The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Mansfield Park
2022/23 Group Reads - Archives
>
Mansfield Park, week 3: June 4-10: Volume 2, Chapters 1-6
date
newest »
newest »
I think Sir Thomas is actually a good father. I like how he offered his daughter a way out of the engagement, even if it would have been difficult and unpleasant for him.Maria made a smart choice in honoring her commitment and going forward with the wedding. It would have been silly to break off the engagement in hopes of Henry Crawford returning. I think she could see in that Henry was just messing with her feelings.
Her fiancé may be annoying at times but he is not a bad man and he’s very rich. In time she will probably learn to love him or at least like him.
Mrs Norris is like an evil witch - she doesn’t miss a chance to be mean to Fanny. I guess she jets joy in bringing her down. Usually people act this was because they are deeply dissatisfied with themselves 🤷🏻♀️
I don’t like Mary and Henry Crawford at all. They both seem spoiled and shallow. They remind of the the characters in Dangerous Liaisons - except less manipulative and less charming. Especially the part when Henry said he “cannot be satisfied without making a small hole in Fanny Price’s heart.”
I’m not sure what his motivation is - I guess he just likes a challenge. I don’t think Fanny would go for him. She is too reserved and she has already seen him play games with her cousins.
Mod
This could be a class commentary - Emma Woodhouse is able to be self-centered and rude because she has money, beauty and position in town. Fanny has none of those and has to humor the people who have power over her. But what is her future? If Edmund doesn't start to appreciate her, would she end up with some widower who wants a caretaker for himself and his children? Or would she just spend her whole life at the beck and call of her "generous" relatives? Maybe her brother could introduce her to one of his sailor friends? But her family wouldn't want to let their free domestic help go.
Mod
Maria made a smart choice..."
I find Mrs Norris gets worse with every reading, and yes she is just nasty to Fanny-it's as if she wants to keep reinforcing her own superiority by denigrating Fanny. It amuses me that Filch's cat in Harry Potter was called Mrs Norris!
As for Henry's motivation, I think there is a human frailty of always wanting what you can't have-Henry seems to have charmed many women (and it was clear he was causing trouble with Maria and Julia, and that Maria would have left Rushworth for him if he'd asked) and if Fanny is resisting his charm then suddenly he wants her (or at least wants to make her want him). Also a nasty character-wanting to make someone unhappy for his own gratification.
Mod
I suspect she would be kept on as companion to Lady Bertram indefinitely, and would ultimately be left some money to live on. This is of course the one worry of taking on an orphan-she has now been taught to live above her station, and without a dowry she will be hard pressed to find an eligible match, particularly as she never goes into society. Would she be able to run a household as her mother does if she were to marry one of William's friends?
Fanny is certainly unskilled in chores. Would the Bertram kept her on forever or did they expect her to find a suitable husband, someone not grand or wealthy, but respectably? Perhaps the curate in the next town.
I was pleased to see Fanny at least once in this section speak up boldly in opposition to Edmund’s opinion on something. His growing affection for Mary Crawford is a constant source of pain and agitation for her, especially because she can’t respect Mary. I thought the scene in which she and Mary are walking in the autumn garden is very telling. Fanny might sound a little precious to us in her rhapsodizing about nature, but she reveals real knowledge about the natural world and country ways, and when she talks about memory she shows her reflective mind. Austen is quite blighting in her contrast with Mary—“Miss Crawford, untouched and inattentive.” Fanny tries to turn the conversation in a direction more pleasing to her companion but Mary, it seems, can only talk about relationships and herself, though she does it in a semi-charming, faux self-deprecating way.Every time I read MP I am struck by all the terrible emotions that fill its pages: rage, bitterness, jealousy, resentment. The description of Maria’s feelings as she resolves on marrying Rushworth are very dark. Jane Austen’s vaunted irony takes on a savage tone in this book—she skewers people’s follies ruthlessly and doesn’t play their foibles for laughs. I was struck by the contrast between the treatment of Sir Thomas’s vanity and concern for his position as a baronet and that of another of Austen’s baronets, Sir Walter Elliot of Persuasion.
This seems like the section in which to bring up the matter of slavery, since Fanny herself mentions it at least indirectly. She protests to Edmund that she asked Sir Thomas about the slave trade, though we don’t learn what he replied. This is a striking contrast to Fanny’s reputation for meekness, because of course Sir Thomas owned slaves and is just back from dealing with them on his Antigua plantation, so asking about it might be perceived as challenging him.
Trading in slaves was banned by the English in 1807 but they could still own slaves at the time this book was written, and the relatively new law was creating crises all over the West Indies because the death rate of slaves on most of the islands was so high. This may have precipitated the concern about Sir Thomas’s plantation there, and his business on Antigua would have involved either trying to improve the living conditions of his slaves or trying to get them to breed more to compensate for the absence of newly imported slaves. Sir Thomas would also have been involved in the slavery debates in Parliament leading up to the ban, since he is a longtime MP. Meanwhile, during the time Fanny’s brother William was serving in the West Indies, he would have been responsible for enforcing the ban on slave ships, as Austen would have known because her brother Francis had that duty and wrote to the family about it.
How much of a slavery subtext is there in MP? Opinions differ, but there are some suggestive elements. Mansfield was the name of the British judge who first ruled against the right to own a person, and Norris was the name of one of the principal advocates for slavery. Austen was familiar with writers like Mary Wollstonecraft who drew comparisons between the position of even genteel women in British society and the state of slavery (however clueless that equation might seem to us today). Fanny seems explicitly designed to amplify that connection in people’s minds, with her powerlessness and constant servitude to the Bertram family. And in Austen’s next book she has a character bitterly call the governess trade a trafficking “not quite” in human flesh, so she was aware of and apparently sympathetic to this take on women’s status.
The portrayal of Sir Thomas in this section has some interesting nuances. There is that extraordinary moment when he offers to back Maria if she wants release from her engagement, and he shows real perspicuity about her character and feelings; but then he is relieved and happy to drop the matter on her first denial, eagerly falling back on the social and material advantages of the match and setting aside his qualms about Rushworth’s suitability as a person. And after Edmund talks to him about the play, Austen says that Sir Thomas “did not enter into any remonstrance with his other children: he was more willing to believe they felt their error than to run the risk of investigation.” Yet another parental figure in the young Bertrams’ lives who fails in the duty of adequate guidance and supervision.
The one lighter bit was Fanny and William’s joy in their reunion, and the way they both lit up with straightforward affection, as perceived even by the cynical Henry Crawford. I loved the passage in which he dreamed momentarily of being the kind of person who would go out into the world and strive to establish himself—only to be distracted by the pleasures of hunting.
I read an interesting article about the "conversation" Fanny did not have with Sir Thomas on the slave trade. The text did not specify he did not reply. The point of the article was perhaps he did. The text of the novel goes on with the conversation between Fanny and Edmund with Fanny talking about not wanting to upstage her cousins because they did not join in on conversations with their father and perhaps the the stone cold silence was from Maria and Julia. I thought this was an interesting take on it. I have always thought, as with most others, the silence was on the part of Sir Thomas. He did not reply because he thought it was an inappropriate subject for females, or 18 year olds, or none of Fanny's business, or to complicated for her to understand, or inapproriate for the dinner table, or a done deal, or a hopeless situation, or what have you.
Sir Thomas did reply, I think, based on what Edmund says, but Austen does not tell us what the reply was. Here’s the passage (vol. 2, chap. 3): Fanny says, “But I do talk to him more than I used. I am sure I do. Did not you hear me ask him about the slave-trade last night?”
“I did—and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.”
“And I longed to do it—but there was such a dead silence! And while my cousins were sitting by without speaking a word, or seeming at all interested in the subject, I did not like—I thought it would appear as ifI wanted to set myself off at their expense, by shewing a curiosity and pleasure in his information which he must wish his daughters to feel.”
Mod
Fanny says, “But I do talk to him more than I used...."
Here is Fanny being annoyingly perfect again. She tries to understand her uncle and defer to his feelings even when he doesn't express them. (Maybe she is wrong and he has no depth, but she imputes good motives to other people when she can.) Her deference is not just a realistic response to her lack of power, she really is so genuinely considerate. It seems I am a nasty person because I just cannot warm up to her at all.
Mary Crawford also is—on the surface, at least—a really considerate person as well. Does she bother you equally?To me, Fanny is a product of her environment. She’s abnormally focused on what others think and want because she’s in a completely powerless situation where she’s constantly told what she owes to her “betters” and her very food and shelter are dependent on pleasing them. If she responds with choruses of “Yes, Massa” it’s because she has no alternative. I see it as a survival instinct. Becoming a compulsively shy people pleaser is a pretty typical response to growing up an unwanted child who’s insecure at home. I am more inclined to condemn those shaping her world than to blame the victim.
And I do think we’re starting to see signs of her speaking up for herself more.
Mod
To me, Fanny is a product of her environment. She’s abnormally focused on what othe..."
Yes, but I think most underlings resent their "superiors". They go along because they have to but they have other private thoughts. Fanny really does have all the Christian virtues. I'm not blaming Fanny, she is a wonderful person and could be a good influence on others if they let her. I just find her tedious to read about.
I think we get indirect hints that she does in fact resent them—for instance in this section (vol. 2 chap. 6), William’s hostility toward Mrs. Norris, which must arise from things she has communicated in her letters. Austen describes him as “ interested in all the comforts and all the little hardships of her home, at Mansfield—ready to think of every member of that home as she directed, or differing only by a less scrupulous opinion, and more noisy abuse of their aunt Norris . . .” With a sense that William backs her up (and Edmund has occasionally spoken about the inappropriateness of Mrs. Norris’s cruelties, recently in the matter of Fanny going to dinner at the Parsonage), maybe she will develop the courage to stand up for herself more! We can hope. 😁
Mod
In the PBS series, Miss Lambe is a confident young woman who leads a boycott of the sugar industry and eventually (view spoiler)
Robin P wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Mary Crawford also is—on the surface, at least—a really considerate person as well. Does she bother you equally?To me, Fanny is a product of her environment. She’s abnormally focu..."
Mary Crawford makes for a more interesting character. She entertains us. Mary plays the harp and engages in a two way conversation. Fanny navel gazes. She has a soIiloquy but not a inclusive conversation. So while we wish for a fire for Fanny and for Mrs Norris of leave her alone it is hard to warm up to her.
I think about Cinderella and when my kids were in the play in high school. Clara was fabulous as Cinderalla but the step sisters' part was more fun. They were not cruel, just ridiculous. In Bye Bye Birdie, the character who stole the show was the mother of Birdie's agent. It was a tertiary role.
I do not like the Crawfords. Miss Crawford is becoming more friendly to Fanny, but her first appearances in the novel portrayed her as something of a snob, especially with her remarks about knowing admirals but not the lower ranks to Fanny. By taking Fanny as a friend, is she trying to impress Edmund or truly being kinder? We shall see! Mr. Crawford is a cad. He flirts openly with the engaged Maria, seems to take pleasure in hurting Julia's feelings, and has now expressed a wish to put a "small hole" in Fanny's heart . I hope she does not succumb to his questionable charms, even if she cannot have Edmund. Mr. Crawford will eventually betray any woman's heart.
I really enjoyed the scene where Fanny rhapsodizes about nature and Mary Crawford is having none of it. It's a wonderful demonstration of Mary's character, and a chance for Fanny to speak! Although it is strange what she finally chooses to speak about. Who knew, before this moment, that nature was so important to her?Mary has a slightly villainous moment, I think, in not trying to persuade Henry to leave Fanny alone. But I suspect she sees no harm in his leading her down the garden path a bit.
Mod
Emily wrote: "I really enjoyed the scene where Fanny rhapsodizes about nature and Mary Crawford is having none of it. It's a wonderful demonstration of Mary's character, and a chance for Fanny to speak! Although..."But I think it shows something about Fanny as well. She is talking near Mary and not trying having a conversation with her.
I agree, Jan. Fanny comes across as quite socially awkward in this scene.
There is this dicsussion about Thornton Lacey, Edmund's future parish, which made me think about Churches and their respective power - and the consequences: Edmund might, in the common phrase, do the duty of Thornton, that is, he might read prayers and preach, without giving up Mansfield Park: he might ride over every Sunday, to a house nominally inhabited, and go through divine service; he might be the clergyman of Thornton Lacey every seventh day, for three or four hours,
In the Church of England, the landowners had the right to bestow their parishes, and the income from them (by the 'tithe' paid by the parishioners), on a person of their choice. The right was often used to provide for younger sons. And it was up to them whether they cared or not to for their money. Did the CoE have no say in this, e.g. could they refuse a candidate? or impose his permanent residence in his parish? - Apparently not, and the consequences must have been deplorable in many parishes, at a time when the parson was an important institution in the community. as, e.g., for all I know, the implementation of the Poor Laws was tied up in the parish.
The CoE was rather powerless with regard to the secular powers, it seems. That may be the consequence of it being a "state church" from the beginning. The Roman Catholic Church had fought to retain its powers vis-à-vis the secular power (the Holy Roman Empire) centuries before, and, basically, won: it retained the right to nominate its own parsons, abbots, bishops, and so on. The privilege was mitigated somewhat by them not having (legitimate) offspring, so there was no danger of a parallel hereditary power; and there too, family ties between the Church dignitaries and the aristocracy were frequent. I doubt whether the Catholic parsons were much better than the Anglican ones on average, but they always had at least the potential to stand up against the landowner.
The critical view of clergymen as expressed by Mary Crawford - as mouthpiece of the more secular London society of the time - may have had some truth in it. She appears contemptuous and irreverential, and 'wrong' - but are we sure Jane Austen did not share the criticism at least a bit? Her Mr. Collins and her Mr. Elton are not exactly paragons of clerical virtues, nor is Mr. Grant.
Mod
My understanding is that Austen herself was quite devout, and certainly may have supported the very fair criticism of potential abuse of clergy incomes and lack of requirements to actually do the job. This sort of criticism is also seen in a number of Trollope novels, particularly in his Chronicles of Barsetshire Collection.
Jane Austen was the daughter of a clergyman, and some of her observations on unsuitable churchmen suggest she had expectations of them that were not being met.Also that she was well aware that many “livings” (parishes) did not support a single man, let alone a family, so that pluralism was sometimes a financial necessity, despite its disadvantages for parishioners.
On the other hand, some “livings” provided a great deal of income for very little work. The whole system was recognized as open to abuse at many levels.
When did the landowner providing a living to the clergy end? Was the only church of England only or did the Methodists and other churches do that as well?
Did other European countries do this?
For an answer, see Wikipedia on Advowson. More later when I check some references.
Ian wrote: "For an answer, see Wikipedia on Advowson. More later when I check some references."thanks
Ian wrote: "For an answer, see Wikipedia on Advowson. More later when I check some references."oh dear, what a can of worms I've opened ;-)
... as far as I (poor non-native) can understand it, the answer to Jan's first question "When did the landowner providing a living to the clergy end?" is as I suspected: never formally.
’Henry Crawford was gone, gone from the house, and within two hours afterwards from the parish; and so ended all the hopes his selfish vanity had raised in Maria and Julia Bertram.’What cowards the Crawfords were. As soon as Sir Thomas appears, they were off, not to be associated with the play and to give themselves time to gain Sir Thomas’ approval on another day. That is just what the worldly wise Londoners would do.
And as for Henry he runs away not once but twice, the second time from Maria who naively believes he is ready to ask for her father’s hand in marriage.
’ The hand which had so pressed hers to his heart! the hand and the heart were alike motionless and passive now!’
How far from the truth could she get? In fact Henry was one of those many upper middle class/aristocratic young men who used women like Maria as emotionally arousing interludes between shooting wildlife, ripping apart foxes with dogs, gambling and drinking to excess.
Those interludes involved attracting a women like fish to a lure, having some fun in the catching, then once caught and the fun exhausted, throwing the fish back in the murky depths to seek another conquest.
It was fortunate for Maria that Henry was interrupted with his dalliance because of Sir Thomas’ premature arrival, but his disappointment didn’t last long because he could partake in the distractions of a dissipated lifestyle in Bath.
Once he realised that Maria had swum down the river, he turned his attentions to another shimmering example of young womanhood, the increasingly attractive Fanny.
’ No, I will not do her any harm, dear little soul! only want her to look kindly on me, to give me smiles as well as blushes, to keep a chair for me by herself wherever we are, and be all animation when I take it and talk to her; to think as I think, be interested in all my possessions and pleasures, try to keep me longer at Mansfield, and feel when I go away that she shall be never happy again. I want nothing more." "Moderation itself!" said Mary. "I can have no scruples now. Well, you will have opportunities enough of endeavouring to recommend yourself, for we are a great deal together."
The extract above should not be read read with amusement or dismissed as a ‘bit of fun’ because many women of the time were led to complete ruin by such an irresponsible and selfish attitude. The likes of Henry Crawford would have pursued his interests in the woman he caught as far as he could have taken them, leaving the woman with no hope of him or of the good wishes of society.
Fanny is definitely in some danger from Henry’s frivolous attentions. However, despite Henry’s thick layer of charm and cleverly calculated flattering language and actions, Fanny already knows too much about him to be totally deceived. His machinations with Maria, both at Sotherton and during the play are fixed in her memory. When Henry reminisced about the play all his good work to charm her were quickly overshadowed.
’With silent indignation Fanny repeated to herself, "Never happier!—never happier than when doing what you must know was not justifiable!—never happier than when behaving so dishonourably and unfeelingly! Oh! what a corrupted mind!"’
Fanny’s ‘nature’ speech highlights a major difference between her and Mary. Mary s outlook on life, corrupted by an over indulgence with London people, blocks out any natural wonders due to her having being submersed in the gossip and innuendoes of a middle class society. No doubt in Mary’s eyes the magnificent parks and gardens of London were just places for people to undertake trysts, and possibly even less salubrious meetings. So when she actually lives in the countryside there is nothing to interest her. No wonder Mary can’t reconcile Edmund’s desire to join the clergy because her ignorance of the beauty of nature reveals that such metaphysical ideas are beyond her.Fanny’s appreciation of the natural world is both interesting and illuminating considering that she spent almost ten years in the cramped back streets of Portsmouth. What a contrast that the second half of her childhood should be spent in the wide open spaces on the Mansfield estate. Her ability to adapt to change and appreciate such a different environment is a credit to both her intellect and sensitivities. No amount of disparaging remarks from Mary, moaning about the boring countryside, will dissuade Fanny from enjoying her beautiful home. It also brings Fanny closer to Edmund who, unlike his brother Tom, appreciates the country estate far more than the high life of London and Bath.
When comparing Fanny and Mary, I am often reminded of Molly Gibson and Cynthia Kirkpatrick in Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell.
Trev wrote: "Fanny’s ‘nature’ speech highlights a major difference between her and Mary. Mary s outlook on life, corrupted by an over indulgence with London people, blocks out any natural wonders due to her hav..."I find the shrubbery scene a very peculiar scene. I don't think your interpretation is wrong, Trev, and it may be what Austen intended, but I read it a little differently.
Since Fanny seldom speaks in the novel, and almost never spontaneously, I find this speech of hers quite extraordinary, and not entirely in a good way.
“This is pretty, very pretty,” said Fanny, looking around her as they were thus sitting together one day; “every time I come into this shrubbery I am more struck with its growth and beauty. Three years ago, this was nothing but a rough hedgerow along the upper side of the field, never thought of as anything, or capable of becoming anything; and now it is converted into a walk, and it would be difficult to say whether most valuable as a convenience or an ornament; and perhaps, in another three years, we may be forgetting—almost forgetting what it was before. How wonderful, how very wonderful the operations of time, and the changes of the human mind!” And following the latter train of thought, she soon afterwards added: “If any one faculty of our nature may be called more wonderful than the rest, I do think it is memory. There seems something more speakingly incomprehensible in the powers, the failures, the inequalities of memory, than in any other of our intelligences. The memory is sometimes so retentive, so serviceable, so obedient; at others, so bewildered and so weak; and at others again, so tyrannic, so beyond control! We are, to be sure, a miracle every way; but our powers of recollecting and of forgetting do seem peculiarly past finding out.”
Miss Crawford, untouched and inattentive, had nothing to say; and Fanny, perceiving it, brought back her own mind to what she thought must interest.
“It may seem impertinent in me to praise, but I must admire the taste Mrs. Grant has shewn in all this. There is such a quiet simplicity in the plan of the walk! Not too much attempted!”
There is the Fanny I expect in this, particularly in that "Not too much attempted," (nice aspirations you have in life, Fanny), but there is also a very strange Fanny. First of all, what she is praising is not nature, but artifice. The shrubbery is as artificial as Mary and Henry's landscaping plans for Mr. Rushworth's home and even Edmund's house. It is artificiality more modestly expressed, but it is not nature.
Then there is her very strange speech on the wonderful nature of memory -- what is that all about? Is there some deeper textual meaning to all this. We criticize Mary Crawford for not caring about nature, but I wonder what response she can be expected to make to such an ode to... memory.
And once Fanny has started rhapsodising, there's no stopping her:
The evergreen! How beautiful, how welcome, how wonderful the evergreen!
Honestly, this is not a normal conversation.
And while I love nature myself, I will defend Mary Crawford's right to not love nature, and to feel herself confined to a tedious country existence spent in one or two rooms and a damp shrubbery, with only Fanny Price for conversation.
Emily wrote: "Trev wrote: "Fanny’s ‘nature’ speech highlights a major difference between her and Mary. Mary s outlook on life, corrupted by an over indulgence with London people, blocks out any natural wonders d..."I love nature and the theatre. It is possible to love both.
And if this were a scene in The Big Bang Theory with Sheldon Cooper rambling on about Physics and not including others in the conversation people would say Sheldon was rude and insensitive not that Penny was dumb and shallow.
Everyone brings their own biases to the novel. If you love Fanny and hate Mary you will see what you want. I do not hate Fanny, but I do not like her as a character. I do like Mary because she is interesting. I do not find her immoral because she does not like church. I think that makes her incompatible with Edmund for that reason. Not everyone values the slow pace of the country. This is another reason she is incompatible with Edmund but not a bad person. I would not like to live in a very rural town either with literally everyone knowing my business and no opportunities for the arts or sports for entertainment.
Emily wrote: "Then there is her very strange speech on the wonderful nature of memory -- what is that all about? ."Very interesting point! I've never asked that before. Has Fanny a plan to go somewhere with that speech on memory? Is there something she wants to tell Mary specifically?
... Or does the subject per se not matter, and her speech is only there to show Fanny's character as educated, reflective, serious etc. - by contrasting it with Mary's? Or, to show indirectly Mary's incompatibility with Edmund - because, if Fanny were saying these things to Edmund , he would enter into the subject and would have something to contribute?
Mod
I wonder if memory is an important resource for Fanny. Just as a person in prison or marooned on an island would go over details from their past to keep themselves sane, she might think of her family, especially her brother, or of times Edmund was kind to her.
Fanny is obviously intelligent but has little chance for stimulation in her environment.
I hadn't thought of the contrast between Molly and Cynthia in Wives and Daughters. Molly has more spunk than Fanny, but is also trapped in a difficult situation with a substitute parent (stepmother.)
The deliberate seduction of Fanny reminds me of Les Liaisons dangereuses. I wonder if Austen would have known that book or if it was too scandalous for a clergyman's household.
Trev wrote: "’In fact Henry was one of those many upper middle class/aristocratic young men who used women like Maria as emotionally arousing interludes between shooting wildlife, ripping apart foxes with dogs, gambling and drinking to excess...."Let's not forget, though, that this behaviour was regarded as dishonorable, and a woman - a woman of social status at least - was entitled to regard a sustained display of interest in her by a gentleman as a prelude to a proposal. That was the trap Captain Wentworth (Persuasion) nearly fell into when he realised (view spoiler).
Henry got away with it with Maria because his attentions to her weren't obvious to everybody else, particularly to her male relations who might have been expected to ask him his intentions. But her expectations of him weren't unjustified in terms of gentlemanlike behaviour.
Jenny wrote: ". Henry got away with it with Maria because his attentions to her weren't obvious to everybody else, particularly to her male relations who might have been expected to ask him his intentions. But her expectations of him weren't unjustified in terms of gentlemanlike behaviour.."How was it that Fanny realised that Maria and Henry were rehearsing the same scene over and over again because they were able to embrace and yet the rest didn’t?
Fanny was perceptive enough to understand that Henry was paying his attentions to a woman who was both morally and legally unavailable to him. A woman betrothed to another was deemed out of reach of other suitors. Henry’s complete disregard for these conventions puts him firmly in the ‘rake’ category in my view.
There is an interesting subtext or sub-conflict on 'nature vs. nurture' especially with regard to the Crawfords, so far about Mary. I wonder whether Henry will be included, too. Fanny represents more the 'nature' point of view, sth. like 'Mary is so and so and always will be', while Edmund represents the nurture view 'Mary has been made what she is and therefore can change.' That Edmund is testosterone-biased does not exactly reinforce the 'nurture' argument.
As to the Molly Gibson - Cynthia Kirkpatrick analogy: Cynthia is aware of what she is, at least sometimes. There is an inner conflict in her that I - so far at least - miss in Mary Crawford.
Trev wrote: "How was it that Fanny realised that Maria and Henry were rehearsing the same scene over and over again because they were able to embrace and yet the rest didn’t?..."Mary knew and was amused by it - in fact it was she who pointed it out to Fanny, though Fanny flitting about between scenes helping out with prompting and costume and so on was in more of a position to see what the whole company was up to than those who had their own rehearsing to do.
Mr Rushworth was aware the two of them were together more than he liked, but wasnt bright enough or self-assured enough to do anything about it, beyond grumbling that in his opinion both acting and Mr Crawford were over-rated.
Tom and Yates were too absorbed in their own parts, and Edmund ... hmm, yes, I wonder why Edmund didn't notice?
Jenny wrote: "Tom and Yates were too absorbed in their own parts, and Edmund ... hmm, yes, I wonder why Edmund didn't notice?.."LOL ... Edmund didn't notice because Mary and the 3rd Act were the only things on his mind.
Mod
Jenny wrote: "..."Mary knew and was amused by it..."
I don’t count Mary because she was Henry’s collaborator. Just like she collaborated with Henry to mess with Fanny’s emotions.
After the daily rehearsals, I can imagine Mary screeching with laughter every night at the vicarage when Henry had told her how many times he had been in a clinch with Maria.
As for Rushworth, you are right. A brighter fiancé of that time would have worked out Henry’s ruttish behaviour straight away and either punched his lights out or even challenged him to a duel. Maria also ought to be censured for her blatant cavorting in front of Rushworth, but, as I have said before, she wanted one hand on the riches and another hand on Henry.
sabagrey wrote: “As to the Molly Gibson - Cynthia Kirkpatrick analogy: Cynthia is aware of what she is, at least sometimes. There is an inner conflict in her that I - so far at least - miss in Mary Crawford. ..."You are right to point out the differences between Cynthia and Mary. I don’t think there really were any exact similarities between Molly/Fanny and Cynthia/Mary. After all their backgrounds were all quite dissimilar. I agree with you about Cynthia.
My point regarding similarities was more about the contrast between a frivolous and serious outlook on life and what consequences follow.
I was going to mention Esther Lyon from Felix Holt: The Radical as a ( for those who have not read Felix Holt) (view spoiler)
Trev wrote: "I was going to mention Esther Lyon from Felix Holt: The Radical. ....Mary/Fanny hybrid "Maybe we could see Esther on a trajectory from one to the other but (view spoiler)
Mod
I think Maria would happily have dumped Rushworth if Henry had offered marriage, but was unwilling to give up the riches and rank without having secured Henry first. When Henry left, making it clear he was not going to go any further than a flirtation, Maria angrily goes ahead with the marriage with an "I'll show him!" attitude which bodes very ill for the Rushworth's future happiness.
Mod
Maybe we could see Esther on a trajectory from one to the other but [spoilers removed]"
I still think that Fanny might be unique as a heroine in not having been given any particular claim to "heroine-ism"-she is not spoken of as a beauty, she is not a wit, she is not lively or a sportswoman or able to dance until dawn, her conversation doesn't sparkle, she doesn't overcome any significant personal trial or hardship (modern readers might consider being removed from her family at 10 a hardship, but most contemporary readers would have considered her change of circumstances a blessing). She is a serious, sober, moral, timid, and somewhat rigid young woman. Yet many of us come to like her very much, as do many of her relatives, on getting to know her.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Felix Holt: The Radical (other topics)Les Liaisons dangereuses (other topics)
Wives and Daughters (other topics)
Wives and Daughters (other topics)
Chronicles of Barsetshire Collection (other topics)
These chapters open with Sir Thomas’ return to the Park, and while there is no outright expression of anger or dismay, his obvious disapproval of the theatre project leads to the disassembling of the theatre and the abrupt end of the play. Sir Thomas prefers a small family party, and therefore things are soon much quieter. This includes the departure of Henry Crawford, with a clearly expressed plan not to return to the neighbourhood unless there is a renewal of the play project, and a clear if unspoken refusal to “declare himself” as a rival for Maria’s hand.
Mr Rushworth remains in the family party, and while he initially pleases Sir Thomas with his apparently genuine preference for peace and quiet, on further acquaintance Sir Thomas sees both his lack of substance and sense, and Maria’s seeming indifference or even dislike for her fiancé. Sir Thomas kindly offers her his support if she wishes to end her engagement, despite the difficulties this will cause, however in her anger at Henry Crawford and increasing desire for independence, Maria insists on going forward with the marriage, which is soon accomplished. Maria, with Julia as her companion, leaves Mansfield Park for Sotherton and then a honeymoon in Brighton, and so Fanny is the only young woman remaining at Mansfield Park.
Over time, Fanny becomes a desired companion for Mary Crawford, and in the absence of her cousins her value as a visitor, an audience, and a sounding board for Mary and her sister increases. When Henry Crawford returns, he initially tries his charms on Fanny, and when she resists and in fact shows some dislike for him he decides his “project” will be to make her fall in love with him.
Finally, Fanny’s brother William pays a visit, his first in seven years. He shows himself to be a fine, intelligent, adventurous young man who gives Fanny the love and affection and attention she has likely craved for years. Their obvious attachment to each other no doubt increases their interest in those around them.
Please share your thoughts on this section.
Have your thoughts or impressions of Mary and Henry changed in this section? What do you think of Sir Thomas? There was discussion in the earlier section around whether he is meant to be seen as a villain-is this any part of the portrayal here? Mrs Norris has been an unpleasant character to Fanny, is this becoming apparent to the rest of the family? Is Fanny changing, or is she simply no longer able to hide behind the other young women?