Fanny Price - Passive/Agressive?

I'm halfway through my umpteenth attempt to finish MP. This time I'm noticing that in the portraits of "bad" characters like Maria Bertram, Henry Crawford, JA is sympathetic despite herself. Or maybe I'm just so surprised at how much more vivid, more psychologically astute, they seem next to Fanny Price.

And after finishing the whole visit scene where she won't accept/is mortified by not being able to wait in the rain under a tree, I've come to a reading of Fanny that may actually get me through this book.
She's a passive-agressive. :)
At least that's how she comes off to me, and I prefer that to the alternative - she's the saint JA thought her to be. And like the Bertrams, Henry, etc., this is a way of seeing FP that comes through despite the author's efforts to the contrary.

Ann_Louise, are you talking about me again? ;) (sorry, couldn't resist)

I'm thinking about your post, though, seriously, and am attempting to respond, but I've got a fairly persistent cat who keeps sitting on the keyboard.

My first thought though is that I don't necessarily think JA was trying to make FP entirely sympathetic or the "villains" entirely unsympathetic. I think this is her first attempt at a more complex level of characterization than her previous novels exhibit. In S&S, P&P, and NA, its almost always clear to the reader exactly who the villains and the heroes are. The first time I read MP, until a certain point in the novel, I honestly thought that it would end with Edmund and Mary together & Fanny & Henry together after both Fanny & Edmund learned a valuable lesson about not being so uptight and judgmental. I thought Mary & Henry would redeem themselves.

I think that JA might have wanted to create more complex and sympathetic villains in this book but once she had done that, she didn't really know how to achieve the desired ending, so she kind of cheated.

Sorry FP, I really do admire your stotic fortitude!
Seriously, I am enjoying the style of MP, the flow of language and the humor. It does feel like these elements work much better than the plot.
I'm wondering about the lives of Henry Crawford, Maria Bertram, and Mary Crawford "after the book" - they seem to have more story; Edmund and Fanny - not so much.

Yeah, I always imagined that Fanny and Edmund sort of sat around, gazing self-righteously at each other. It seemed to me such an odd pairing in the end, despite them being "perfect" for each other.

Fanny, LOL, I never really thought about after the book with Fanny and Edmund. I do that all the time with S&S and P&P. I think you're right. I imagine Edmund spends his time telling Fanny, she needs to exercise while she thinks how sweet it is of him to notice. They are an odd couple, but I can't help but love them.

I guess it would work to think of F&E as a quietly eccentric, quintessentially English type of married couple, adorable in their oddness.
As I'm reading the book I get the feeling that Fanny doth protest too much about how much she DOESN"T like Henry Crawford. It seemed that Henry's feelings were real.
Fanny ends up with Edmund because he's the safe one, and with her backround she values safety over love.

And I also imagine that Edmund passes on of some comsumptive type of illness, and Fanny does end up with a repentant Henry - don't reformed rakes make the best husbands? At least in books.

>6 Ann_Louise:, I like that idea, Ann_Louise!

Eesh, what's all this Henry-love going on here? He ran off with Maria, for goodness' sake!

Henry's feelings might have been real, but he was utterly incapable of following them through with commitment, to sustain the relationship when the fluttery feelings were gone. I wouldn't wish such a man on Fanny or any other woman.

Henry's just a more interesting character than Edmund - who's probably the best first cousin a girl could have, but not the most interesting husband (plus there's the whole first-cousin thing :() ). Since he's more complex, there's more room to speculate on what may have/might have happened.
Edmund, to me, just isn't very interesting.

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I think discussing the relative attractiveness or "interesting-ness" of the various characters kind of misses the point. I think Jane Austen is making a point about the importance of morality. If the "villains" (and I don't think they really are) were unattractive, there wouldn't be much choice (or temptation) for Fanny. And just because Henry and Mary were attractive and attentive and fascinating didn't make them moral. So the question is, does Fanny stay true to what she believes is most important - living according to what she knows is right? Or does she give in to her feelings (being pursued, feeling attracted to Henry, recognizing the huge advantage marriage to Henry would bring)? I don't think Mansfield Park is about romance at all. It's about morality. Fanny isn't an attractive heroine. She's mousy and weak and annoying. So, for that matter is Edmund (boring, I mean). But I think Jane was doing something different in this novel than she does in P&P or S&S. Just my thoughts.

>10 tjsjohanna:, I agree with you 100% on the book being about the importance of morality, but I think the "attractiveness" of the characters actually plays a big role in the book because, as you so nicely put it "If the 'villains' ... were unattractive, there wouldn't be much choice (or temptation) for Fanny. And just because Henry and Mary were attractive and attentive and fascinating didn't make them moral." Apologies for all the Henry fan-girl talk. I think we were briefly descending into holiday-induced goofiness. :)

No apologies necessary! Happy new year everyone!

Just had to put my two cents in as I'm just about done reading MP.
I really like it and I don't know why it took me so long to get around to reading it, as I love her other books. However, Fanny's timidness with the people she grew up with, lives with, sees EVERYDAY, is a bit wearing. She is the first Austen heroine that I've liked so little because there is so little heroine in her. When she thinks to herself she is as intelligent as anyone, but her fear of being noticed irks me.
On the flip-side, every word from Mrs. Norris' mouth is like Christmas morning. I adore this churlish aunt. A friend is reading MP also and I told her that whatever happens, Mrs. Norris had better make it to the end.

Oh me. Aren’t we a bit harsh with dear Fanny?

Let’s consider her position from her point of view---the 1813 point of view.

1. She is at Mansfield Park just so long as the Bertram family gains more from her presence than the costs and aggravations involved.
2. If the Bertrams tire of her then back she goes to the house of a drunken father and a disorganized and self centered mother. She would go from a world of order, intellect, civility, calm---a world where she is valued for herself to the world of chaos, clatter, vulgarity, anti intellect and where she is of no importance to anyone.
3. As an 1813 gentlewoman, Fanny had few choices of career. She could marry, be a governess or remain an unmarried dependent at Mansfield Park.
4. Fanny had no funds or possessions to call her own. If she left Mansfield Park without a suitable marriage her life would be bleak indeed.
5. Don’t forget that in 1813, there were two women for every man. Half of those women would remain unmarried forever.
6. Life expectancy was between 35 to 45.
7. The main cause of mortality in women was childbirth. I forgot how high but it was very high.
So, smart women like for instance, Charlotte Lucus took the first and probably only proposal of marriage that was offered even by such a one as a Mr. Collins. Turning down the riches of a marriage with Mr. Crawford can be seen from a heroic point of view.

Jane Austen seemed to think that the heart should play a part in a marriage but the accountants and lawyers should check out the contract first. A few Austen examples come to mind: Maria Rushworth nee Bertram, Eliza Brandon, Marianne Dashwood and Lydia Bennet did it for love we all know how badly these love matches turned out. Nevertheless, we can’t forget Catherine Morland who would have married Henry Tilney if he was the village garbage collector. Then there was Mr. Weston and the first Mrs. Weston nee Churchill; Jane Fairfax and F.C. Weston Churchill; Jane Bennet and Mr. Bingley. Yes, yes, yes, they did it for love but the accountant looked over the books first. Jane Austen is prudence herself.

What is that Tina Turner song? “What’s love got to do with it?” It seems that Austen liked the love angle but considered it not necessary for happiness. I think that we in our imperial Western society think that most societies are like ours, with choices and freedom for men and women. It “ain’t” so. Most women today have little or no choice about who they marry; I repeat: I said MOST: more than 50%. The percentages who do have a choice grow ever smaller with each passing day. Look around girls, the dark clouds gathering are not clouds signaling women’s liberation and equality. I think we are moving back to a time of many fewer choices for women. We are moving to 1813 or toward an even earlier period. Like Tiny Turner says, most marriages end in divorce. So what has love got to do with it? Darcy and Elizabeth are a one in a million exceptions? Sometimes, it creeps up on you after a few years like Marianne and Colonel Brandon? You are stuck with each other so you might as well be in love?

Now, from a man’s point view: It will be a very cold day in Hell before I married a Mary Crawford, Maria Bertram, Elizabeth Elliot or a Isabella Thorpe. Let us think how these women would react to a newly hired checkout clerk at Taco Bell or Walmart who made a mistake. What kind of wife would they be? How would Fanny Price react? What kind of wife would she be? I would take Fanny in heartbeat with no second thoughts and no looking back ever. Elinor Dashwood and Anne Elliot? You bet your booty! These girls would never bore a man. They would never stab him in the back. And after 30, 40 or more years, a guy would still like them.

>14 JosephPoisso: Speaking as another male, how much I agree with your last paragraph! The only proviso I'd make is that, in my view of things, Anne Elliot is head and shoulders above both Fanny Price and Elinor Dashwood - delightful though they both are.

Thanks for the male perspectives!

#15, (I finally understand I should be adding the messg. number). I would add Caroline Bingley (she reminds me of Miss Ingraham of Jane Eyre to say nothing of the bad girls of Agnes Grey & Villette) & the Steele sisters to my list of avoid like the plague.

I also would add Charlotte Lucas, the Musgrove girls, Susan Price, Harriet Smith, Kitty Bennet, Mary Bennet to my list of ladies of worth...not because of what they are in the book but the kind person they will probably become. They have potential.

>17 JosephPoisso: Certainly, Caroline Bingley is an amusing character. (Ooops! I believe I've recently said what follows in this, or some other forum. Put it down to age ...)

She plainly fancies Darcy very greatly, and is consequently jealous when she notices Darcy's increasing interest in Elizabeth Bennet. But she lacks the brains to deal with the situation appropriately; she makes catty remarks about Elizabeth, and only succeeds in arousing his interest in her further still.

As you say, Caroline Bingley is a woman to avoid, and for at least two reasons: she's dim and spiteful. Still, Elizabeth owes her a vote of thanks ...

I would add Caroline Bingley (she reminds me of Miss Ingraham of Jane Eyre

Good point! I never connected the two of them before, but you're completely right.

#17 "Still, Elizabeth owes her a vote of thanks ..."

I have thought that Elizabeth could avoided much trouble if she had paid attention to Miss Bingley warning about Wickham at the ball. Sometimes your enemies actually tell the truth. When Jane later told her the same story, she too quickly dismisses it.

#19 Among my many failings, I am a Bronte-Austen-Trollope-Hardy nutcase and tend to compare and constrast.

In the case of Miss Ingraham and Miss Bingley, the shabby way they treat social inferiors tells me a great deal about their characters. I think both authors intended us to pick up on this trait. Their intended husbands certainly did.