Jane might have known something of Fanny's situation. She was sent away to school twice and we can conjecture from some evidence that she was not happy in either place. In addition, she was raised outside the home until she was done nursing and then removed from what would have seemed to be her family and placed in her actual mother's home. So there was some disruption in Jane's life.

I find myself agreeing very much with Sarah. What I see in Fanny is a young woman with no wealth and no social status trapped in the home of a distant, wealthy, titled relative. She has no voice because she is not in a position to have one and she knows it. She has no one to protect her or take up her cause. She cannot speak up for herself for she lives under the unspoken but constant threat of being expelled if she rebels, and this is exactly what happens when she refuses the offer of marriage from Henry. Fanny is abused by Mrs. Norris and ignored by nearly all the rest, in spite of all the good she does them. She is beset on all sides, even by Edmond, who should know better. Nevertheless, she never compromises.

It is as though Jane Austen took all of the best moral characteristics of all of her other heroines, removed every possible source of support or encouragement, then stepped back to see what happened. With no family or friends to love and encourage her, physically weak, stripped of all support with no hope of success or rescue, Fanny stands firm in her convictions. This is what makes her a heroine, and what makes her ultimate vindication so sweet and triumphant.

My two bits.

****SPOILERS****
I actually ended up liking characters that I thought I would hate. Like for Fanny. I love her! I wonder what she would have turned out like if she grew up in Portsmouth instead of Mansfield. She def. wouldn't be the Fanny I have come to love for her unwavering beliefs and convictions.
I do not see Edmund as a weak character. I feel for him because he did what many other guys would have done when he falls for a beautiful Mary Crawford. He's a good guy who believes that Mary is ultimately the same. She became "a creature of his own imagination." I think of course everyone has the tendency to sometimes see a person they like and by love be blinded.
I like Sir Thomas (surprisingly)and Lady Bertram (even more surprisingly). She at least has some (selfish) need and want for Fanny. I love how Sir Thomas' feelings and thoughts are canvassed in the last chapter.
The Crawfords- Henry had some hope. I seriously thought he was changing for the good (even though I knew the outcome). I really thought he loved Fanny even though he started out with bad intentions. And if I started on Mary Crawford I'd be here forever :) I'm sure we all know many Mary Crawfords and try to avoid them when possible!

I certainly softened my opinion of Fanny after being involved in the discussion. Very enjoyable.

I have really been enjoying the Mansfield discussion. So much about this novel that I have been making my effort at figuring out. I am glad I read it again and gave it my real attention. Please bring up any points you would like, there may be other members who are just now completing it and would like to start some threads also.

Marilyn wrote: "I've been catching up on comments to this thread this morning and have absolutely *loved* the insights and varying perspectives shared about Fanny. You've all helped me to appreciate her a bit more and to be reminded of the specific areas where her life's circumstances differed from that of Elinor's or the other heroines'"

I could not agree more. I was not able to follow the thread for a while and I am absolutely amazed now that I have been able to catch up. Thank you so much for mentioning Elinor and taking this forward, all of you...

I've been catching up on comments to this thread this morning and have absolutely *loved* the insights and varying perspectives shared about Fanny. You've all helped me to appreciate her a bit more and to be reminded of the specific areas where her life's circumstances differed from that of Elinor's or the other heroines'.

And, as Sarah, Jeannette and others have also said, I've found myself wondering--repeatedly--WHY Austen was driven to write this book. What sparked her fascination with Fanny? To what extent did she (or didn't she) identify with that character? What message was she most trying to impart to her readers? (And, having sold a couple of other novels and achieving some measure of success with them, she would have had to have known that a reasonably wide audience for MP would be assured.)

I wonder if there are some clues in her letters written at that time or in some of the biographies that might hint at what made Austen passionate about this book...

Definitely! A well-meaning, but stand-offish (is that a word?) uncle, his indolent wife, who can't bother with her own children; and they leave everything up to the nasty Mrs. Norris. I am being too harsh with Fanny. Sir Thomas and Edmund come to see what Henry Crawford saw all along -- Fanny is a gem with a good heart.

Yes, Jeannette, I agree -- Other Sarah's sister should get involved in a nineteenth-century literary discussion with you folk! She might find it a bit challenging!

I truly wonder what Austen would tell us about Fanny and Edmund, if she could give us an interview. What kind of match they truly made. However, I have to step in for Edmund and say that he was raised by his father and Mrs. Wonderful -- Mrs. Norris to keep away from Fanny -- she should only be thought of as a sister (yeah, right), but that's what they said. So he had some brainwashing working against him to be too romantic with Fanny.

Also, I have to admit, Fanny and Edmund have grown up a little after being exposed to the real world -- the Crawfords. They probably can grow to appreciate each other more after that. They are obviously very innocent youth before the story takes place. They have also experienced Maria's downfall and Tom's near downfall. And have also seen that Sir Thomas's judgment has been flawed.

Maybe if you look to the fictional future, Fanny did have more, so to speak.

The people in this story are flawed people. The type that intend to adopt and help a poor relative, but don't really know how. Maybe that fire in Fanny's room is very symbolic. Not like she could switch on the electric heater and get toasty. And she was nine years old in the beginning! And the other characters like Mary Crawford. Ego-centric and remorseless. Mary says of herself, "Selfishness must be forgiven you know, because there is no hope of a cure." Right, in your case, Mary.

So in Mansfield we see a family, wealthy, but with many weaknesses, dazzled by those without substance and ignoring the logical, the things resting right beside their own hearts (Fanny).

I wanted to give this some thought; I even went back to the book. This is indeed a case of her environment working against her. Fanny had some attention, even love perhaps, as a child: she could read and write and was taught how to behave and most likely taken to church. She had a good friend in her brother, too. Her great misfortune was in being brought into a house, at a young age, where everyone treated her as an inferior. Edmund was genuinely kind to her, he gave her paper, a horse of her own. But, he didn't care enough about her to get a fire put into her room. And, as soon as Mary Crawford arrived, he needed Fanny to prop him up in his efforts to secure MC's hand. It's no wonder that Fanny was unable to assert herself. She had been oppressed for so many years, coupled with her own timid nature. It is a wonder that she refused everyone's pressures to marry Henry Crawford.

So, I agree with you. Fanny had none of the advantages that Elinor did.

But, what is the point that Austen was trying to make with this story? Fanny was good and gentle; she got the man she loved. Do you think this was really a good thing? I can't imagine that Edward did much to bring her out of herself. "Loving, guiding, protecting her, as he had been doing ever since her being ten years old, her mind in so great a degree formed by his care, and her comfort depending on his kindness...dearer with all his own importance with her.." They were both happy in their own quiet, homey ways. I just think Fanny deserved better. Maybe it's just that I'm looking at it through modern eyes. I want her to have more.

Sisters can be a pain -- I think you got brains and looks! :)

1. Fanny is not allowed to ask for a fire. Her Aunt Norris made it clear to her that she was getting no luxuries other than what she or Sir Thomas would allow. The only things she was allowed was room and food. The horse was from Edmond. The paper and ink was from Edmond.
2. Of course Elinor is more attractive and easier to relate to. Not many of us could rally behind a woman who is such a Beta. Not many of us are put in this kind of situation. She is completely void of ambition, because of previous agrument, and has never been an authority of anything. None of us can ever understand being without love the way she was. My sister told be at less I have my brain since I don't have the looks. What a jerk of a sister but it's true - I am much smarter than she is beautiful. That authority is all mine:) All of us had someone who told us we had one good quality or someone who just loved us for our own unique self. Fanny had nothing, and didn't have the skills to know how to be self aware. Elinor had a family that cared about her and gave her strength, even when they were against her judgment. The women in that family loved her and always conceded to agree with her. Elinor is totally a self aware woman living in reality with a heart of gold. Not even Edmond said or did things to help Fanny be more like an Elinor. In the movies they make it look that way but the book doesn't say any of that. Edmond goes to her for self esteem and acceptance. No one said, "Well done Fanny. Your embroidery is amazingly well accomplished." Only a far away brother who visited her twice in 8.5 years cared if she was alive or well. Even William, the bonny beloved brother, didn't care if Fanny knew the difference between right and wrong, if she could read and write, or had exercise and health.
To have the inner strength of being completely alone inside and out for any length of time is heroinism. POWs and slaves are the only other people that have to have that kind of stamina mentally and emotionally. To repress and be oppressed but still love is supernatural.

Duh! - Elinor is a superhero:) Fanny is a survivor and a true example of hope.

Sarah wrote: "I love talking about Elinor -- I much prefer what Austen did with that character than with Fanny. She faced many of the same issues, but similar to what other Sarah says, she led a privileged, edu..."

Yes, as Marianne says to her sister,

"Do you compare your conduct with his (Willoughby)?
"No, I compare it with what it ought to have been; I compare it with yours (Elinor's)."

Elinor is the model of behaviour for all of the heroines in Austen's works. She is what Emma, Marianne, Elizabeth, and Anne become in a their own ways. She is the model for Jane Bennett, but with more abilities and endurance. I just can't see how anyone could prefer Fanny over Elinor. Elinor endures and grows to a better understanding through her trials. Fanny, to me, just seems to maintain, but I never see her improving. Maybe that's what is so different about her. All of the other heroines grow or improve in some way. Fanny doesn't.

The other Sarah, who doesn't have the long title along with her name! Stealthy AND confusing!

Which Sarah? :)

(You two are getting me confused!)

I love talking about Elinor -- I much prefer what Austen did with that character than with Fanny. She faced many of the same issues, but similar to what other Sarah says, she led a privileged, educated life which helped to define her strengths. When they became poor, she took charge of the family -- she was the "Sense." The fact of her quietness and sense really equates her with Fanny Price though. They both suffered in silence for love. They both suffered the effects of false values (the John Dashwoods, the Ferrars, the Steeles, Crawfords and Bertrams). They both were loyal to their sisters.

I just think Elinor's plot is more interesting to me though. Maybe because she is really held in esteem by the men in the story. She becomes Col Brandon's confidant and, at the end, Willoughby's! I like the craft of the Sense & Sensi novel more. It is a Sarah kind of novel! :)

Yes, but if the Crawfords hadn't fallen, and Edmund had married Mary, it is quite probable that Fanny would have married Crawford. Fanny didn't seem able to take charge of her own life in any way. Things happened to her and she had to go with it. She couldn't even get up the nerve to ask for a fire in her room. She just bugs me, I guess!

I don't know. I think if she had stayed in Portsmith, maybe. But when she got called back to Mansfield and her presence was desired by both Sir and Lady Bertum, her position was made secure. She wouldn't leave Mansfield usless Edmond did - and he wasn't going anywhere after dismissing Mary Crawford.

I just don't know why Austen made Fanny the hero. She wins by attrition, not by any effort on her part. If Crawford hadn't run off, she most likely would have married him, don't you think?

But Elinor was raised to be heard where Fanny was made to be in the corner.

I think Fanny dulls in comparison to the truly good Austen heroine, Elinor Dashwood. Here is a woman who is good, long-suffering and intelligent. She keeps her family going in spite of how poorly she is treated by those around her. She is a woman of action as opposed to Fanny. It is Elinor who will be left standing -- Fanny will be hiding in her little room without a fire. :)

I think that Austen was simply a very good writer -- and probably far ahead of her day -- that she could provide us with this cast of characters, in whom we don't really find stellar qualities.

What I meant by sparkle is that the wealthy and worldly characters in this novel have sparkle. Mary Crawford entices Edmund continually in spite of himself. Henry is a charmer. The Bertrams girls are wealthy, speak French, are beautiful, and can land the very well-off Rushworth.

And think she intended for her later novels to say different things than the earlier novels did. Mansfield, Persuasion, and Sanditon begin to show us things she saw in an upper class that was already changing and a society becoming more commercial and urban (the Crawfords are very urban and London-dwelling, they understand or appreciate little about the country). We have actual passion for her earlier novel's characters (and they are the better-known novels), so maybe it is harder to see this change in direction to the point that, had she lived, I think she would have been writing far different things than the early years.

I think I have been so fascinated with Austen because I look at her as a modern novelist, and surely she faced moments of loneliness living in a world where women were still so in their place. So Fanny was very in her place, restricted by her options. Except that, like you and J. said, Fanny would NOT marry for wealth, status, or to hook a charming Henry Crawford. Even though she may have believed her real love to have been lost to Mary at that point.

I think Fanny Price is unique among Austen's heroines - all of the others are defined by their vices - Elizabeth by her prejudice, Emma by her self-conceit, Anne by her susceptibility to influence, Marianne by her emotional indulgence, etc - but Fanny is defined by her goodness. Goodness may not be light and bright and sparkling, but it's commendable.
At the JASNA conference in Philly, one of the speakers said something like, "If the universe demolished and there was not one molecule left, Fanny Price would still be there" - I think he meant it as a laugh line - people did laugh - but I think it's an endorsement of her strength of will.

Don't you feel that Fanny could have made a bit more effort? She was such a "poor me" kind of character, always tossed about by other people's whims. It is a bit surprising that she was able to tell her uncle that she would not marry Henry Crawford. This is the only place she really sticks to her guns, so to speak. I do wonder what Austen was intending here. She is so different from all of the other heroines in her books. It can't just be to show us how tarnished the inhabitants of Mansfield are. There are plenty of examples of this in her other books: the John Dashwoods, General Tilney.

I'm curious about the order in which the novels were written (I'll have to research this). Could her declining health have anything to do with this book?

I believe that Austen has given us one character that can't be compared to the other females in her novels and a family that is also unique. We don't see Fanny DO very much, because she is the truly poor heroine, daughter of a poor alcoholic father who finds herself at the total mercy of some pretty overbearing characters in the Bertrams. In either of these households, Fanny doesn't get the chance to shine. And maybe Austen doesn't intend her to. Maybe I answer my own earlier question about why the novel wasn't named Fanny Price --- Mansfield is showing us more tarnish than sparkle.

I agree. Fanny never does break free of the place life dealt her. She is kind and humble and self-effacing. She probably would have been the perfect babysitter for Mary and Edmund's children! You really can't care a lot about her -- she just doesn't evoke much emotion in me.

I've been thinking about this, and I realize I'm not anti-Fanny. Not exactly. She's loyal and virtuous and would be excellent help in a crisis. But, I think we tend to like people we suspect will like us back, and I can't help but feel that Fanny would like very few mortals (and that I wouldn't be one of them :-).

When I think of the Austen characters who--if they were real--I'd want to be friends with, it would be the characters who made some mistakes and learned from them. Characters that (to borrow a phrase from "The Philadelphia Story") had some compassion for human frailty. Lizzie, Elinor, Marianne, Emma, Catherine, Anne--they all had flaws and, as a result of realizing them, changed and grew. To me, that's what is so endearing about them. I can't get over the sense that Fanny's major act was only in biding her time until other people came to appreciate her. That the world around her changed, but she didn't.

That said, she's not *bad.* She's trustworthy and responsible and very moral. But there's a judgmental core (IMO) behind all of that--which she'd mask with dutiful kindness--and that's where my irritation with her comes in :).

I am a Fanny fan of sorts. She's not my favorite. I will say this. I can see why Fanny would be Austen's favorite - probably because she reminds her the most of her sister that she loved so well. I think of one of my oldest friends and how even tempered she is. I wish I could be like that but I know that I will never be - ever. I can only imagine what all goes on in her head. Like Fanny, my friend would hit upon one point and it would completely ingross all of her attention silently. I wish I had that disciple.

Carol Shields says in Austen's bio:

"In novel after novel the Austen pattern is replayed, the non-Darwinian emergence of brilliance from a dull dynasty: Elizabeth Bennet's ravishing intelligence, Fanny Price's perfect balance, Anne Elliot's assurance and sense of self- all these women overthrow the throttled lives they are born into and the oafish parents who bring them into the world... There is a sense in which Austen wrote not so much about marriage as about the tension between parents and children...."

I thought this was interesting because Mansfield seems to be saying so much about Fanny and the others, all of a generation, and all creating their own future with the older generation not necessarily even looking on. As Jeanette and I are already discussing, of Austen's characters, even Anne Elliot in Persuasion couldn't even count on her older adviser Lady Russell because she did not truly understand Anne. J Austen is showing a break in the generations in many ways.

But now we are trying to understand Fanny and what Austen really meant for her. I agree with Carol Shields -- Fanny Price did represent a break in thought from the poor Prices AND from the wealthy Bertrams. But in the end, will she really prove the redemption of any of them? Is she meant to?

Kimberly and Jeanette, you were mentioning the hint of incest of the virtuous pair of Edmond and Fanny. What do you think it represents? I agree Jeanette, that in earlier days, many families paired family members for marriage-- it was "safe" socially-- they knew what they were getting, and it often kept the family money safe (although not in this case). But it was pointedly discussed by Sir Thomas and Mrs. Norris early on, so do you think it means anything -- to us? or to J Austen? I read an essay which called it quasi-incestuous, which was kind of a funny phrase. The the essayist included it within the "disquieting patterns" of J Austen.

Any thoughts? Now would be a great time to hear from Fanny Price fans? We haven't heard much from you out there?

Interesting. Looking just at Fanny and Anne, they are both held down by "tyrannical" fathers. Neither is held in much esteem by any of their respective family members nor are they shown much real affection. To be sure, Anne has Lady Russell, but Lady Russell certainly does not understand Anne's feelings. Likewise, Edmund cannot see Fanny's love for him. Both their lives and futures are shaped by the others around them.

I was just observing the group of characters in Mansfield. For some reason, I started comparing them to the cast of characters in Persuasion. Maybe because both novels present a group of young adults who are beyond much supervision of the older generations, or at least don't get any supervision (although Anne Elliot has her battle with "persuasion," I wouldn't call it supervision).

I often bring up the point in Austen of her characters who have been orphaned or sent away from natural parents at an early age. Of course during Austen's era this would have been pretty common. So, we have men and women entering the grown-up world and decision-making in many ways without guidance.

What do you think Austen may be saying about the group who inhabit Mansfield, as opposed to the group who move in the circle of Kellynch Hall, Uppercross, and Bath in Persuasion?

Does anyone else see any points of comparison between these two novels?

Austen may have been purposely been giving us characters who were inexperienced but were trying to cling to moral standards and piety. In spite of Fanny's poverty, it seems her family did attend church -- remember when she said that was the only time of the week that they looked respectable -- So she must have been guided in some way to a moral way of life. Here she has a parallel with Edmund. While most of his family was seriously lacking in their standards, he had internalized some kind of right and wrong.

However, think how young he was -- making the decision to become a minister, but still not much worldly experience. So he is tempted by Mary Crawford, of course, and really she is playing a kind of game with him. So I tend to cut him some slack on his ambivalence. He wasn't perfect either and didn't demand that Fanny be treated better, but he was the main person who always stood up for her.

And maybe subtle hints were laid down that the sons should only look on Fanny as family, not marriage material. That probably influenced him in failing to recognize that Fanny was becoming more to him than a sister. I just think that the Bertrams put down a lot of confusing groundwork for their children and for Fanny -- as the results show!

****************SPOLIER ALERT*************************

When the Bertrams take Fanny in, Sir Thomas hesitates at bringing in a girl to raise as a wife for one of his sons. He thinks, as do all of Austen's characters, that his sons and daughters should make good marriages. Marriage to a poor cousin does not fit his idea of a good match. In Volume Two, he addresses this again, noting that Fanny and Edmund have no outward appearance of attachment, which pleases him. (I think this is during the ball.) Fanny hides her feelings so well and Edmund thinks of her as a young sister. It is not until the end that he sees her worth and value as a woman and wife.

I agree, Mary Crawford was the first woman to catch Edmunds eye and heart. He didn't stand a chance!

Jeannette wrote: "Robin wrote: "Jeannette wrote: "Edmund ... disappoints me by taking the moral high ground and then jumping off at times."

I wonder if Edmund was just being ambivalent, and thereby human. Maybe..."

The more I read everyone else's thoughts on the characters, the more I am thinking about the characters.

I always had the impression that Edmund knew his real feelings from the start and put a wall up between himself and Fanny emotionally to keep from happening what ends up happening.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't have the book here with me to look it up, but doesn't the Uncle make a comment to Edmund about treating Fanny like a sister? That would send a strong message to anyone if they had romantic ideas about someone. Mary Crawford is the total opposite of Fanny, thus not just a beautiful attraction to Edmund but the first real chance at courtship for him. Every other female that he's met to that point has been like his sisters in personality.

Robin wrote: "Jeannette wrote: "Edmund ... disappoints me by taking the moral high ground and then jumping off at times."

I wonder if Edmund was just being ambivalent, and thereby human. Maybe he would be mor..."

He was definitely human. I think holding him up next to Fanny and all of her disappointed hopes is what causes me to dislike Edmund. I think Fanny deserves someone with a bit more romance, at least as far as she is concerned. How could he have left her in that frigid East room for so many years? How could he have not seen her as something more than the poor relation to be "helped" along, even if he was the kindest of the bunch?

Jeannette wrote: "Edmund ... disappoints me by taking the moral high ground and then jumping off at times."

I wonder if Edmund was just being ambivalent, and thereby human. Maybe he would be more likable as a character and as a minister if he consciously chose against Mary.

Kimberly wrote: "Jeannette wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Beatrix wrote: "Robin wrote: "Everyone's got interesting ideas about Fanny and the Crawfords.

Yet I read somewhere that Fanny Price was Austen's favorite heroine..."

I agree. He really wants to go into the ministry and do well for both himself and his parish. But, Austen just seems to have it in for ministers. Edmund is far surperior to Collins, for example, but he disappoints me by taking the moral high ground and then jumping off at times. Like I said, I have a hard time liking any of the inhabitants of Mansfield Park. :)

Jeannette wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Beatrix wrote: "Robin wrote: "Everyone's got interesting ideas about Fanny and the Crawfords.

Yet I read somewhere that Fanny Price was Austen's favorite heroine, and I've been ..."

I didn't say Edmund was just as much to blame for his treatment of Rushworth, cause he's just as bad as the rest of the gang.
But he's not taking the position of minister just for the status like some of Austen's other ministers. When Mary tries to talk him into law he scoffs her.

Kimberly wrote: "Beatrix wrote: "Robin wrote: "Everyone's got interesting ideas about Fanny and the Crawfords.

Yet I read somewhere that Fanny Price was Austen's favorite heroine, and I've been trying to figure ou..."

Cousins marrying each other was not unusual at one time and was not considered incestuous. Fanny and Edmund growing up as brother and sister should have dampened this a bit, but it was acceptable in their world.

As for ministers, what does Austen have against the clergy? Most of her clergymen are odious buffoons (Collins, Elton, Grant). Even Edmund is portrayed in a less than perfect light. He is as nasty to Rushmore as the rest of them and he is a pretty weak vessel when under Mary Crawford's influence (during the theatrical). I think the only ministers that are well-portrayed are Edward Ferrars and Henry Tilney. I also think that Sense & Sensibility is one of the only two volumes with well-drawn and complex characters; Persuasion being the other. MP just doesn't make the cut here.

Beatrix wrote: "Robin wrote: "Everyone's got interesting ideas about Fanny and the Crawfords.

Yet I read somewhere that Fanny Price was Austen's favorite heroine, and I've been trying to figure out why. Maybe ..."

*******Spoiler**************
Just reading your post and a thought crossed my mind. Maybe we're missing something here. No one ever really seems to like Fanny because she is weak willed and stuck up.
But, she's the first full character that Austen gave a true love for religion for.
I still have not read all of Emma, so I am going by the novels I have completed, but what I have read in Austen's works so far, her ministers are normally very selfish and silly.
Edmund and Fanny are the first ones I have read who treat being ministers in a positive light.
I am in no means getting into a religious debate. But what if Austen wrote Fanny and Edmund as an example of the duality of minister's lives at the time? And I say that because of them being cousins and marrying. I'm little hung up on the incest that seems to go on between them.

Robin wrote: "Everyone's got interesting ideas about Fanny and the Crawfords.

Yet I read somewhere that Fanny Price was Austen's favorite heroine, and I've been trying to figure out why. Maybe because she resi..."

I'd wish I could tell that I do have an idea...but I just don't! To me, both Fanny and Edmund were the most insipid characters of all JA books, and I'm including Charlotte Lucas here. Fanny had no personality of her own, but she adopted Edmund's. Her thoughts were HIS thoughts, so she didn't even learned to think by herself. She had no ambition further than make everyone around her comfortable. I found my interest placed in characters like Maria, Julia, Henry or Mary instead. I don't know if this was caused for MP was the last JA book I read, and in my mind were wandering characters like Lizzy Bennet, Marianne Dashwood, Emma Woodhouse and Jane Fairfax, which in comparison offered a much more atractive perspective to me.

Robin wrote:
[...:] Was Fanny the favorite because Jane felt no one would like her (a bit of rebellion there)?

It is often said that good parents love all their children, but in different ways, and if there is a favourite child, it is often the one that is weak or handicapped. It is completely unconscious, but somehow the parent seems to realise that this child needs his/her love and support more than the others.

What if JA loved Fanny best exactly because she is not the shining heroine? Not sure myself...

wow, what an amazing thread

I kept hoping the story would switch to one of the other female characters. I don't think I can warm up to Fanny Price, not in the book. I warmed to her in the movie version (O'Conner version) but I think that is because they mixed her with some of Jane Austen's real life giving Fanny more depth (in the movie)

Robin wrote: "Sarah wrote: "... I still puzzle over Mansfield"

Did Austen like Fanny best because she didn't change? Was Fanny the favorite because Jane felt no one would like her (a bit of rebellion there)? ..."

I'm going to have to think about this one today.

Sarah wrote: "... I still puzzle over Mansfield"

Did Austen like Fanny best because she didn't change? Was Fanny the favorite because Jane felt no one would like her (a bit of rebellion there)? Do we like Fanny because, as Jeannette pointed out, everyone else is such a stinker?

The older I get, the more I can't figure out Fanny Price.

Good point, Kimberly!

What do you think would lead Fanny to change and relax, become well-rounded?

(And why wouldn't Austen take the story down that path?)

I think that Fanny, even more so then Catherine Morland from Northanger Abby, lives in her head. Where as Catherine is a daydreamer, Fanny is over rational. Fanny's fears get the better of her.
I believe this is what leads her to being such a stiff character. In her virtue she becomes a shell of a person.

hexenmaedel wrote: "*********SPOILER*************

The later Fanny is strong in mind, but physically week. (The same is true for Anne Elliot in Uppercross, but not for Elisabeth Bennet.) Do you think this is a coni..."

That is an interesting point too that JA showed the physical consequences of these women dealing with life. Anne Elliot began to bloom, so to speak, as the stagnant family life began to change and she was introduced to new situations, mainly the return of her lover. Eliza Bennet was a woman of the outdoors in many ways, reflecting her independent spirit, and didn't bother about getting too tanned while traveling! ha ha

With Fanny, she can only roam the outdoors if her Aunt doesn't need her to hold her yarn OR if Miss Crawford isn't monopolizing her horse. She doesn't seem radiant and healthy because she is confined by her surroundings and her emotions.

Robin wrote: "Everyone's got interesting ideas about Fanny and the Crawfords.

Yet I read somewhere that Fanny Price was Austen's favorite heroine, and I've been trying to figure out why. Maybe because she resi..."

It seems that Austen wasn't aimed at giving us a heroine or heroes in this novel necessarily. Fanny isn't much good at speaking her mind nor does she strike me as brainy. If you look among the other novels, you'll find those things, but not here really. Maybe it was simply more a study of people, weakness, personal agendas, crossing the moral line, etc. Maybe Austen wanted to create Fanny to move among all this? Robin, do you think Austen was fond of her for falling in the midst of all these scenarios, and with no background to really be able to deal with them?

At this point in my life, when I have read all the JA novels, I see them all more clearly, but I still puzzle over Mansfield for many reasons.

Kimberly wrote: "****Spoiler********

I have a soft spot for Mr. Rushworth. When I read the novel all I could think was that poor man. He might be a dull man, and even a little stupid but no one should be treated ..."

I agree with your initial assessment of the way Rushworth is treated by the family (and the author). He is portrayed as stupid, slow and dull. Even Sir. Thomas sees this and tries to get Maria out of the marriage. But I differ with you in thinking that Rushworth has any "courage" at all. He saw that he was being misused before his marriage. I'm guessing that nothing would have changed if Maria hadn't run away. Her action gave him the means to act without harming him in anyway. She was ruined and he was free -- free to marry the next girl who wanted his estate at Sotherton!