A new argument for your blogging pleasure

Fa-So-La-La

Alright, after the lengthy bickering on the HH v. JA subject, I'd like to introduce something truly interesting to quarrel about. :-)

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS 'SPOILERS' :-)

I am currently reading Mansfield Park, which is just one of the most excellent books ever written in the English language (and consequently in the world -- who am I quoting, Austen fans?). This book has received a lot of undeservedly negative remarks from people expecting Austen to always be light, bright and sparkling, but let's step outside the box for a minute and look at it with fresh eyes. :-)

This book is masterfully written-- there are no superfluous chapters or events; everything serves a purpose but does it so artfully you don't realize it till you look back. The characters are flawlessly drawn-- the things they do are at once interesting and completely typical. You come to know everyone within paragraphs of meeting them. The storyline is great, the book organized and coherent. There is some fantastic symbolism and irony, but neither is heavy handed or 'in your face.'

So why do so many people dislike this book so much? Like I said, it is not nearly as witty and lighthearted as the others, which perhaps accounts for some of it. Also, in the other books when the 'bad' characters sin, we are not observing it directly-- think about Lydia and Wickham. We do not see any of that mess first-hand, and what we hear of it is through the filter of good people's colored narrative. We are so thoroughly surrounded with worthy people's correct opinions about it, that it is not nearly as troubling as it could have been. On the other hand, in Mansfield Park we observe Mr. Crawford and Maria quite a bit, and the only person thinking straight about it all is Fanny. Everyone else is either blind to it or they don't have the good sense and morals to care. We are more 'on our own' with handling their sin, and so we are obliged to work a little harder in reading about it.

Another reason is that Fanny, with all her merits, is almost universally disliked. Perhaps it is because her virtues are precisely those which modern-day thought condemns-- meekness, longsufferingness (is that a word?) patience, gentleness, charity, high standards and morals, humility and unselfishness, modesty, innocence, etc. I don't think any of us would disagree with these virtues in and of themselves, but modern thought has penetrated our minds just enough to make us uncomfortable and dissatisfied with them.

Another reason-- all the other books have at least one man who is really outstanding. Think of Mr. Bingley, Colonal Brandon, Mr. Knightly, and Admiral Croft. These men are not in any substantial error for the course of their respective books. But Edmund, as with Edward and Mr. Darcy, is in error through much of the book. In S&S and P&P this does not bother us because there are other men who are worthy, but Edmund is the only really good man in Mansfield Park. (Sir Thomas is pretty much a good man, but has too many failings and flaws for us to really look up to him) We have to be patient with Edmund, which also adds to the difficulty of enjoying the book. The hero's supposed to be perfect, right?

In these and in other ways Jane Austen really stepped out of the box in writing Mansfield Park. I think the compliment ought to be returned by those reading it.