Scan barcode
A review by rebeccazh
Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
I... just finished this book and I'm kind of internally screaming at this ending. This is not like any other Austen book I've read, at all. I've never felt so incredulous/dissatisfied/shocked.
First, I really like Fanny. Being an introvert who has anxiety, I really relate to her. I'm impressed by her fortitude in remaining unwavering in her opinions despite opposition from everyone around her, doubtful and frightened but choosing to do the right thing. I don't know if I could do that. Standing up to a group of people whose opinion you value takes courage. Psychological realism-wise, I think Austen really captured the effects neglect and even abuse could have on someone who is gentle. I know people like her. Fanny's frequent fears and anxieties, her timid and passive nature, her submissiveness, her gentle and sweet character, etc, all that are familiar to me; she feels real. I was sorry for the intense stress she suffered because of Crawford's proposal and everyone trying to pressure her into marriage. That's a really tough situation, especially with her precarious position in the household.
This book seems to be about nature versus nurture, and privilege versus the neglected/disadvantaged/sidelined. For the young people in this book, these issues overlap. The Crawfords are an example of undesirable upbringing, and Fanny and Susan are examples of strong moral character, despite neglectful and underprivileged home environments. Parental figures and family can have powerful influences on one's character, for good and for ill. And, in the case of the latter, if one doesn't have a strong moral character, one will almost inevitably be an unthinking product of one's negative upbringing/environment. Privilege weakens one's character. Maria Bertram's folly was ascribed entirely to the spoiled and privileged upbringing she enjoyed, with Mrs Norris as her enabler. The Crawfords are not malicious or ill-intentioned, but their ignorance and unwise decisions stem from the kind of insensitivity and insensibility that bad upbringing fosters. Everyone has lessons to learn, even Fanny.
(This book is also very honest, compared to what I'm used to from Austen -- mentions of servitude, slavery, war... I like that Fanny is the main character. She is neglected, overlooked, and in a slave-like position, and I appreciate that it's her experiences being championed here.)
I liked Edmund at first, because of the kindness he showed young Fanny, but he soon grows to be quite... patronizing and self-serving? The episode with Mary reveals his hypocrisy, and it's not pleasant to see. Because of his attraction to Mary, he frequently excuses her flaws, has double standards that benefit and excuse her, and acts in a generally hypocritical way so that he doesn't have to see her for what she is. I am sympathetic of Fanny's position with Edmund. It's hard to keep quiet when someone you care about seems determined to go for someone callous and untrustworthy. Not only that, his interactions with Fanny also show a patronizing and blind treatment of her -- he doesn't see Fanny clearly, either.
Mary Crawford is interesting. I actually liked her (with some reservations). Situated as I am in 2017, I find her behavior more acceptable than Fanny and Edmund back then. I like her most when she is with her brother (and even Fanny, at times). But her behavior with Edmund is callous, and hard to excuse, even now. Two questions I kept thinking about throughout the book: 1) What does she see in Edmund? 2) Could Edmund have improved her character? She suffers from the same restless novelty-seeking that Henry is plagued with. Edmund's influence was changing her a little, but would it sustain? I don't think so. Henry's change was shown to us. But Mary consistently shows her conflicted desires: Edmund, and a careless and fun life. She wants her cake and eat it too. I think I need a novella or book on Mary before I believe she can be satisfied with Edmund, which is a pity because their relationship has potential.
Henry Crawford is the character that gives me such mixed feelings. Sight and glance are important motifs in Austen's books. In every book so far that I've read (P&P, Emma, Persuasion), the heroine/hero start to watch each other, they catch and read each other's gazes, they start to communicate more through their glances and body language -- I even wrote a short essay on this. They start to become sensitive to the other's behaviors and emotions, they start to read each other, they start to pay attention to each other -- all part of the mutual change and growth that the couple undergoes so they are worthy of each other. And honestly? Henry and Fanny were beginning to develop that -- until he disappeared from the novel entirely, only to be mentioned through rumors, and horrible rumors at that -- that he had eloped with Maria. Edmund and Fanny have never had that mutual awareness of each other. They never watched each other.
What bugs me about the ending is that it actually feels almost out-of-character for Henry to have eloped. It feels like the authorial hand reaching in and removing Henry from the novel. It's baffling.
But all in all, this was a book I enjoyed a lot, even the strong "NO!" of frustration and dissatisfaction it provoked from me at the end. This book gave me a lot of food for thought. I'm off to read other people's reactions.
First, I really like Fanny. Being an introvert who has anxiety, I really relate to her. I'm impressed by her fortitude in remaining unwavering in her opinions despite opposition from everyone around her, doubtful and frightened but choosing to do the right thing. I don't know if I could do that. Standing up to a group of people whose opinion you value takes courage. Psychological realism-wise, I think Austen really captured the effects neglect and even abuse could have on someone who is gentle. I know people like her. Fanny's frequent fears and anxieties, her timid and passive nature, her submissiveness, her gentle and sweet character, etc, all that are familiar to me; she feels real. I was sorry for the intense stress she suffered because of Crawford's proposal and everyone trying to pressure her into marriage. That's a really tough situation, especially with her precarious position in the household.
This book seems to be about nature versus nurture, and privilege versus the neglected/disadvantaged/sidelined. For the young people in this book, these issues overlap. The Crawfords are an example of undesirable upbringing, and Fanny and Susan are examples of strong moral character, despite neglectful and underprivileged home environments. Parental figures and family can have powerful influences on one's character, for good and for ill. And, in the case of the latter, if one doesn't have a strong moral character, one will almost inevitably be an unthinking product of one's negative upbringing/environment. Privilege weakens one's character. Maria Bertram's folly was ascribed entirely to the spoiled and privileged upbringing she enjoyed, with Mrs Norris as her enabler. The Crawfords are not malicious or ill-intentioned, but their ignorance and unwise decisions stem from the kind of insensitivity and insensibility that bad upbringing fosters. Everyone has lessons to learn, even Fanny.
(This book is also very honest, compared to what I'm used to from Austen -- mentions of servitude, slavery, war... I like that Fanny is the main character. She is neglected, overlooked, and in a slave-like position, and I appreciate that it's her experiences being championed here.)
I liked Edmund at first, because of the kindness he showed young Fanny, but he soon grows to be quite... patronizing and self-serving? The episode with Mary reveals his hypocrisy, and it's not pleasant to see. Because of his attraction to Mary, he frequently excuses her flaws, has double standards that benefit and excuse her, and acts in a generally hypocritical way so that he doesn't have to see her for what she is. I am sympathetic of Fanny's position with Edmund. It's hard to keep quiet when someone you care about seems determined to go for someone callous and untrustworthy. Not only that, his interactions with Fanny also show a patronizing and blind treatment of her -- he doesn't see Fanny clearly, either.
Mary Crawford is interesting. I actually liked her (with some reservations). Situated as I am in 2017, I find her behavior more acceptable than Fanny and Edmund back then. I like her most when she is with her brother (and even Fanny, at times). But her behavior with Edmund is callous, and hard to excuse, even now. Two questions I kept thinking about throughout the book: 1) What does she see in Edmund? 2) Could Edmund have improved her character? She suffers from the same restless novelty-seeking that Henry is plagued with. Edmund's influence was changing her a little, but would it sustain? I don't think so. Henry's change was shown to us. But Mary consistently shows her conflicted desires: Edmund, and a careless and fun life. She wants her cake and eat it too. I think I need a novella or book on Mary before I believe she can be satisfied with Edmund, which is a pity because their relationship has potential.
Henry Crawford is the character that gives me such mixed feelings. Sight and glance are important motifs in Austen's books. In every book so far that I've read (P&P, Emma, Persuasion), the heroine/hero start to watch each other, they catch and read each other's gazes, they start to communicate more through their glances and body language -- I even wrote a short essay on this. They start to become sensitive to the other's behaviors and emotions, they start to read each other, they start to pay attention to each other -- all part of the mutual change and growth that the couple undergoes so they are worthy of each other. And honestly? Henry and Fanny were beginning to develop that -- until he disappeared from the novel entirely, only to be mentioned through rumors, and horrible rumors at that -- that he had eloped with Maria. Edmund and Fanny have never had that mutual awareness of each other. They never watched each other.
What bugs me about the ending is that it actually feels almost out-of-character for Henry to have eloped. It feels like the authorial hand reaching in and removing Henry from the novel. It's baffling.
But all in all, this was a book I enjoyed a lot, even the strong "NO!" of frustration and dissatisfaction it provoked from me at the end. This book gave me a lot of food for thought. I'm off to read other people's reactions.