Austenathon 2011: Mansfield Park (Spoiler Thread)

Discussions75 Books Challenge for 2011

Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.

Austenathon 2011: Mansfield Park (Spoiler Thread)

Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.

1Smiler69
Mai 14, 2011, 10:29 pm

This is the place to discuss Mansfield Park in detail. Have at it!

Mansfield Park Non-Spoiler Thread.
Austenathon Main Thread.
All Austenathon threads can also be found on the 75ers wiki page.

2Mr.Durick
Mai 15, 2011, 4:26 pm

I'll be with you when I finish 2666, another few days.

Robert

3RosyLibrarian
Mai 15, 2011, 5:28 pm

I got a jump start on Mansfield Park and it struck me early on how much of a wallflower the main character, Fanny, is in her own book. In the beginning there is so much more action that circles around her cousins that Fanny almost gets pushed back in the reader's mind. I'm anxious to see how her character develops.

4jolerie
Mai 15, 2011, 6:48 pm

Mrs Norris = ughh...extremely DISLIKE from beginning of the book right until the end. :)

5Smiler69
Mai 15, 2011, 7:25 pm

#4 Funny, I was just going to say that Mrs Norris is so horrible that she's one of my favourites so far (about halfway through)... one of those characters that you just love to hate! ;-)

6madhatter22
Modifié : Mai 15, 2011, 8:44 pm

Those obnoxious, completely self-unaware Austen characters are fun to read. :)

7MickyFine
Mai 16, 2011, 4:28 pm

>3 RosyLibrarian: I think to some extent this book lives up to its title. While Fanny is, in theory, the heroine, really the book is more about the entire group of people living at Mansfield Park. I think it's also just Fanny's nature to fade into the background.

8Smiler69
Mai 16, 2011, 10:07 pm

I agree with you Micky, about the story being about the group of people. Interestingly enough, I find Fanny holds her own, if only because we get to see her inner workings, which to me, makes her more *real* than the heroines in S&S and P&P. Because of this and many other aspects of the novel, I must say I'm enjoying this one more than the first two.

9jolerie
Mai 16, 2011, 10:43 pm

As much as she is seen as a "wallflower", she actually has quite a backbone in terms of her principles and morals. In that sense, I don't know if she's quite as realistic since from beginning to end, even with the wooing of Mr. Crawford, she did not waver an inch in her beliefs.
I think even I would have caved at his persistence, but in the end she is vindicated and absolutely right in her perceptions. I, on the other would have folded like a cheap deck of cards and would have been ruined if I were her..haha :)

10Smiler69
Mai 16, 2011, 11:05 pm

Valerie, I guess that's a very individual call. I'm just at that point in the novel now, after she's refused him and wasn't at all surprised. For myself, I have my own set of principles, and when I find someone has shown themselves to be untrustworthy and unconcerned with any sense of morality, I write them off for life, no matter how they may try to charm and cajole.

In some ways, Fanny makes me think of Jane Eyre, who was also unwilling to budge from her principles and morals, even for the greatest love of her life. I have to say I find that quite admirable in some ways, even though it can sometimes seem too rigid a way of going about life.

11jolerie
Mai 16, 2011, 11:20 pm

Yeah, it is completely admirable and hard to find nowadays! I think for me there is always the hope that a person is capable of change? I was secretly hoping that maybe just maybe Mr. Crawford had turned a new leaf. I think I give in too easy and am always ready to dish out the second chances, even when I probably shouldn't. :)

I think my issue with a lot of the classics, Austen included, are the stories and characters are very black and white. If you are bad, you are dirt and if you are good, you wear a halo, and there are not many shades of grey, if any at all. I could be completely off base here, but that is just what I've noticed with the limited ones that I've read.

12lit_chick
Mai 17, 2011, 12:14 am

Just finished my latest read. Now I'm ready to go with Mansfield Park : ). This discussion is getting interesting already!

10,11 I love many of Austen's characters, but I can see how they are a) very principled; or b) very unprincipled (complete cads!); or c) very silly.

13MickyFine
Mai 17, 2011, 1:16 pm

I like Henry Crawford. He's a spectacular cad. As a person though, he's entirely awful and I wouldn't want to have to deal with him in real life. I totally agree with Fanny's choice and admire her for having the strength to stick to her convictions. However, she's not my favourite Austen heroine, as I find her lacking in spunk and she's a little too demure and timid for my tastes. I have endless sympathy for her, but I find Mary Crawford far more interesting to read about, although I never want her to actually get Edmund.

14jolerie
Mai 17, 2011, 1:26 pm

Henry Crawford would be what I call today a PP= Pimp Player. :)

15MickyFine
Mai 17, 2011, 1:44 pm

He really is quite a modern character. All the flirting and seduction and general unwillingness to commit. He's the beginnings of what is now a stock character in films and on tv.

16RosyLibrarian
Mai 17, 2011, 3:37 pm

7 and everyone else: I like your explanation of the book being more about the people of Mansfield Park then just Fanny. This is my first time reading it and it just took me by surprise. I agree that she lacks in spunk, but the girl does have her convictions!

I too am liking all these "bad" characters. Mrs. Norris' awfulness is almost comical and Mr. Crawford certainly does fit the "PP" status. I wanted to believe he had "turned over a new leaf" too, but he's better being the bad boy of the book.

I know Fannie and Edmund are made for one another, but I really can't love Edmund the way I've loved other Austen men. They seem almost too much alike...and I know it was perfectly normal to marry cousins at the time, but the modern girl in me still kind of squirms.

17jolerie
Modifié : Mai 17, 2011, 3:45 pm

>16 RosyLibrarian: That was the very next question I was going to ask...that it was okay to marry your direct cousin back then?? I know that royalties did it to keep the bloodlines pure, but even regular common folks? I agree that fact alone caused me to not really care for Fanny and Edmund to get together. And I found it rather odd that he didn't really see her like that at all and it kept stating the fact that he saw like a sister and then the last 10 pages or so, his heart suddenly did a 180.

18RosyLibrarian
Modifié : Mai 17, 2011, 4:56 pm

17: That is a very good question and not one I'm an authority on. I think it happens more often than we think though. I finished reading Gone With the Wind not too long ago and there were cousin marriages in there too. Some famous authors did it (Charles Dickens)... It seems that within the last 75 years, in America in particular, it has become not okay.

I think you said something really important though. Even if they hadn't been cousins, Edmund's feelings for Fanny only came about at the very end and it did seem sort of abrupt.

Edited for a misspelling.

19BookAngel_a
Mai 17, 2011, 4:38 pm

I finished the book, and I really liked it, but the question that keeps coming back to my mind is:

What on earth is wrong with acting out a play???? Was it considered vulgar in those days?

I was also surprised to note that I did not despise Mary and Henry Crawford as much as I expected to. You could see that they had bad inclinations, but when they loved people who were good, they had an inward struggle. Both of them realized in the end that they missed out on marrying a person who was too good for them. The bad part of them won out in the end, and yet I can't completely hate them.

Mrs. Norris is just hateful, however, in every way!!

20BookAngel_a
Mai 17, 2011, 4:40 pm

And yes, it is hard to imagine Edmund's suddenly going from brotherly feelings to romantic feelings in such a short time.

21Smiler69
Mai 17, 2011, 5:06 pm

I'll be taking a break from this thread till I've finished the book (3/4 or the way through now). Don't want too many spoilers!

See you all later!

22madhatter22
Mai 18, 2011, 1:18 am

>19 BookAngel_a:: Some of the objections to the play are hard to see today. I think the main objection was to the play they chose. It probably would've been difficult to find any play that would seem innocent in Sir Thomas' eyes, but this one was especially improper. Maria is playing a character who's seduced by Henry's character and then has a child out of wedlock after he refuses to mary her.
Mr. Rushworth is also playing a character considered to be immoral sexually, and Mary's character was thought at the time to be indecently forward towards her love interest, Edmund's character.

Besides that, there's all that money being spent unnecessarily (esp. when Tom has already gotten into trouble for overspending). Also, this family is very particular about who they associate with. (Or at least the father is, and the children know what's expected of them.) The idea of having a bunch of people they don't know well in their home would be unseemly to Sir Thomas, and having them in to watch his children acting out an improper play would just be unthinkable.

I love how Edmund convinces himself that he's only participating in the play for damage control. :) It makes him so much more human.

>16 RosyLibrarian:: I wanted to believe he had "turned over a new leaf" too, but he's better being the bad boy of the book.
The first time I read it I was hoping he really was in earnest about Fanny too. But you're right - he makes a better bad boy. Much more interesting story that way. :)

23Mr.Durick
Mai 18, 2011, 5:06 pm

I read the first quarter of the book last night. Henry Crawford is not yet a cad; I have been expecting the elder brother to be a cad, but he's off at the races now. Mrs. Norris is a pill; we have them all about us two hundred years later. Fanny, driven by her fear, curiosity, and what she has been told is right, strikes me as real, and I have hopes that she has a pleasant end.

I am finding this book as pleasant to read as the earlier two. It is not so sparkly, but it has a good bit of wit about it.

Robert

24lyzard
Mai 18, 2011, 6:42 pm

>>19 BookAngel_a: There were very strict rules about how young men and women could interact, and rehearsing a play - especially one like Lover's Vows - lowered too many of the barriers.

I don't know if anyone here has seen the BBC production of Mansfield Park with Sylvestra Le Touzel as Fanny, but the staging of this subplot is wonderful, with poor Fanny constantly stumbling onto some overenthusiastic "rehearsing". So is the scene of Edmund trying to justify his involvement.

25lit_chick
Mai 19, 2011, 12:21 am

I love the obsession with social class. The Bertrams/Mrs Norris emphasize how it will be made clear to Fanny that she can NEVER be of the same class as the Miss Bertrams. Maria and Julia must be tutored in how to be appropriately condescending toward Fanny without being arrogant ... there was actually a difference between the two in Austen's time!

26Cynara
Mai 19, 2011, 8:55 am

"Condescension" seems to have almost been a positive. I recall Mr. Collins in P&P being thrilled down to his panties by Lady Catherine DeBurgh's "condescension."

I highly recommend this author's Jane Austen blog, which was originally posted on another of these JA threads: http://www.bitchinabonnet.blogspot.com/. He's currently working his way through Mansfield Park.

His posts are absolutely hilarious ("Mr. Yates has all the social instincts of a howler monkey.") but his central thesis is that Austen wasn't a romantic writer, but essentially a satiric one. I think he's a bit defensive on this score (after all, Persuasion contains what may be the most romantic letter in all of fiction) but he's spot on for Mansfield Park.

27RosyLibrarian
Mai 19, 2011, 11:20 am

26: THANK YOU for that link! I've been cracking up all morning.

28lyzard
Modifié : Mai 19, 2011, 5:09 pm

"Condescension" was the correct behaviour of a superior towards an inferior - it was considered a positive thing - noblesse oblige.

Although of course, how you viewed it rather depended upon whether you were the superior or the inferior. The fact that "condescending" has its current meaning suggests that the inferiors finally rebelled. :)

29madhatter22
Mai 19, 2011, 7:02 pm

>26 Cynara:: Thanks for the link - I'll def. want to check that out!
I agree that Austen is more of a satiric than romantic writer, though of course there are some very romantic moments in her books, your example being perhaps my favorite.

And yes, Mr. Collins was "thrilled down to his panties" (ha!) with Lady DeBourgh's condescending to speak to and notice him, because he wouldn't have thought her wrong at all to completely ignore him. It was just accepted that people had superiors and inferiors.

30Cynara
Mai 20, 2011, 8:41 am

I agree that for every emotional scene in Austen there are ten satiric ones.

I do get annoyed when readers feel it necessary to deny the emotional content of Austen's work. I think people do that because books about love that end happily (romances) are low-status, while satires are higher-status.

I also get annoyed when people tout Austen as "chick lit" (and wow, there's a gender/status can of worms in that genre name) because I feel it threatens her status in the canon and my status for reading her. :-)

I don't think I'd like most of the "chick lit" books, but I've never really read one (I like my light reading in other genres) so I shouldn't comment.

31Mr.Durick
Mai 20, 2011, 3:48 pm

At halfway through the book Henry Crawford is about to become a cad, if that is what he does. That makes me feel more protective of Fanny Price, which is some sort of social engineering by the author, and I like it. Mrs. Norris is so obvious, I think part of Jane Austen's use for her is to have some easy fun.

Robert

32Smiler69
Mai 20, 2011, 9:56 pm

I finished the book, and my opinion about the 180 turn at the end is that Austen seems to do a lot of that.

Strangely enough, this was my favourite one so far, maybe because I had no expectations at all, since most people seem to agree that this is not their favourite novel, whereas S&S and P&P have a huge following.

I think Mary and Henry Crawford are not necessarily *bad* people, but they do have a rather muddled sense of morals. They both aspire to be better people by association, but in the end, are moved by their baser instincts. Sounds like a very human, and all too current concern to me!

A marriage between first cousins was completely legal during that period, and is actually more common than we might suppose. The U.S. today has a wide ranging acceptance, from being legal in some states to being a criminal offence in others. wikipedia has a page on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

33lyzard
Modifié : Mai 21, 2011, 12:24 am

I grew up on English literature and, I suppose, never even thought about the cousin thing, but just took it for granted. It was a surprise when I realised that in America, or some parts, it was a huge deal.

Although I believe that there was an earlier time in England, when the ecclesiastical court (is that what it was called?) was very powerful, when the most distant degree of blood connection was illegal and considered incest.

34lit_chick
Modifié : Mai 21, 2011, 12:55 pm

@32,33 Interesting remarks about the marriage of cousins, particularly first cousins. I know this happens often in Austen (many others too). Personally, I remember from a very young age knowing that cousins absolutely could not marry; obviously my family was of the camp that considered such marriages incest. But incest (or not) aside, what about the genetic difficulties/defects that such marriages were feared to produce? I don't recall hearing about any of these cases in Austen ... ?? Anyone else?

Note that my remarks are written for personal discussion. I've not researched the topic of cousin marriage, and I certainly have not researched the science (or lack thereof) behind the theory of birth/genetic defects.

35lyzard
Mai 21, 2011, 5:38 pm

From a biological standpoint, it would usually take several generations of close blood relationship before any problems came out - even first degree consanguinity, parent-child or sibling, won't necessarily have a detrimental effect. The haemophilia in the European royal families is an example of something that eventually showed itself, but only when marriage within the same family was an ongoing practice. The marriage of cousins as an isolated event would be unlikely to cause problems.

To drag this conversation somewhat back on topic, we should remember that in Austen's time cousin-marriage was not always about keeping money and property in the family. Girls were allowed to associate freely with male cousins, while there were strict rules about their interaction with non-relatives.

36flissp
Mai 22, 2011, 1:57 pm

Oops, I forgot that May was Mansfield Park month! Shall have to pick it up now...

#5 Smiler69, I'm with you on Mrs Norris ;o)

#9 Re Fanny's consistency - but she does waver! Not for very long, admittedly...

Re the Crawfords, I don't think that they are black and white - and I've always had a slight suspicion that actually Austen likes them best - they're actually quite complex characters - they'd definitely be more fun at a party than Fanny or Edmund. I do believe that Henry Crawford loves Fanny and part of the reason he ends up doing what he does is in anger at her. More than anything, his is a weak character - probably what attracts him to Fanny is that she holds to the strength of her own convictions. They're an interesting couple.

#17 - 18 It's still OK and perfectly legal to marry your own first cousin (in the UK anyway), even if not recommendedgenetically... and it used to be more common - presumably because social circles were much smaller.

Now I think about it, my Dad's uncle married his cousin. It's not ideal, but it's certainly not as bad as marrying a brother or sister.

If you think about it, potentially, with the same parents, you could have the same genetic variations as a sibling, although in reality, this only happens in the case of identical (monozygotic)twins - but you do have the same parents. In the case of cousins, the similarities are one generation back (one pair of grandparents the same), so there is a lot more variety inherited. Of course, not the same as marrying someone out of your family, although in many countries and places, you don't have to go back very far to find a very small gene pool.

One of the reasons, for example, the Finnish population, or Amish communities are very good for studying genetic disorders is that they started out with very small founder populations. This means that there's a lot less variation in the genetic pool (interestingly, there's a very high percentage of people who are lactose intolerant in Finland). It doesn't mean they're all inbred ;o)

Was going to comment more on the genetics of this, but I see #35 lyzard has got there first!

#19 Book_angel, totally with you on the Crawfords.

Re the play - this was the thing that stuck the worst for me when I first read it too - it doesn't translate very well through the ages, but yes, it was thought very inappropriate - a large part of this however, was the choice of the play (which is very racy!). ...ah, as I see madhatter says in #22 (and also agree with you on the count of Edmund seeming more human with the excuses he makes for himself).

#26 Oh, I completely agree with any writer who describes Austen as more a satrical writer than a romanitc one. Yes, the romance is important too (and Persuasion is one of my all time favourites), but her subtle commentry on human nature is what makes her stand out from the crowds. I keep meaning to catch up with that blog ;o)

Mansfield Park is my least favourite Austen, but these discussions have whetted my appetite, so I shall now get cracking!

37madhatter22
Mai 22, 2011, 7:50 pm

>36 flissp:: Ha! Yes, Henry and Mary would be much more fun at a party than Fanny and Edmund!

I've always liked Mary Crawford. There's something modern about her that appeals to me. Yes, she can be selfish, but I like her vivacity. And there's something a little lost about her too, that endears her to me.

I'm not so fond of Henry, but I agree that he's not clearly a villain and nothing else. He's selfish and spoiled and idle, but he does have moments of self-awareness. Like when he envies William his industry and the respect it's brought him - momentarily - before reflecting that it's also a pretty nice thing to already be rich. :) And I think he does actually fall for Fanny a little - or at least for the idea of having that kind of life, the way that he toys with the idea of William's life - but I haven't gotten that far yet on this go-round.

One more remark about Henry - I love when he says,

"I told you I lost my way after passing that old farm house, with the yew trees, because I can never bear to ask"

So men wouldn't ask for directions 200 years ago either, hm? =p

38Mr.Durick
Mai 22, 2011, 11:48 pm

I'm reading the Norton Critical Edition. I still have to read the context and criticism in the back, but I finished the novel last night, and I have to say, "Hurray for Fanny!" Also, "Hurray for Edmund!" The story was wrapped up, but having read Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice I thought maybe everybody would have gotten well situated at the end of the story. I predicted what would happen with Fanny, but I wasn't convinced I was right until I read it.

I wonder how the story might have differed if the Price household in Portsmouth had been a cozy, supportive little nest?

Robert

39MickyFine
Mai 23, 2011, 1:22 am

Despite the rather staid natures of Fanny and Edmund, I find it interesting that Austen includes some of her most racy content in this book. There's the adultery and the mostly skirted issue of slavery, but some of the things Mary says are downright scandalous. My favourite is her joke about Rears and Vices. Makes me laugh every time.

40lit_chick
Mai 23, 2011, 12:21 pm

I love that Austen has the ability to make me laugh out loud. Start of chapter XVII, Edmund has relented and will act in the play; he has just informed the others: "Such a victory of Edmund's discretion has been beyond their hopes, and was most delightful."

41Mr.Durick
Mai 23, 2011, 5:29 pm

I read the play last night. It is melodramatic fluff but interesting in the way it fits the novel. It is mostly about an impoverished mother and illegitimate son who rediscover one another followed by the mutual rediscovery of the remainder of the family that did her wrong. In that latter family the early adult daughter expresses her affection for her tutor plainly. So we have two subjects that are brought up often enough in Austen's novels, illegitimacy and feminine desire for a man, but which are never talked about by the characters. The play is not fit for a good home, but the author can show how interested all the young folk are in the subjects.

Robert

42Mr.Durick
Modifié : Mai 23, 2011, 6:27 pm

There is now a super-touchstone feature in talk. At the upper right there is a block called 'About.' I have added Mansfield Park and Mansfield Park, the Norton Critical Edition to this thread. That should lead to a link on the work page back to this thread; so far I don't see it.

Robert

Edited to add: now it does connect from the work page.

R

43madhatter22
Mai 24, 2011, 8:09 pm

>39 MickyFine:: I had that same thought about the most reserved Austen characters being in the same book with her most scandalous incident. :) (At least I can't think of anything racier. Anyone?)
I think Mansfield Park was originally the 4th book of hers I read, and I was so surprised that she actually had main characters committing adultery.

I don't remember the allusion to slavery. Was it in connection to Sir Thomas's trip to Antigua?

Love the Rears & Vices joke. One more thing to endear Mary to me. :)

44MickyFine
Mai 26, 2011, 2:21 pm

>43 madhatter22: The only direct reference to slavery is is in a discussion between Fanny and Edmund where she says that she asked Sir Thomas a question about the slave-trade the previous evening. However, slavery was still a major issue in Antigua (and the rest of the "West Indies"). While slavery was illegal in England, it was not in those regions, so the majority of Sir Thomas' wealth is built on slavery. Austen basically ignores this issue, and there are many academic speculations as to why. Depending on the edition of Mansfield Park you have, most tend to include some discussion in either the introduction or appendices discussing the slavery issue. Really it's hanging on the fringes and only noticeable if you know the historical context.

45aulsmith
Mai 26, 2011, 4:18 pm

42: I also added a super-touchstone for the play. This discussion has certainly made me read it.

43: Lady Susan is pretty racy.

46MickyFine
Mai 26, 2011, 5:33 pm

>45 aulsmith: True. Lady Susan does have some scandalous content. I guess it depends on whether you're just considering her 6 major novels or the novellas and fragments as well.

47madhatter22
Mai 26, 2011, 9:18 pm

>45 aulsmith:: Ah! Lady Susan, si. I was just thinking of the six novels, but Lady Susan has to be Austen's most scandalous lead character.

48celiacardun
Mai 29, 2011, 11:40 am

It’s lovely to read the discussion on MP – I’m jumping in a bit late, so here are my thoughts on the previous postings…

#4 I had a laugh when I realised that Mrs Norris gets some beating from J.K. Rowling in the Harry Potter books. It must be from Mansfield Park that she borrowed that name…

#9 I wonder if Fanny would have accepted Crawford if she hadn’t been in love with Edmund, or if Edmund had proposed to Mary Crawford and ended any chance of happiness with him… Then it would be left to principles only and I wonder whether anyone can persist in refusing someone as charming and seemingly reformed as Henry Crawford in Portsmouth…

#36 Interesting comment about Henry as a weak character being attracted to the strict principles of Fanny. #37 This would almost imply that certain character faults are worse than others: for example, Mr Darcy is proud and arrogant – but he has a strong morality, so he would not intentionally cause harm like Henry Crawford did. Now that I think of it, the relationship between Fanny and Crawford is a bit comparable to Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester: Jane Eyre having the strict principles and Mr Rochester being the weaker one – although he would not cause intentional harm (at least now – because he could have been rid easily from his wife if he would simply have put her in an unhealthy home. Instead, he takes care she is well situated despite the circumstances).

#17 and #34 I think it is more and more frowned upon to marry your first cousin, but it was very common in the past. Actually, it is legal for someone to marry their first cousin in 25 American states, whereas it is legal to marry your partner if he or she is from the same sex in only two states. There is something in Gone with the Wind about that it is not so healthy that the Hamiltons constantly marry their cousins, but can't remember reading anything about that elsewhere (in literature).

#132 Is it so much a 180 turn? Or is it about Edmund realizing that his feelings are more than brotherly after all? Parallell can be drawn with Mr Knightley who also starts off being more of an elder brother than a suitor to Emma. At least he really likes her – it’s a bit like being friends and only realizing later on that there is more of a spark.

49Soupdragon
Modifié : Mai 29, 2011, 12:43 pm

I'm jumping in late too as I've only recently finished the book and as I hadn't read it before or even seen any kind of adaptation of it, I didn't want to risk spoilers.

I enjoyed the book a lot until the end. I liked Fanny and found her rather subdued and moral personality very convincing considering her upbringing. I enjoyed all the dialogue between the different characters and loved to hate Mrs Norris.

I wondered about how the book would end as I couldn't see Fanny not ending up with Edmund but couldn't quite see how it was going to be achieved in a credible way in which the relationship has evolved into more than a brother/sister one and Edmund actually feels more for Fanny than the vivid Mary. Well neither it seems could Jane Austen! None of this is shown at all. We are merely told at the end that it happened as a kind of after-thought and Austen can't even work out when it would happen. We have to try to work that out for ourselves. What a cop out!

50MickyFine
Mai 29, 2011, 5:47 pm

>49 Soupdragon: Austen often does that though. The same thing happens with Marianne and Colonel Brandon and Elinor and Edward in Sense and Sensibility. Austen often skips over a lot of the conversations associated withe uniting of lovers, instead preferring to narrate from a distance.

51Soupdragon
Mai 30, 2011, 10:37 am

>50 MickyFine:: Ah, thinking back to last year when I read Sense and Sensibility, I see you are right. It didn't annoy me there, though, as the outcome seemed plausible and I had no problem imagining it!

52Apolline
Mai 30, 2011, 12:35 pm

>50 MickyFine:: If I'm not mistaken, it is the same with Jane and Mr. Bingley in P&P, too.

53ronincats
Juin 8, 2011, 9:49 pm

I have finished my slow re-read of MP for the Austenathon, averaging about 3 chapters a day most days through the 46 chapter book. I have to say I really enjoyed this. I think the problem arises when people think of this as a romance, of Fanny getting Edmund, as opposed to a serious treatment of the virtues of self-discipline and a moral code in contrast to vanity and self-indulgence. In the same way as with Sense and Sensibility, the meat of the matter is in the exhibition of the characteristics highlighted through the interaction of the characters, and so the rather cursory summary chapters of each are not meant to illuminate the romantic relationships, but rather to put a period on the conflict that has gone before. This story could so clearly have gone the other way, had Mr. Crawford been more steadfast and Mary more principled. In such case, indeed, Edmund would have ended up with Mary and Fanny with Henry and that would also have been a good ending, a better one for the Crawfords. But due to their character flaws, both doomed themselves to unhappy lives.

I loved how Mrs. Norris was got out of the house at the end, to the joy of all. Indeed, she is the nastiest character in the whole book.

54Rebeki
Juin 13, 2011, 12:41 pm

I've finally finished! I wasn't sure what to expect, as I know this is rarely a favourite with Austen fans, but I really enjoyed it.

I think that was partly because I had no prior knowledge of the plot and raced through the last chapters to find out how all would be resolved. I particularly enjoyed Northanger Abbey for the same reason. By the time I got round to reading Emma and Sense and Sensibility, I'd already seen the film versions, so, while I enjoyed them for the wonderful storytelling and writing, there was no sense of suspense.

Secondly, I liked the fact that this novel is somehow less "romantic" than some of the others. I was rooting for Fanny and Edmund (yes, in spite of their being cousins!), but appreciated the fact that there was a whole range of well-drawn characters to engage with. The Crawfords are probably the most interesting because, as others have commented above, they're not entirely good or bad. I was never quite sure what to think of Mary Crawford. I liked her for valuing Fanny so highly, but disliked her materialistic views (while accepting that marriage and money were very closely linked in those times and that it's a modern luxury to be able to to marry purely for love!) and her fickleness with regard to Edmund. It took a while for me to be convinced of Henry Crawford's sincerity, but I assume it was his particular weakness - the need to be admired by women (any women) - that proved his downfall.

It would have been nice if Austen had dwelt a little longer on Fanny and Edmund's coming together, but, then, perhaps it's more in keeping with their relationship that it should be understated. Theirs is a quiet meeting of minds and temperament, with none of the sparks that there are between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy.

55Mr.Durick
Juin 13, 2011, 3:33 pm

I also really enjoyed it. I wonder whether it is not a favorite in general because folks take it as less than or because folks take the others as more than...

Robert

56Rebeki
Juin 13, 2011, 4:12 pm

I thought perhaps it suffered by comparison with Pride and Prejudice in particular. Lots of people are very fond of the Elizabeth-Darcy dynamic and I suppose Fanny and Edmund don't measure up...

57lauranav
Juin 13, 2011, 5:55 pm

I just finished it. Very enjoyable and glad I have read it. I did think it seemed to drag on at times. Then suddenly everything happened at the end (not just the tidy Edmund/Fanny relationship) but everything else too.

I did like how Mary Crawford finally showed her true disposition in her final conversation with Edmund. I admire Fanny greatly for never saying "I told you so" to her Uncle or Edmund, but for a little while I was really missing the smart remarks Elizabeth would have had, or even the spunk of Jane Eyre.

58katiekrug
Juin 13, 2011, 9:05 pm

I also just finished, and think Rebeki (#54) nailed it for me. I really enjoyed the novel, but in a totally different way than I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice. To me, they are very different types of works and need to be judged separately.

59Rebeki
Juin 16, 2011, 5:09 am

Katie, your review largely reflects my feelings, so it gets an extra thumb from me!

60katiekrug
Juin 16, 2011, 7:09 pm

Thanks :)

61flissp
Juin 24, 2011, 1:26 pm

I've just come back to this after a break away and having reached the best bit (the play onwards) have been racing through it, although not done yet.

I do have a couple of interim comments though, the first being that I am noticing that I am enjoying it much more this time round - as, in fact, I did the last time I read it too. I've read Persuasion and Pride and Prejudice too many times to count and Emma and Sense and Sensibility a fair number of times too. Northanger Abbey and Mansfielf Park however, being not quite such big favourites, I've only read twice before. It's funny how different your impressions can be on rereading books - on my 2nd reading of Northanger Abbey a couple of years ago, it actually surplanted Emma in my "Jane Austen" novels rankings (! ;o)) and I'm getting more from this reread of Mansfield Park again than I did last time (when it also improved on me).

I suppose that the key to this is that in a reread you become much more immersed in the detail. I've been particularly enjoying Mrs Norris and Julia this time round. Mrs Norris always having been a favourite character (just because she is so aweful), but Julia (due to her more "bit part" status) having previously mostly gone under the radar, except as a rival for Maria.

Another thing that I've noticed is how much more thoroughly drawn the two lead male characters are in Mansfield Park than they are in most of Austen's novels (from memory - I withold my right to alter my view through the next three, although I don't think I will). Austen goes in to much more depth about the feelings and reasoning of Edmund and, in particular, Henry Crawford - and also has them speaking for themselves (rather than reported from a distance) much more than most of her male characters do.

Has anyone else noticed this? It means that I find them much more convincing than I find a lot of her male characters, however much I like Captain Wentworth...

I've always found the Crawfords easily the most interesting characters in Mansfield Park (and suspected that Austen has a certain amount of love for them), but this time I'm finding Henry a particularly fascinating character, I even end up feeling a little sorry for him, despite his status as "rogue". You notice that Austen suspects that Fanny would have fallen for his charms if she hadn't already been in love with Edmund (see chpt2 book6 - and I've always loved that she speculates about her characters emotions within the book!). I can't help wondering what would have happened if he had ended up winning her over. I'm not convinced she would have been as miserable as she thinks she would be.

62MickyFine
Juin 24, 2011, 3:42 pm

>61 flissp: I have to agree with you about Henry Crawford. He is probably my favourite character in Mansfield Park. I can remember reading the book for the first time and kind of hoping he'd end up with Fanny. For all his many flaws, he is charming and he does go out of his way to really understand Fanny, while Edmund just assumes he knows everything about her (obviously not true as he's obtuse enough to not notice her pining over him). Henry may be a rake and a bit of a fop, but given his background, he's a far better man than he could have been.

63madhatter22
Juin 26, 2011, 11:16 pm

I still can't help feeling Edward would've eventually become bored with Fanny if he'd ended up winning her over.
I do agree that the Crawfords are the most interesting characters in the book though - I was especially loving Mary this time around.

>61 flissp:: I could've written that 2nd paragraph almost word for word. :) This was the 3rd or 4th time I read Mansfield Park, and my opinions of the characters have changed every time I've read it.

64Nickelini
Juin 29, 2011, 12:07 pm

You have all been having so much fun and I've completely missed this discussion.

Until I read P&P this past December, Mansfield Park was my favourite Austen. I think it's because I studied it at university and we dove in and pulled it apart.

Marriage between cousins: The other students in my class (all much younger than me) just could. not. get. past. this. Although it gave me very brief pause, I think obviously it must have been common as you come across cousin marriage in Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, and Dickens, to name just some other 19th c books.

Henry: I just never trusted him or found his attraction to Fanny to be sincere at all. What could he possibly see in her?

Mary Crawford: is more fun than Fanny, but she's actually very rude and self-centred. I think a union between her and Edmund would have been incredibly unhappy for both of them.

Mansfield Park is often dismissed as not as fun as Austen's other books, but there is actually some fun stuff there. The scene where they go visit the house with the park has lots of good material--I especially like the part where the young women are climbing the fence. Can you imagine that, with their long dresses and all? I wrote a paper on that scene and it was full of good material.

Also, my FAVOURITE minor character in all of Austen is in this book, and no one has mentioned her yet--Lady Betram. She just can't get herself and her little dog off the sofa to do anything! She a vision of uselessness. Or, as Bitch-in-a-Bonnet describes: "and there’s a lot of talk along the lines of oh what fun and shall we take only the carriage or also the barouche, and who’s going to sit with Lady Bertram and watch her stare at molecules while we’re gone," Yep, that's our Lady Bertram, busy staring at molecules. But I guess she's overshadowed by the deliciously nasty Mrs Norris (and thank you to whoever pointed out the Harry Potter connection).

65BookAngel_a
Juin 30, 2011, 9:54 pm

I've known a couple men like Henry Crawford in real life. They are so used to having every eligible woman interested in them that they take all of them for granted.

Then, when they meet a woman who seems to be immune to their charms, they are baffled. And intrigued. Suddenly they have something to work for. It becomes their mission to do whatever it takes to attract this woman.

I think that's how it started for Henry Crawford. Also, Fanny's innocence probably intrigued him in the "opposites attract" way, no doubt.

Plus, as soon as her precocious cousins were away from the house, Fanny had a chance to shine and be noticed for once.

I just love analyzing fictional characters, lol...

66Nickelini
Juil 1, 2011, 2:17 am

#65 - Hmm - that theory would work indeed in Austen's world. I meet boys like that when I was younger, but once everyone hit adulthood, no ..... there are just too many people one interacts with for it to be plausible. But in an isolated society --yes. That actually fills in my gaps on Henry. Thank you!

67billiejean
Juil 2, 2011, 11:18 pm

I finally finished Mansfield Park tonight. This was my first time to read it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. All the way through the Henry and Fanny "relationship" I kept asking my daughter "Is she going to marry the cad?!?" My daughter hasn't read the book yet, so when I finished she wanted to know. But I couldn't spoil the very end for her. I also read the play and thought it was hilarious in its melodrama which matched so nicely to the book!

#64> I thought the comment about Lady Bertram staring at molecules was spot on. And I had forgotten about the dog until near the end when she plans to give away puppies to the ones she likes.

68BookAngel_a
Juil 4, 2011, 8:09 pm

I'm glad you liked my comment Nickelini. You're right that it works better in isolated society. When you get out in the big wide world you definitely ought to realize that not everyone is going to fall in love with you! ;)

69Nickelini
Juil 4, 2011, 9:13 pm

#68 - and that's really their loss, isn't it!

70BookAngel_a
Juil 4, 2011, 9:34 pm

Yes, that's a good way to look at it. :D

71humouress
Modifié : Juil 8, 2011, 9:40 pm

Just finished MP, and joining this fascinating discussion. I must say, in wrapping up, I think Jane Austen dealt out some rather harsh fates; Julia's, especially, was disappointing, since she only eloped out of fear of being rusticated. Although Yates does seem more promising than he initially appeared. I think Maria and Mrs Norris are the only two who really end up with their just desserts.

I was all for Fanny winning her Edmund up until Portsmouth, when Henry Crawford was being so attentive to Susan and her, in spite of their father, and he was perceptive enough to see her health was suffering and offer his services to get her back to Mansfield. And then when Edmund came to collect her, he called her his only sister, at which point the closeness of their relationship became an issue for me.

I read this more as a novel than a satire; unlike, say P&P - which I've read several times, including studying it at school - I've only read this once before, so I've probably missed a lot of the references. Someone will have to tell me the Rear and Vices joke, to save me from hunting through the book for it (did Miss Crawford say something about Admirals?). I can, of course, see the hypocrisy in different behaviours, but I didn't find it as funny as the first two (especially P&P)

72celiacardun
Juil 15, 2011, 6:35 am

#63 when thinking about how Fanny and Crawford would have been together if they would have hooked up, I suddenly thought about the Tenant of Wildfell Hall, where a similar relationship was formed. Huntington is also a rake (ok, somewhat more than Crawford I think) and is totally attracted to Helen because she is "such a saint". Although Crawford more genuinely seems to care for Fanny (being attentive to Susan, caring for her health as the previous posting said) than Huntington (who still feels like bad news despite his charm), it is more or less the same premise that she might turn him around and keep him on the right track. Well, that didn't happen in Tenant... So I'm inclined to think that it may have gone well for a couple of years, but that, depending on who he would meet and associate with (which is a very important influence in Tenant), in time it would have gone wrong. So, good for Fanny that her heart was stuck on Edmund :-)

73Nickelini
Juil 15, 2011, 1:47 pm

Celiacardun - great comparison!

74madhatter22
Juil 16, 2011, 2:43 pm

Re. cousins marrying - I was just looking through the Austen biography Becoming Jane Austen and was interested to see that one of Jane's brothers married a first cousin of theirs.

75humouress
Modifié : Juil 16, 2011, 10:28 pm

It wasn't the first cousins marrying, so much; it was that Edward saw her as a sister. Actually, first cousin marriages seem to have happened quite often in my mum's mum's family tree. And 'Tennant of Wildfell Hall' will have to go on my TBR; though I'm not generally a Bronte fan.

PS : still waiting to find out about Rears & Vices ...

76MickyFine
Juil 17, 2011, 6:15 pm

>75 humouress: What exactly are you wanting to find out about Rears & Vices?

77cidneyswanson
Modifié : Juil 17, 2011, 6:45 pm

>74 madhatter22: I noticed you listed Becoming Jane Austen which I really enjoyed. Have you tried Claire Tomalin's Jane Austen A Life? It reads really well. There's also David Nokes' Jane Austen A Life which has lots more detailed information. However, he can be annoyingly speculative in some of his sentences. That is, he'll go off of the facts and wonder about something that might have been true (opium trading in Austen's dad's side of the family) without giving you any conclusive data. It probably wouldn't annoy everyone, though.

78humouress
Juil 17, 2011, 11:59 pm

>76 MickyFine: : re posts 39 & 43, a joke was mentioned, which I don't remember. Since I didn't read this book at school, nor read an annotated version, I think I missed a lot of references and jokes. :(

79MickyFine
Juil 18, 2011, 12:45 am

>78 humouress: The full quote is from Mary Crawford talking about her uncle, the Admiral: "Of Rears and Vices, I saw enough. Now, do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat." Essentially, Mary is making a pun on the different types of admirals (Rear-Admiral and Vice-Admiral) while alluding to sodomy that occurred in the British navy.

80Mr.Durick
Juil 18, 2011, 1:02 am

If I can find the energy I'll quote a paragraph from Jane Austen: a life on Mansfield Park tomorrow. It was curious to me that the book can be thought of as a commentary on the state of England's governance at the time.

Robert

81cidneyswanson
Juil 19, 2011, 4:01 pm

>80 Mr.Durick: That would be great to read. (Not finding the energy myself to locate the book or the quote!)

82Mr.Durick
Juil 19, 2011, 7:43 pm

The index to the Vintage edition off Jane Austen is not comfortably transparent. The following paragraph, absent the parenthetical last sentence, starts on the bottom of page 226 of that book. It shows succinctly how Mansfield Park reflects on the larger social reality of England at the time.
The princes were able to live with a total disregard for justice, religious principles[,] or the sanctity of marriage; but their behaviour [sic] was widely perceived as a liability upon the nation. Mansfield Park is, among other things, a novel about the condition of England, [sic] and addresses itself to the questions raised by royal behaviour [sic] and the kind of society it encouraged. It sets up an opposition between someone with strongly held religious and moral principles. who will not compromise them for any reason, will not consider a marriage that is not based on true feeling rather than opportunism, and is revolted by sexual immorality; and a group of worldly, highly cultivated, entertaining[,] and well-to-do young people who pursue pleasure without regard for religous or moral principles. On the worldly side, Henry and Mary Crawford have been tainted by their uncle the Admiral, who has the power of patronage, keeps a mistress openly[,] and passes on a light-hearted attitude towards unnatural vice in the navy to his niece. Maria and Julia Bertram are led astray by vanity and greed, unable to resist temptation; their corruption is completed by moving from their father's house in the country, where outwardly correct standards are maintained, to London, where anything goes. This is at any rate one way of looking at Mansfield Park, and the parallels with the highest Regency society are all there.
That was too hard. I am not going to try to copy a long passage with my crappy Dell computer again.

Robert

83humouress
Juil 20, 2011, 1:02 pm

>79 MickyFine: : Thanks, Micky

84cidneyswanson
Juil 22, 2011, 1:38 am

>Thanks for the quote, Mr Durick