This is so great, thanks for writing it! I feel a lot of affection for Fanny, perhaps because I too am boring and unfun! But in particular, I admire her strength of will in saying no to Henry Crawford, and then to Sir Thomas who also wants her to marry Henry Crawford. I think this episode has powerful things to say about consent, and her rejection of this marriage proposal is an interesting refraction of Elizabeth rejecting Mr. Collins. But it too is a kind of inaction—a saying no. She is a very inactive character, in the narrative and also physically (she’s always getting tired from going outside in the sun!) And I think this makes her harder to like (perhaps for ableist reasons though?)
Thank you for this fantastic essay. I've got this theory that Fanny is (maddeningly) pious in part to allow her latitude to (gasp!) turn down a wealthy suitor. Harder for (then contemporary) readers to hate/judge her for it, perhaps? Intrigued by the way you frame her piety as a function of her love for Edmund. Also, just really into this: "I don’t know that the this sly elision between Fanny’s subject position and the subject position of the people enslaved on Sir Thomas’s sugar plantation is sufficient. And perhaps the elision constitutes a moral failing in itself."
Honestly love this analysis. I personally don’t think Austen wants the reader to wholly like Fanny, and partly it is about how the family‘s unreasonableness to Fanny have shaped her to be self effacing in that way.
Fantastic essay, thank you. But I don't know if I agree that Fanny changes over the course of the novel. At most I think you can say that she wavers when she starts considering Henry's proposal. But then the narrative proves her right to distrust him, and Edmund sees that she was right about Mary. So in the end I think she is validated, including in her dismay at Edmund choosing to be in the play.
Did you just...pop out a newsletter on whim this morning? Le sigh I am so impressed. lol I love this analysis. I first read MP about 15 years ago and it didn't land, mostly because I was in a "defend Mary Crawford from all criticism" stage and am convinced that Mary's wit is the saving grace of this novel, so Fanny "winning" in the end was annoying. But considering her prize was...Edmund...which is only marginally better than Elinor's victory, I think I should reconsider and read again. Am going to do so with this essay in mind.
This is a fantastic break down, thank you. Mary Crawford is definitely my bi-heroine and in my fantasies, Fanny, Mary, and Edward live fabulously ever after in a London townhouse. But I've always loved Fanny, despite her wanness, precisely because she continues to endure even in misery. That girl has stamina, and it's a quality I greatly admire.
Wonderfully thought-provoking essay. Love the language and ideas. “…the plot seems to spread and seep across the page…Things don’t shoot and dart and flash. They creep and spread outward, an ever-broadening narrative boundary.” Your literary analyses leave me feeling empowered as a reader and a writer. Thanks for that!
Unpopular opinion, but I just don't think that Mansfield park works very well. I don't find Fanny likeable. Fanny is very passive and quiet and interior, but so is Anne Elliot, but the difference is that Anne Elliot has a rich inner world that is appealing and which JA shares with us. Fanny is rigid, judgmental, hysterical and priggish. Her inner world is unappealing (to me). Unlike Emma and Lizzie Bennett, she never learns, grows or becomes more aware of herself and her flaws, and I don't find her eventual marriage to her cousin who is very much like a brother and who would (rightly) rather be married to someone else to be a very happy ending.
I know on first reading a lot of Jane Austen's family begged her to re-write it with Fanny marrying Henry Crawford, and to tell you the truth, I think that that would have made for a much more satisfying story.
Completely love this piece. So illuminating the "sly elision"! Always suspected Fanny might be practicing strategic piety to get herself out of sticky situations. Was interesting to go back after reading this and reread Trilling's essay on Fanny. (http://oldemc.english.ucsb.edu/emc-courses/janeausten-2011/Articles/Trilling.MP.Opposing%20Self_Warner.pdf) Honestly, the loss of innocence and the ending of "the play" you touch on felt much more resonant and clear. Thank you for a great piece.
I might actually like Fanny better as an adult even if her efforts at being good are not brilliant because I have a sense how hard quietly being good is especially in the decadent environment of the Bertram house.
This is just to write a comment not because I have anything worthwhile to say about Mansfield Park, which I have never read as an adult. My experience with Albert Raboteau's "Slave Religion" indicates that it does not mean the obliteration of the other to say, "This [Exodus] is the same story" because different groups of people have different lenses to interpret that story.
This is so great, thanks for writing it! I feel a lot of affection for Fanny, perhaps because I too am boring and unfun! But in particular, I admire her strength of will in saying no to Henry Crawford, and then to Sir Thomas who also wants her to marry Henry Crawford. I think this episode has powerful things to say about consent, and her rejection of this marriage proposal is an interesting refraction of Elizabeth rejecting Mr. Collins. But it too is a kind of inaction—a saying no. She is a very inactive character, in the narrative and also physically (she’s always getting tired from going outside in the sun!) And I think this makes her harder to like (perhaps for ableist reasons though?)
Thank you for this fantastic essay. I've got this theory that Fanny is (maddeningly) pious in part to allow her latitude to (gasp!) turn down a wealthy suitor. Harder for (then contemporary) readers to hate/judge her for it, perhaps? Intrigued by the way you frame her piety as a function of her love for Edmund. Also, just really into this: "I don’t know that the this sly elision between Fanny’s subject position and the subject position of the people enslaved on Sir Thomas’s sugar plantation is sufficient. And perhaps the elision constitutes a moral failing in itself."
Honestly love this analysis. I personally don’t think Austen wants the reader to wholly like Fanny, and partly it is about how the family‘s unreasonableness to Fanny have shaped her to be self effacing in that way.
Fantastic essay, thank you. But I don't know if I agree that Fanny changes over the course of the novel. At most I think you can say that she wavers when she starts considering Henry's proposal. But then the narrative proves her right to distrust him, and Edmund sees that she was right about Mary. So in the end I think she is validated, including in her dismay at Edmund choosing to be in the play.
Did you just...pop out a newsletter on whim this morning? Le sigh I am so impressed. lol I love this analysis. I first read MP about 15 years ago and it didn't land, mostly because I was in a "defend Mary Crawford from all criticism" stage and am convinced that Mary's wit is the saving grace of this novel, so Fanny "winning" in the end was annoying. But considering her prize was...Edmund...which is only marginally better than Elinor's victory, I think I should reconsider and read again. Am going to do so with this essay in mind.
This is a fantastic break down, thank you. Mary Crawford is definitely my bi-heroine and in my fantasies, Fanny, Mary, and Edward live fabulously ever after in a London townhouse. But I've always loved Fanny, despite her wanness, precisely because she continues to endure even in misery. That girl has stamina, and it's a quality I greatly admire.
Wonderfully thought-provoking essay. Love the language and ideas. “…the plot seems to spread and seep across the page…Things don’t shoot and dart and flash. They creep and spread outward, an ever-broadening narrative boundary.” Your literary analyses leave me feeling empowered as a reader and a writer. Thanks for that!
Unpopular opinion, but I just don't think that Mansfield park works very well. I don't find Fanny likeable. Fanny is very passive and quiet and interior, but so is Anne Elliot, but the difference is that Anne Elliot has a rich inner world that is appealing and which JA shares with us. Fanny is rigid, judgmental, hysterical and priggish. Her inner world is unappealing (to me). Unlike Emma and Lizzie Bennett, she never learns, grows or becomes more aware of herself and her flaws, and I don't find her eventual marriage to her cousin who is very much like a brother and who would (rightly) rather be married to someone else to be a very happy ending.
I know on first reading a lot of Jane Austen's family begged her to re-write it with Fanny marrying Henry Crawford, and to tell you the truth, I think that that would have made for a much more satisfying story.
Fanny Price: the closest thing in Austen to a Sally Rooney protagonist?
I enjoyed reading this. I re-read Mansfield recently & thought what a weird novel it is.
Completely love this piece. So illuminating the "sly elision"! Always suspected Fanny might be practicing strategic piety to get herself out of sticky situations. Was interesting to go back after reading this and reread Trilling's essay on Fanny. (http://oldemc.english.ucsb.edu/emc-courses/janeausten-2011/Articles/Trilling.MP.Opposing%20Self_Warner.pdf) Honestly, the loss of innocence and the ending of "the play" you touch on felt much more resonant and clear. Thank you for a great piece.
I might actually like Fanny better as an adult even if her efforts at being good are not brilliant because I have a sense how hard quietly being good is especially in the decadent environment of the Bertram house.
This is just to write a comment not because I have anything worthwhile to say about Mansfield Park, which I have never read as an adult. My experience with Albert Raboteau's "Slave Religion" indicates that it does not mean the obliteration of the other to say, "This [Exodus] is the same story" because different groups of people have different lenses to interpret that story.