Help! Trying (again) to finish Mansfield Park.....

Determination to finish book failing....annoyance at Fanny Price rising....I like the "bad" characters better...Man, I just cannot get around the heroine. JA loves her, but her quiet, steadfast sense of self is beginning to be outweighed by annoyance at how passive she is. It's almost like passive agression.
That, and the fact that from reading books about her works, I already know that she marries her first cousin. Yes, it may have been ok then, but still creeps me out a bit.
I love everything else, so how can I look at Fanny differently; I really want to like this one, so help!:)

I am just a beginner, but

Jane Austen's Fanny Price reveals the extent to which she is not the conventional woman. Before Fanny is brought to live at Mansfield Park, Mrs Norris worries that, if pretty, she will tempt Tom or Edmund to marry her. Fanny proves not to be the siren her aunt has feared but her self effacement, timidity and frailty are exactly the qualities Mrs Linton says are required to attract male attention, and Austen does not prove her wrong. From childhood Fanny inspires Edmund to protect and care for her and she grows to provide a moral base from which he can act. That he is wrong to disregard this is illustrated in the incident of the play; Fanny confirms Edmund's inner conviction that it is wrong to take part but he disregards her advice, partly due to his flirtation with Mary Crawford, and has to endure the consequences. When he rejects Mary's sexual allure for Fanny's strong morality, their happy marriage reinforces the rightness of his choice.

Many people feel the way you do Ann_Louise, so if that did not help maybe this will:

Mansfield Park has the dubious distinction of being disliked by more of Jane Austen's fans than any of her other novels, even to the point of spawning "Fanny Wars" in internet discussion forums. Its themes are very different from those of her other books, which can generally be simplified into one sentence, or even one phrase: Sense and Sensibility is about balancing emotions and thought, Pride and Prejudice is about judging others too quickly, Emma is about growing into adulthood, and Persuasion is about second chances. The theme of Mansfield Park, on the other hand, can not be so easily described. Is it about ordination? Is it an allegory on Regency England? Is it about slavery? Is it about the education of children? Is it about the difference between appearances and reality? Is it about the results of breaking with society's morés? Any, or all of those themes can, and have been applied to Mansfield Park.
The major problem for most of the novel's detractors is the lead character, Fanny Price. She is shy, timid, lacking in self-confidence, physically weak, and seemingly—to some, annoyingly—always right. Austen's own mother called her "insipid", and many have used the word "priggish". She is certainly not like the lively and witty Elizabeth Bennet of Pride and Prejudice. But Mansfield Park also has many supporters, whose admiration and loyalty can be attributed to the depth and complexity of the themes in the book and to the main character—a young woman who is unlike most heroines found in literature.

One thing is certain, this novel is not like Jane Austen's others. The girl-gets-boy plot of her other work is mostly absent here, and the heroine's success in finding love is treated briefly, quickly, and for many readers—especially those who expected something like the romantic Pride and Prejudice—unsatisfactorily. Only in the final chapter—essentially the epilogue—does Fanny get the love she deserves. The story and themes of Mansfield Park are, therefore, not as closely tied with the heroine's road to marital bliss as in Austen's other novels.

How far have you progressed, Anne_Louise? You say you like the "bad" characters better . . . is that so terrible? Lady Bertram was my favourite--I found her so self-absorption entertainingly ludicrous. And nasty Aunt Norris is also very entertaining. I found that the book got better once I opened myself up to the humour in it . . . and it is indeed a funny book. Austen's social critique through dialogue is masterful, but to catch all of it I had to slow down and pay more attention. I didn't like MP when I started it last year, but by the end I absolutely loved it. I know when you're trying to get a book finished the last advice you want to hear is "read more slowly," but if I'm reading something that I know is a "quality" piece of literature, it always works for me.

I'm up to chapter 9. And so far, my likes are
-Fanny's interior life. I seem to know her more than a heroine like Emma or Elizabeth Bennet.
-Edmund's regard and his "looking out for" Fanny.
-The foilbles of the "bad" characters are presented, so far, more amusingly than with authorial judgement.
-The writing itself. It just feels richer than, say S&S.

Thanks for the tips. I'm also rewatching the movie "Metropolitan" which is kind of a modern-day version of MP.

>2 yareader2:, Reviving this dormant thread to say thanks for posting your thoughts and that excerpt, yareader. Is the second part your thoughts or is that taken from an essay?

MP is one of my favorite Austen novels precisely because of all the oddities and dis-similarities with Austen's other works. Perhaps its the nerd in me, but it is just so much more interesting to analyze than P&P or S&S. The protagonists are nothing like Austen's sparkling Elizabeth and Darcy, the antagonists - especially Mary - initially appear to be the heroes because they are witty and buck convention before they are revealed to be shallow and status-seeking (and even then, Mary's transformation into a villain is not entirely believable & I still had a fair amount of sympathy for her).

I really think of MP as a morality tale about sticking to your guns, no matter what it costs you. By refusing Henry Crawford's proposal, against the advice of all her relatives, Fanny actually sacrifices quit a bit. Its only through chance that she ends up ok in the end. Although I will say that Edmund is such a drip.

I found it quite interesting to watch the film adaptation of MP that has Frances O'Connor as Fanny Price. As a straightforward adaptation of the novel, it completely fails because it changes Fanny and Edmund's characters so much that the novel's underlying message is almost negated. On the other hand, the changes made to their characters, especially to Fanny, demonstrate how much modification is required to sell this story to modern audiences. Fanny has to become much more feisty & vibrant - she is a writer, she rides horses & frolics in nature with gusto, which we know that the novel's Fanny could hardly do, with her weak constitution. She debates & assertively states her moral position, in contrast to the novel's Fanny, who maintains her morals by passively withdrawing from situations that compromise them. This is NOT the novel's Fanny but I don't think that the novel's Fanny would be a particularly interesting or attractive film heroine. Honestly, I love this novel, but I do understand why so many don't.

Edited for punctuation.

Great thoughts, Fanny. I'm with you in championing this novel. I think it will always be my favourite Austen, although it is problematic.

I have to admit, I've never been able to finish MP either. And that's even after taking an Austen class as an undergrad, understanding and appreciating the finer points of the novel, the contrast to Austen's other works, etc. Because no matter how intellectually I look at and appreciate this novel, I really, really, really cannot stand Fanny! I just have to put the book down after awhile because I just can't take her!

I am always amused by this - for myself, this has always been the greatest testament to Austen's talent. That she wrote a character so three-dimensional and realistic, whose qualities just drive me batty, that I cannot bear to spend too much time following her story. Maybe my least favorite Austen novel, but perhaps the most important, as it shows just what an extraordinary writer she was.

I just reread MP and wrote a long, rambly review, which has been garnering an astonishing number of thumbs-up! I'm really surprised so many people have liked it.

Basically, I say what fannyprice (#5) says above: Fanny is strong not because she's sassy, feisty, and all the stereotyped things that spunky heroines have become. She's strong because, although she's weak, she still won't compromise her convictions. That takes a lot more guts than giving pert answers to the gents.

I haven't quite the self-effacing personality of Fanny, but I could definitely sympathize with how she always felt shuffled off and marginalized by the other young women (first her cousins, and then Mary Crawford). Come on... don't we all know what it feels like to be outshone by someone else? For some of us, that has happened so much it's become second nature. MP is a fairytale for people like that.

Usually MP and Emma are people's least favorite Austens. I have a sort of theory that it's because of the heroines both times — although they are so completely different from each other. At least, the heroine is usually the reason I hear cited for disliking either novel.

>8 atimco:, wisewoman, FANTASTIC and comprehensive review - I like your thoughts on Fanny and Henry in particular. A thought that occurred to me while reading your plot synopsis - Fanny is taught from a young age that she is inferior and only survives by the grace of her wealthy relatives. With that in mind, it should be more sensible to the reader that she is an expert in self-effacement rather than the master of sticking up for herself. It also adds weight to her refusal to marry Henry - she has nothing other than what her relatives provide and Henry presents the opportunity to gain some independence and wealth, but she still turns it down, knowing what she gives up and that she risks her family's displeasure.

I also love your thoughts on the film adaptations. I actually enjoy the Frances O'Connor one on an intellectual level because it shows how difficult it is to adapt this novel for modern tastes; on its own, it is actually not a bad period-type movie, although it is not a truthful adaptation of the novel. I can't even remember the more recent adaptation with Billie Piper, which probably says something about its cultural impact. I think in that one they also "spunked" Fanny up & gave her more modern appeal.

Glad to find some other defenders of poor old Fanny.

Aww thanks fannyprice, you're very kind :-). And yes, I think it's key that Fanny is taught her inferiority from childhood. I hate hearing people say what a wimp she is, when I'm sure they weren't reminded on a daily basis during their formative years of their dependence. Really, when you look at her childhood, the amazing thing is that she ever had the strength to resist the express wishes of the Bertrams (especially Sir Thomas).

Not only that, but what a coup against her haughty cousins, to marry the man they BOTH had wanted! It would have been such revenge for years of belittling. But Fanny is strong here too; she won't stoop to that.

The Piper version had Fanny running around the house playing with kids, laughing her head off — she wasn't miserable in the least! Piper is just too exuberant a personality to pull off the shy, quiet Fanny. Good actress, but she didn't fit the part in the least.

The thing that I hate about the O'Connor adaptation is that on its own, it's somewhat well-done. It's just their changes to Fanny and the explicit nature of what is only distantly heard of in the novel bothered me too much.

You make an interesting point, wisewoman. I'm clearly going to have to re-read MP. It may never be my favorite Jane, but maybe I've been unfair to both Fanny & Jane.

>10 atimco:, wisewoman, you said: "Really, when you look at her childhood, the amazing thing is that she ever had the strength to resist the express wishes of the Bertrams (especially Sir Thomas)." - EXACTLY!

Yeah, I get your feelings about the O'Connor adaptation. The level of sex and violence and debauchery that was shown was pretty surprising. I doubt JA would have approved.

>11 jennieg:, Hahah, we have worn down another person! (Just kidding, jennieg, but I AM glad you're going to give it another chance.)

I have read it several times, but you all are giving me reason to re-think Fanny (whom I refered to in another discussion as a prig).

Don't worry, jennieg, Fanny will forgive you :-). She's that kind of person!

*high-fives fannyprice*

Okay, I waited as long as I could on this, hoping someone else would think of the easy solution: just wait until Mansfield Park and Zombies comes out, then try again!

Well, it couldn't possibly be worse than P&P&Z . . .

I just finished reading MS for the first time, and I agree with wisewoman's assessment of Fanny.

I actually was more chilled than amused by the characters in MS. Henry and Mary Crawford are so straightforward in their intent to mess with other people's feelings it made my skin crawl, and the way the other members of "polite society" approve of them for such a long time for no other reason than they are young and rich was creepier yet.

I could almost feel Fanny suffocating as she was wooed by Henry. She knew he was bad news, but not even Edmund felt she really had a right to refuse him. Underneath all the froth and fluff of the upper-class society was a whole lot of ugliness -- Austen showed that much more strongly in MS than in P&P, which I do prefer overall but which sidestepped these issues by having Elizabeth and Jane totally luck out and marry both for money and love.

Interesting points, Tigercrane . . . I hadn't thought of it quite that way (although I never trusted Henry for a minute), but now that you say it, I think you're spot on.

Ok, I will grant you the cousin thing. Anytime I watch the movie versions I have to try hard to forget that she is in love with her cousin. Serious lack of options? Still gross, I agree!!

As for Fanny not being passive. Well, she is but, is that not a form of courage and strength to endure everything that she has to endure without killing people or herself? I feel as though she IS very strong!

Is she not a little (not a lot, just a little) like Elinor from "Sense and Sensibility"? They both endure much and have learned to keep it to themselves.. .

Also, had society given Fanny more of a voice and had not ignored her, they would have heard from her and seen the mistakes they were making and perhaps the things with Mary and her brother may not have gotten so bad. I think this says a lot about society, thus showing how great Fanny is over all of them as well.

While Fanny is not my favorite Austen heroine, I appreciate her character for the depth she brings to Austen's writing. Just compare Elizabeth Bennett to Catherine Moreland to Fanny Price to Emma Woodhouse-- all vastly different characters. Austen was able to have a different types of young woman carry the novel and inspire sympathy in readers.

Austen was truly a writer who "got" women, which may sound strange since it's no secret Austen was a woman herself! But after reading many modern books geared towards the female market, I became appalled at how little some women writers "get" women. To these shallow writers, all women are consumed by diets and men, and nothing else. No hobbies, no moral convictions, no inner turmoils, just "lose weight, get a man."

Austen really felt for each character. Even though many of her plot points revolve around the heroine's marriageability, they developed beyond that point. That, perhaps, is why these characters are still near and dear today.