Book Review: Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

[olde_fashioned]

Title: Mansfield Park
by: Jane Austen
Genre: British Literature, Fiction, Classics

Mansfield Park is the most sombre of Jane Austen's works, and the one with the most prominent moral conscience. Originally published in 1814, the novel's heroine, Fanny Price, is often considered a polarizing figure. Even though others find her drippy, irritating, and boring, I find she, like Mr. Darcy, rather improve upon closer acquaintance. ;-)

This is only the second time I’ve read MP, and I did like it more this time around. Fanny is considerably more likable the second time around, but alas, Edmund is still his usual self…I confess that while I do see his merits, (taking care of Fanny more than anyone else, etc.) I am still hung up on his flaws and seemingly willful blindness about the Crawfords. Perhaps a third read will make him more palatable. ;-)



Fanny Price is probably *THE* most moral heroine I’ve ever come across, even more so than Jane Eyre and Molly Gibson. She has such an earnest desire to do what is right, without being a “goody-two-shoes” and show-off type of righteous prig, even though some seem to consider her as such. There are many proofs of her "humanity" and feelings which are all too easy to over-look. The difference is that while Fanny is not immune to temptation, she consciously chooses to do what is right, even at her own expense. The thought of doing wrong horrifies her, and I find that refreshing and something to be admired. In our modern society, we are all too often urged to do “what feels good” no matter what the consequences.

Contrast Fanny with the Crawfords. They are, without mincing words, wicked, devious, selfish, thoughtless, and callous. Mary, much more so than Henry, disgusted me, with her hot/cold/hot/cold behaviour to Edmund. No wonder the poor guy’s so confused! I think Mary’s rather confused herself… And as for Henry, how cruel to want to intentionally wound someone so innocent as Fanny! I wanted to punch him in the nose. And yet, he could have become a good man, I think, if he had married Fanny. I found myself almost wanting to give him a chance, something I’m sure JA fully intended to inflict upon her readers. ;-)

One person I found increasingly interesting was Henry Crawford. Now, let me preface this with the firm statement that I cannot stand him and I deplore his lack of moral conviction. I DO NOT like Henry Crawford. But I found myself almost liking him when he was being kind (well, sort of…) to Fanny and trying to win her over, especially in Portsmouth with her charming family.

Comments

[ladyneferankh.livejournal.com]

I trust that you are beginning the year with a Jane Austen book review post is not intended to be symbolic of the the entire year you have ahead of you, is it? ;)

Very interesting, and you have some good, points.Edmund has got to be one of the most aggravating Austenian heros ever!

I think the fact that one finds oneself "almost liking" HC is supposed to give us an idea of how Fanny is feeling as well?

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Who, me?

Thank you, and I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU. At the risk of offending any militant Edmund-ites, I don't care for him. The only reason I "root" for him to get Fanny is because a) I want her to be happy and get what she wants, and b) Henry Crawford is a fate worse than death.

I think you're right.

[ladyneferankh.livejournal.com]

It's true, I mean, think about it, Mr.Knightly gets mad at Emma, but you feel in a way she deserves it. Wentworth is arguably "distant" with Anne, but then it turns out that all along... So you get the idea, Edmund is probaly one of the few who leaves the reader with an urge to throttle him at some points :P. That being said, another darn infuriating "leading man" from the pages of JA (though he wasn't the main character) is Frank Churchill, remember--he describes himself as "happier than he deserves " in a closing letter?

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Yes! Exactly! I have heard Edmund described as the "heroine" while Fanny is the "hero". In all JA's other novels (excepting Persuasion) the heroine is in some degree immature, and has something to learn, and the hero is the "wiser" of the pair. That's not true at all in MP.

Frank Churchill is another colourful JA man I'm not jumping up and down for. He also called himself an "impudent dog" -- a title I fully agree with. ;-P

[ladyneferankh.livejournal.com]

Hmm...interesting I hadn't thought of it that way!

Although I think to some extent Darcy had a lesson or two to learn in P&P. (Uh-oh..can you sense an indepth analysis of all maturity of various Austenian characters coming up? ;) )

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I read that somewhere, and I tend to agree with it! ;-)

Darcy Learns A Lesson. *hee* I wonder what Darcy's Surprise would have been? Oh wait -- I know! Lizzy boxing his ears! Ha!

Wentworth also needed to learn a lesson, but I don't know if I'd class him as immature, or Anne either for that matter.

[kailorien.livejournal.com]

Are we forgetting Whilloughby, dear ladies? Please tell me that Im not the only one who completely abhores him.
One of my favorite JA characters is Marianne, I loved her passion, enuthsiam and imagination (even when it was overtaking her perspective on the real world! lol) I was simply heartbroken when that dreadful man broke her heart.

[kailorien.livejournal.com]

As for MP, I found that I too, needed to be more acquainted with Fanny before I grew to like her very much. But in contrast to the many other characters in the book, she was the defiantely the 'nicest' of the lot, even Henry.

[goingofthings.livejournal.com]

those thoughts - and the comments - were very enlightening to read. I need to read the book again now. They brought to my mind a whole lot of other thoughts and ideas. Such as the comment that it takes awhile to get to know Fanny - I think that is why I liked this novel best out of all of Austen's works. I'm not quite as moralistic perhaps, but I am very quiet and reserved and keep a lot of thoughts to myself like she does. I used to think I was most like her than any heroine in any novel, but I read Mansfield Park in high school and I've changed A LOT in the past eight years, lol! It'll be very interesting to read it again and see what I think now.

[midenianscholar.livejournal.com]

A good review. I still don't think I can bite the bullet and force myself through it...but maybe in another year. :)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I was principally considering heroes...and although Frank Churchill did manage to wheedle into our discussion (and very like him, too) I do not, for the sake of my blood pressure, care to affix the title of "hero" to Willoughby the Dirtbag. ;-) *lol* One could go all day describing his faults!

I like Marianne, too, especially her loyalty to those she loves.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Fanny is not as engaging as JA's other heroines, and so it's easy to "overlook" her in favour of the more "attractive" heroines, such as Lizzy. But Fanny is the least selfish, and also the most perfect, in the moral sense, of all of JA's heroines, IMVHO. :-) She has grown on me.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I am glad you found them so. :-D

I am reserved as well, although that may not come across online as much as it does in person. ;-) I've always empathized more with Elinor Dashwood more so than Fanny. They're very similar, but I don't know why I do, I just do.

When you do reread MP, perhaps you should write up a review of your own, and post it at olde_and_grey! :-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I think you know what I think. ;-) But Mrs. Norris makes me want to throw things, too. At Edmund. *lol*

[goingofthings.livejournal.com]

lol I think that often - people who read my journal probably don't think I'm reserved at all and sometimes I want to assert "I usually don't ever talk this much!" Somehow it's easier to not be as reserved with an anonymous audience.

I think I'm very much like Elinor Dashwood, very reserved and practical - I always thinks things through first and I'm not a gambler. But I think I've also always wanted to be a bit more like Marianne in a way. Fanny and Elinor are very similar now that you mention it, but the thought didn't strike me when I was reading either novel. Hmm. MP is slowly edging it's way up on my to-read list, I might have to post some thoughts when I get around to reading it ;)

[jyms.livejournal.com]

edmund: ah. i can't tolerate him, sometimes i just feel like yanking him out of the book by the cravat and shouting into his ear, "LOOK AT FANNY!" he's so awfully wishy-washy. i've only read MP once, and from what i remember, Fanny's okay. she's a real good role-model to follow - i wonder if anyone has set her up as their example for life as yet?

[oldfashioned84.livejournal.com]

Great review :) I'd like to re-read it too since it's been awhile.

I always liked Fanny ever since the day I first discovered who she was. I'm probably being too forgiving toward Edmund though because he really doesn't bother me that much. When a man is clueless and then finally comes to his senses, I start to have more respect for him. I like that he eventually winds up with Fanny and learns that Fanny's character (moralistic, good, and old-fashioned) is superior to Mary and her selfish, modern ways. But that's just me -- I can understand why some people can't stand him because he really is very lost for awhile there.

Greetings!

[airehen.livejournal.com]

Greetings, olde_fashioned. I hope you don't mind me stopping by again. I had commented once before when I came across some of your icons, but I now do not now recall how I properly found them in the first place. :)

However, my writing this time is to ask if you would consider friending me (and I would thus friend you in return). I know we have some things in common. Please feel free to stop by my infopage. (I am in the process of "renovating" my journal so please excuse the misplaced paint cans and rolls of wallpaper) :)

Re: Greetings!

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Greetings, airehen! *lol* And of course I don't mind your commenting again. I remember you from before. ;-)

I've peeked at your profile, and in answer to your question: yes. :-) I agree that we seem to have many things in common, and I shall look forward to getting to know you better in the future.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I guess it's going to be my fault when there's a surge in MP rereads, hmm? ;-P

I've never disliked Fanny, but let's just say I'm able to appreciate her more this time around.

I don't blame Edmund as much for his blind love of Mary as I do his lack-luster defense of Fanny. Yes, I know he's better to her than anyone else, and that he sells his horse to buy her a mare, etc. But I think he still didn't see all of what was there, especially regarding Mrs. Norris. I think his blindness is a habit, not a symptom of Mary's influence. I also cannot forgive him for urging Fanny to marry a man she didn't love, when he knew it would in all probability improve his own relationship with Mary. IMO he was willing to sell Fanny out for the woman of his dreams...when she was exactly that -- a dream.

[/soapbox] now. ;-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

LOL!! I find your description of yanking him around by the cravat very amusing. ;-) And you're right about Fanny's being an excellent role model!

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way. :-)

In I ride, to rescue the second born.

[iane-grey.livejournal.com]

Beautifully written :)

I agree that it is the most sombre of Austen's works, but I think that's why I like it. A real shock to consider that just twelve years took the author from Pride and Prejudice to this, but I think the darkness gives it gravitas.

I find it interesting that you liked Fanny better this time around for her morality (I presume that means you did not like her all too much formerly?). I like Fanny, but at the same time I don't believe there is much that is actively likable about her (I seem to recall Austen herself saying that Fanny would not be widely thought agreeable). Strangely, while I fully understand that she should be thought by some to be "a monster of complacency and pride" or "something of a prig", I am not bothered by her faults to the degree that others are. I simply found them to be minor drawbacks in an woman more or less normal. Certainly she was physically weak, and her character was... somewhat irritating, she was so far from malicious or gross that I really struggled to find good reasons not to like her. I thought that she was a good portrait of a real woman.

Similarly, Edmund seems to be lost in comparison to other Austen heroes. He is the least perfect (having extremely poor judgment), but I am always inclined to like him because his humanity, and the fact his mistakes do not make him a bad person (as they do with many other Austen characters). Edmund I always saw as a man struggling with his own limitations - a man who was in denial, but knew it, and was tortured by it. Because he was never bad, he always had my sympathy when he made mistakes - I think I knew he'd be the greatest victim of his own folly. I also liked how demure he was (but this is my own taste).

I am interested most in your thoughts on the Crawfords - I've always Henry as a foil for Edmund (and I wholeheartedly agree that he was intended to intrigue the reader, though I never wanted to think about, nor ever liked him [I am averse to charming men to start with]). The curious thing is that I saw them both as men battling with their own inclinations, but where Henry could not resist the temptation of Mrs. Rushworth, it was resisting Mary's allure for so long that finally allowed Edmund to awaken to her faults. Henry's love for Fanny wasn't enough to save him, and Edmund's blindness wasn't enough to damn him. I am sure there's something in the fact that so many people really like Henry Crawford, and so few care for Edmund, but I have never understood what Austen meant by it.

As for Mary! As well liked as Crawford sometimes is, Mary is more remarkable - I know more then one critic/scholar has said that Austen herself was far more like Mary then Fanny. Whether or not her advocates are sold on her character, or just on her good qualities I don't know, because I never cared about her one way or the other, but I know that she is better liked, and often thought a better character (I believe I read somewhere that is was curious that she was considered a villain at all). Her nature is far more in keeping with the modern mode of behavior, at least; she is not wicked at all by today's standards. I think I am myself most crucially aware of how shallow she often was, concerned with her prospectus husband's status rather then his actual occupation, and laying aside the evils of her brother's elopement because it could all be covered up (as though doing so would make the crime itself forgivable).

I am interested your opinion of Sir Thomas and Tom..?

You may keep him, too, for I like Roger Hamley better anyway. *hee*

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Thank you! :-D

Here comes the thesis!

It is nice for a change to see JA allow something more serious to flow from her pen, but at the same time, this is not a quality I particularly expect (or look for) from her. I enjoy JA for her wit, her humour, her clever, intricate plots, her vibrant characters, and her timeless romantic appeal. So straight off the bat MP is at more of a disadvantage than her other major five novels because it lacks at least three of the things I've just mentioned. It's odd though, because one of the things I loved about North & South was the gravity, and I'm not sure why I don't enjoy it as much coming from Jane.

I have never been a Fanny basher. I've always respected and admired her, to a degree, but I find her timidity and "mousy" nature a bit irksome. I wish she'd stand up for what is right, as well as herself a bit more, but I know her upbringing probably renders that impossible. :-/ (as for JA not expecting Fanny to be liked -- I thought that was Emma?)

A portrait of a real woman? I'd never thought of it that way. But now that you mention it, I suppose she is more of a realistic example of a Regency woman. Perhaps we're spoiled nowadays with all these head-strong, feministic women that are as far from a genuine 18th/19th century female as night is from day. *muses* Thank you -- you've given me something to contemplate!

Edmund is certainly the least amongst JA's other brilliant men, right beside Edward Ferrars, who I do not particularly like, either. But even if we forget about Darcy and Wentworth and Knightley, Edmund still comes up lacking in the "manly" department IMVHO. (now don't start throwing things at me, please! And I KNOW you got that icon on purpose, just to spite me. *lol*) I never thought he was "bad" -- just weak, mostly, and rather self-absorbed. But enough of this. I know how you like him, and I think this must be one of the few points upon which we must agree to disagree. :-)

Let me clarify something which may or may not have come across in my post -- I do not like smooth-talking charmers! I think it's disgusting to wheedle and manipulate people via flattery to get things. So the fact that I found myself almost liking HC is testament to JA's skill, rather than any pre-existing inclination on my part. ;-) I love what you wrote, BTW -- "Henry's love for Fanny wasn't enough to save him, and Edmund's blindness wasn't enough to damn him." Now that is truly beautiful.

I think Mary is almost worse than her brother is! (Who thinks she is not a villain?? That's ludicrous -- she's as bad as they come, short of perhaps Wickham or Willoughby) It's difficult for me to explain, but I think his faults are more of a selfish, spoiled, lusting sort of "sins of the flesh", while Mary, to steal from JA herself, has a polluted mind. I don't even think she can see morality anymore, and I don't think she fled her uncle's roof because he was living in sin, but rather that the mistress was a slight to her favourite aunt. And considering how she behaves when Henry lives with Maria, I'm even more convinced it was anger that caused her to leave, and not a moral conscience. I think her "badness" (is that even a word?) has been diluted throughout the years, when she would have been shocking indeed to JA's original audience, she's the girl next door to us, now.

Tom: I kind of like him. Selfish, spoiled, and foolhardy (what is with the men in this novel, eh?) I think he has a good heart, and that his illness is probably the best thing that ever happened to him. I hope he learned from his mistakes, and turned out to be a fine human being. He would make an interesting fan-fiction or spin-off. ;-)

Ack. Sir Thomas. Like father, like sons. How do we spell B-L-I-N-D? Any man that thinks well of Mrs. Norris must not be in full possession of his faculties.

Yup - I will wear Edmund's colors. An Austen hero cannot go unchampioned!!

[iane-grey.livejournal.com]

I agree that MP lacks the sparkling cheer that the other novels possess; Austen herself might've been in a dark place, looking at the decline of her youth. I think I simply like the darker novels (Hard Times was of course also quite shadowy).

You're right :) I cannot say precisely what makes me think Fanny was never intended to be well, liked but I have the idea from things I've read in the past.

I entirely allow you to dislike Edmund - how strange that you should call him unmanly! I don't like manly men myself, or at least not men who fall by the conventions of overt masculinity, because by and large I am myself bored with masculine things and therefore by masculine men. Probably why I never got on with Darcy (I always liked Bingley though).

I did not think you liked Crawford, but that you almost liked him. I never came near to liking him! That he would be nice to Fanny - or that anyone would - never mattered at all to me (you see now why I have no scruples in liking Edmund). But there you stand with the majority - have you ever heard that most fanfictions about MP are Fanny/Henry?

I have a quote to amuse you with (I hope you will be amused) - "In all the novels there is a note of profound seriousness. They are the sprightliest sermons ever penned, apart from Mansfield Park, which it has been smart to consider the best of the six, but which puzzles both these biographers. Occasionally "its art falters" (Nokes). "She had perhaps attempted too radical a piece of self-castigation" (Tomalin). The flaw in the book is that every man would rather marry Mary Crawford than Fanny Price, but Jane Austen forbids us that preference. It is the only one of her novels that is consequently unfilmable." I went googling and found it here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199709/ai_n8778995). It's a good example of the sort of thing that exemplifies the modern attitude. I find fault with the article, but as Tomalin at least is a well credited biographer, I am inclined to think it partially viable as a perspective. I do not for a minute expect you to agree!!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Very nice review - MP is tied with P&P and Persuasion for my second favorite Jane Austen novel, so it's always nice to see someone who doesn't write a review which basically says "OMGENASUTHBBQ, Fanny is liek soooo boring." However, I have to agree with useriane_grey that Edmund never bothered me. Not sure why, but I never had the violent reaction so many seem to have. Then, Fanny is one of the few fictional characters I've ever actually had a crush on, so I might see him through her teenaged eyes. Remarkeably clear though those eyes usually are... :-)

Perhaps the reason you empathize with Elinor more than Fanny is that Elinor, though similar in personality and character to Fanny, is both older and more mature. She is also less psychologically damaged - though she is sad because her family has died, she doesn't have a nearly pathologically poor self-image.

I've not liked Elinor as well as she deserves, but the new film has given her new winsomeness and beauty of character. Which is just as it ought to be!

Re: Yup - I will wear Edmund's colors. An Austen hero cannot go unchampioned!!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually sure Jane Austen didn't intend Fanny to be liked - some have instead said that she loved her best (they quote the "My Fanny" from the final chapter as an example of authorial tenderness). I think it's more that so few have liked her that has created a mistaken idea that Fanny was intentionally unlikeable. I certainly never found her so.

[rosa-cotton.livejournal.com]

Mansfield Park ties with Persuasion for being my favorite Jane Austen novel.

I have always liked Fanny, thought her character was believable. Edmund I wanted to smack upside the head at times, yet I have a soft spot for him.

I hate the Crawfords. Henry was such a smooth-charmer and selfish (for shame continuing to pursue a lady whose said "NO!". I don't believe his reformation was genuine when he tried to win Fanny, nor am I convinced of his "love." Had he somehow married Fanny, I think he would not be happy with Fanny. I never liked him or thought him capable of change.

Mary disgusted me with her lack of morale and treatment of Edmund.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I see someone found my book review tags!

Really? MP is my least favourite. But then I like JA's work so much that it isn't saying a whole lot, lol. There simply isn't room after Emma, P&P, and S&S. ;-P

While I'm right there with you hating Henry, I don't know that I can fault him for pursuing despite having gotten a "no". Isn't that what most of the literary heroes do? Henry just went about it the wrong way. What would have happened if Darcy had taken Lizzy's "no" entirely to heart? O.o

Mary is revolting.

What a great review!

[sylwias.livejournal.com]

I don't think I ever found a review of MP so similar to my impressions of the novel as yours.

I always liked Fanny. No, she's not charming, energetic etc, but she's principled, and that's what I value in a character, even though her personality couldn't be further from mine. I never thought her priggish. She's not a moralizing person. It's just that everyone around her is a moral bankrupt.

I don't think Edmund will ever grow on me. Throughout the novel he just goes down, and IMHO he never improves. Those are the circumstances and Fanny that save him in the end, but there's nothing in it that could be ascribed in his favour.

Incidentally I think he _is_ the most priggish character. All the righteous opinions come from him, while he cannot live up to them. I disliked his treatment of Fanny even more than his pursuit of Mary. He never _sees_ Fanny. In his eyes she's his product, the perfect pupil, but he doesn't notice that she has overgrown him throughout the years, and, unfortunately, he doesn't see it even at the end.

The fact that he wanted to use his authority and Fanny's trust in him to persuade her into marrying Henry against her will was simply disgusting, and I could never forgive him for that. At the end of the book I sighed and thought that if she wanted him then probably it's good that she got him, but I truly think he's not worthy of her.

I had very similar feelings about Henry to yours. I think that what's likeable about him is that he's the only person in the book who sees and appreciates Fanny the way she is. Edmund never bothers. He always presumes that he _knows_ what she thinks and that's enough for him to think for her and decide what's best for her. Henry makes a genuine effort to get to know her. Of course I'd hate if they married. No way he'd ever improve. But he gets points for seeing a human being in her, not just a puppy.

One thing I slightly disagree with you about (although it can be a matter of semantics) is that MP is the one Austen's work with the most prominent moral conscience. I give the position to P&P, that is, IMHO, the most consciously affirmative of Christian values. With seven sins (pride being the worst of them) spread generously across the characters, with virtues applied to reform them, and with the glorification of Christian marriage in Darcy and Elizabeth’s case the book is just a prime example of Holy Living. That’s why I think it’s the ultimate romance, because even to non-believers it just feels right, since it’s in accordance with the original values held in the Western hemisphere, that after all, are continuously present in our culture.

MP, on the other hand, is a tale of moral degeneration. While P&P is full of sinners (normal, decent people who commit grave sins nonetheless), MP is full of villains. That’s also why the romance is so lacking, and I insist that Austen didn’t mean to write a romance in MP. P&P shows what principled people should strive to achieve in life and marriage, while MP has them choose the lesser evil, because there are no other choices left.

Re: What a great review!

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, thank you, and I'm glad you liked my review! :-D

I'll admit that Fanny took some getting used to...at first glance she's insipid and a bit spineless when it comes to standing up for herself, but once you take into consideration her upbringing and her moral uprightness, her stock goes up considerably. ;-)

I don't think I will ever like Edmund, either! Fanny is lightyears more worthy than he can ever hope to be, and I only sigh in resignation that at least she's happy and she's gotten what she's spent the majority of her life pining over. *rolls eyes* As with Jane Eyre, I admire Fanny except for her taste in men. ;-P

If Henry hadn't been corrrupted (possibly by the Admiral's influence) and too selfish to correct himself later in life, he would have been a good man, IMO, much better than Edmund.

Your remarks about P&P vs. MP are very thought-provoking and interesting! I'll have to think on that for a while, but I can definitely see what you mean. P&P does have its share of villains, though, in Wickham, Lady Catherine, and even Mr. Collins, who certainly doesn't fit under the hero column!!

Do you subscribe to the theory, then, that JA originally intended MP to end differently? I've heard others say that she had planned to marry Fanny to Henry, but I'm of a different opinion. If she ever intended to marry Fanny to anyone, it was Edmund, IMO, at at the very least not Henry Crawford.

Re: What a great review!

[sylwias.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean to say that there aren’t bad characters in P&P, only that their motives aren’t so ‘bring harm to others’ oriented. They’re in various shades of grey rather than black. The majority of them are decent people who happen to be weak, and so they sin, while MP is full of those who actively do some evil to others either for their own benefit or for fun, simply because they can. On the whole they score much lower on the evil-good scale.

Collins is a prime sinner, but he’s too foolish to ever see it. He _thinks_ he’s on the right path. Lady Catherine is bad subjectively, but objectively many Regency people would agree with her. Not to mention that if Lizzy was a Lucy Steele or Charlotte Lucas we’d applaud LC’s efforts. Wickham’s main motive is his need to support himself, not to bring harm to others. He just doesn’t care that he does in the process. The only exception is his attitude to Darcy, but then Darcy is responsible for his circumstances. I.e. if Darcy’s father lived Wickham would be better off. Henry originally wants to harm Fanny for fun, to disperse boredom. It’s pure evil.

The theory that JA intended MP to end differently originated with her family, but I think it’s silly to take it as an alternate ending to the novel we know. Even if she played with such an idea it’d mean that she’d rewrite a good part of the novel, not just the last chapters as people seem to think. Every author makes decisions during the writing process, and the final work is what they intended it to be. If she meant for Fanny to happily end up with Henry she’d make a lot of revisions to the whole, and we’d have now an entirely different book to read. Such speculations make no sense, because we know neither that Fanny nor that Henry. Certainly Austen wouldn’t advertise Fanny’s marriage to an adulterer.

On the other hand, who said that JA fancied it’d be a happy end? She could mean to make Fanny miserable, and give us a very sad ending instead of the bittersweet one we have. How about such a scenario: Edmund marries Mary, and Henry marries Fanny, and _then_ Henry has the affair with Maria? Mary tells Edmund that they should hash it up, and Edmund agrees for Fanny’s sake, but Fanny knows. They just all compromise their principles because Henry and Mary won’t change, and they’re all too deep in mud to back off.

However, I think that Austen could grow disappointed with Edmund just as we are. Her heroes and heroines tend to be principled and truthful, while he’s the only one who’s not, and Austen doesn’t give him the advantage of reform. Even Edward is principled, just foolish. Edmund is righteous only in speech, while he abuses his own values freely whenever temptation occurs. It’s lucky for him that he’s marrying Fanny. With a bad woman for wife he’d be at a great risk to make many more mistakes. In this Henry is better. He knows when he goes astray and doesn’t fool himself. He’s just, as you said, too selfish to keep his resolutions. But I don’t think Austen began the book with the thought of Henry for a hero in mind. It was always Edmund, and so it’s him in the end, because he’ll be a better husband. Still, if one could choose it’d be some third man. There just aren’t enough of them in the novel. ;)

All Austen’s novels are both moralistic and realistic. She doesn’t wish for a better end for Maria, she just says that Henry won’t end as badly because of the double standard. It wouldn’t be like Austen to let adultery go unpunished. She’s not Mary Crawford!

(I must post twice. LJ says my comment’s too long.)

Re: What a great review!

[sylwias.livejournal.com]

JA takes people’s difficult circumstances under account, but she never says they shouldn’t be responsible for their actions. Take Eliza Williams’s mother for example. If she and Brandon eloped as they had planned she’d be happy and respectable, but even with her uncle’s coercing ultimately it was she who said ‘yes’ to her marriage with Brandon’s brother, so it was she who abused the marriage vows, and it was she who engaged in adulterous relationships with other men. So even though we pity her, Austen has her die as a poor prostitute. She’s easier on people who wanted well but behaved imprudently, like Lydia, who’s foolish but not guilty of falsehood, and so she’ll pay only for the imprudence by having a disappointing marriage, but she won’t be ruined.

Austen was too clever to believe in the myth of a reformed rake. After all Henry wanted to improve only because he was vain. He wanted to be esteemed by all women, Fanny included. Once he’d achieve that he wouldn’t care any longer, because he didn’t care to be a better man.

From my observations the differences in the interpretations of Austen’s characters come from people’s own attitudes to ethics and aesthetics. Austen describes many likeable characters who do bad things. IMO it’s not to make us like them, but to show us that every, even a very nice person, can be guilty of wrongdoings. Thanks to that her characters seem real, because their faults are common, but it doesn’t mean she approves or wants us to approve.

LOL about Jane Eyre. I fully agree.