appreciating Fanny's saintliness takes time and harrumphs, "Fanny upholds what is right, how not to love her?" I have read and reread "Mansfield Park" (it's one of my all-time favorites) and my response regarding Fanny is, "what's to love?"

The reviewer who described Fanny as an "odious little priss" hit the nail slam-bang on the head; Fanny is an impossible killjoy. She is a case of conscience run amok, without any of the tempering graces of understanding or acceptance. Whatever emotions Fanny engenders, hatred or loathing doesn't come into it; there is not enough in Fanny's character to loathe. What she engenders in this reader is more like a profound sense of irritation; one wants to grab her by the shoulders, give her a good shake and tell her to lighten up. Jane Austen's other heroines know how to leaven virtue with common sense and a dash of humor, none more so than Elizabeth Bennet in "Pride and Prejudice"; Fanny acts like she never cracked a joke in her life and wouldn't understand a joke if she heard one, let alone appreciate it. She is thus a perfect match for her cousin Edmund, who is the most puzzling character in this excellent book.

I have never yet come across a sympathetic character in a novel who becomes so thoroughly unsympathetic as Edmund Bertram. He certainly starts out as likeable enough, as Fanny's champion and protector from her obnoxious aunt Norris. We can understand and sympathize when he falls in love with Mary Crawford, whose worldly upbringing makes her despise his vocation as a minister. But Mary is torn between her materialistic ambitions and her genuine affection for Edmund. She really loves him and appreciates his good qualities, as he is able to love her for hers; he realizes she is shallow and superficial, but she is also loving, kind, generous, open-hearted, and doesn't have a mean bone in her body. She is "the only woman he could ever want or accept for a wife."

So what happens to blow this whole scenario to bits? In Edmund's eyes, Mary is insufficiently outraged by the adulterous relationship between her brother and Edmund's married sister. Edmund is in anguish when Mary says she is disgusted by their stupidity in carrying on the affair. For him, this proves she is totally without virtue. But is she really? Mary may have been as outraged as Edmund was; but where Edmund can only think of retribution, Mary is more concerned with damage control. Where Edmund insists on divine and temporal punishment and damnation, Mary prefers to try to make the best of a bad situation. For Edmund, Mary's common sense translates into vice. From a paragon of virtue, she suddenly becomes a monster of licentiousness. Edmund drops poor Mary like a hot potato. He may thus endear himself further to Fanny Price, but he certainly doesn't endear himself to this reader. Edmund comes across as a sanctimonious prig, more interested in judging people than in trying to understand and forgive.

So let the debate continue. I'm looking forward to reading more opinions pro and con about Fanny Price & Co.; the fundamental fact remains that, whatever you may think of Fanny and the other characters, Jane Austen is one of the greatest writers of all time in any language, and Mansfield Park is her greatest book.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing characters
Review: If anyone reads this novel and forgets who Mrs. Norris and Mr. Rushworth are--I am amazed. Jane Austen is a nearly perfect story-teller. Always there are unexpected twists in lovers and even in marriage. Mansfield Park takes it's place by Emma as my favorite Ms. Austen novel. Mansfield Park takes you through the morals of classes, and lets you heighten yourself right along with Fanny Price. No matter what Aunt Norris has to say. Mr. Rushworth was my favorite character among them all, he doesn't make many appearances--when he does they were all rather humorous to me. A highly recommended read for a cozy night.