I understand what you're saying. I also found it difficult to "warm" to Fanny. She doesn't feel "fleshed out" to me. She's not one of my favorite JA heroines. Anne Eliot in Persuasion is also a "good" character, and yet she's more alive, warm, rich, & full of depth than Fanny is - at least to me. I find JA's heroines all different, but then again isn't that true of life. I don't think there's much of Fanny in JA from all I've read of her, but I guess we'll never really know!
Choisya wrote:
Final thoughts: Although I found there was more 'meat' in MP than in other JA books, I still could not 'warm' to it or to any of the characters and could only appreciate Fanny because she was a product of her time, not because I found her an interesting character. It would have been nice to have known whether she was a part 'autobiography' of JA herself, as some critics have intimated, but that secret has presumably gone to the grave.
Reading JA always makes me have profound sympathy for the women of her day and makes me feel both sad.
Yes, Jansten, Dr Galperin is right of course. We are seeing in MP the effects of a movement away from an agrarian, rural economy towards and industrial and urban one. In the agrarian economy women were 'helpmates' to their husbands on the farms and in their trades, often selling their husband's wares at market etc. Women of all classes (except the aristocracy) participated in harvests, kept the accounts and were running domestic industries spinning cotton or weaving wool. However, in the 1790s fears about revolution, stemming from France, caused the English government to clamp down on all forms of free expression and this had its effect on women in the home as they were considered susceptible to foreign influences etc (shades of Eve!). In Tracy Chevalier's novel 'Burning Bright, being discussed elsewhere, mention is made of the patriotic societies which were formed to defend the King and all kinds of repressive measures were introduced in 1792-3 which led people in general to lead more decorous lives.
Defending the King also came to mean imitating the court and so women began to imitate the silly, unproductive ways of the Prince Regent, his hangers on and the indolent aristocratic women who fawned upon him. There were, of course, rebellious souls like Wollstonecraft and Blake working against these trends but rather as now, when folks are frightened of terrorism and so put up with repressive laws and attitudes, this patriotic mood prevailed through the American Revolution (another worry for Brits
) until Victorian times and the results were pretty bad for women until the Suffratgettes gained ground and women's labour was needed in WWI.
Rather a potted bit of history but I know B&N readers here will do their own delving into it.
Defending the King also came to mean imitating the court and so women began to imitate the silly, unproductive ways of the Prince Regent, his hangers on and the indolent aristocratic women who fawned upon him. There were, of course, rebellious souls like Wollstonecraft and Blake working against these trends but rather as now, when folks are frightened of terrorism and so put up with repressive laws and attitudes, this patriotic mood prevailed through the American Revolution (another worry for Brits
) until Victorian times and the results were pretty bad for women until the Suffratgettes gained ground and women's labour was needed in WWI.Rather a potted bit of history but I know B&N readers here will do their own delving into it
.
Jansten75 wrote:
I had mentioned that I had attended a Jane Austen meeting where the speaker presented views on Mansfield Park. Dr. William Galperin, a professor at Rutgers University, has a general background theme delineated I think you will find interesting in thinking about Mansfield Park.
Mansfield Park was about missed opportunities. There is a big picture of transiency in the English culture that is playing as the background for the characters in MP. The belief is England was changing from a more free-wheeling society from the 1790's where men were more at leisure and a man of the elite classes did not work or do anything considered useful as that was relegated to the lower classes.
Women had more freedom in expressing themselves during this time than they will be experiencing in the upcoming society. There is a movement towards the more puritanical nature and Victorian societies and it is during this time that the foundation is being shaped. The domestication of women was taking shape where a woman's duty to her husband and household were becoming the measure of a woman. Her opinions were of no great consequence.
There were new professional orders being established for men in law, military, and clergy. Edmund and Fanny represented this new order for couples. She is constantly saying, "No" to the freedoms and liberalities.
Young Tom Bertram and the Crawfords represent the free-wheeling society that is dying. They are caught in this transition and display divided, self-cancelling allegiances.
The old tradition has the aristocratic men playing on women's turf, parlors, gardens, etc. The men were more effeminate and had more interchange with women and their opinions.
In the new puritanical environments, men are out doing "manly things"-i.e. Henry talking with this property manager and having a direct hand in how things are run.
Women are more domesticated and removed from the man's world. Think after dinner drinks and cigars for the men; tea, etc. elsewhere for the women. A wife is to be dutiful to her husband's desires and creates the home environment he can proudly display with his virtuous wife sitting on her throne.
I have been thinking more about the indolence of Regency and Victorian ladies and remembered the Chaise Longue (French long chair) on which they reclined and which many of us will have seen in cinema/TV portrayals of the period:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/antiques/collectors_guides/fu
These to me epitomise the life of upper class women of this period who put on their best dress and carefully arranged themselves on this uncomfortable piece of furniture in order to receive visitors enquiring after their 'ill health'. They went out of fashion in the Victorian period when bustles and hoops made it impossible to lie down without showing your petticoats! But they would have been a very familiar piece of furniture in JA's time when dresses weren't 'underpinned' by such hardware.
In looking for illustrations of Regency chaises longues I came across these delightful and often hilarious caricatures of Regency life which folks might like to chuckle at:-
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/rgnclfil.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/antiques/collectors_guides/fu
These to me epitomise the life of upper class women of this period who put on their best dress and carefully arranged themselves on this uncomfortable piece of furniture in order to receive visitors enquiring after their 'ill health'. They went out of fashion in the Victorian period when bustles and hoops made it impossible to lie down without showing your petticoats! But they would have been a very familiar piece of furniture in JA's time when dresses weren't 'underpinned' by such hardware
.In looking for illustrations of Regency chaises longues I came across these delightful and often hilarious caricatures of Regency life which folks might like to chuckle at:-
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/rgnclfil.html
PaulK wrote:
pmath wrote:
We learn in Chapter 2 that Lady Bertram is somewhat unwell: could it be a family thing? It would explain Fanny's delicacy.From about the time of her entering the family, Lady Bertram, in consequence of a little ill-health, and a great deal of indolence, gave up the house in town, which she had been used to occupy every spring, and remained wholly in the country, leaving Sir Thomas to attend his duty in Parliament, with whatever increase or diminution of comfort might arise from her absence.
PaulK wrote:
Perhaps the worst character was Mrs. Bertram who had all the ambition as a lump of coal. The only person who I can think of to compare her to is Mr. Hurst from P&P. As you may recall his main role was to fall asleep on the sofa.
a little ill-health, and a great deal of indolence
The emphasis is on indolence rather than ill-health.
I think JA prtrays Mrs. B as a very lazy person.
Message Edited by Choisya on 05-12-200704:04 PM
Jansten75 wrote: For me,there is an historical perspective of women's circumstances in reading Jane's books now. I have to pause on that note to say I feel the characterizations are ever present. Our reading it now seems to me to be more of an exercise in sensitivity to or reflection of the circumstances for women through history; and, because we like to read Jane Austen's novels in general.
The conditions for women at that time are shocking to us, today. It's even hard to imagine how it was and for that I am glad. A man had the financial power and the power of the choosing gaze.
To get to the money the girl needed to be looked at. It's as the only possibility to survive/exist was to make herself available to a man's desires, a man's gaze. She was objectified and put on the market. This was perfected into social routines. It is really degrading when you think about it. Slaves were bought, here the 'female slave' needed to worry about her looks and other abilities in order to become marketable enough. Women perfected this into an art, it was their only tool to define themselves. Strength, independence and intelligence were masculine qualities incompatible with pleasing nature. She's a toy or breeding machine.
As a subject of desire the woman needed to remain passive,invisible in her true nature. Where can she exist if she can't be heard, appreciate din her totality? She transforms herself into a thing without a need, a desire, she denies herself. Was that a way to survive?
I simply wonder if JA sensed ans somehow tried to put these traits into Fanny?
ziki
speculating
Choisya wrote: It would have been nice to have known whether she was a part 'autobiography' of JA herself......Reading JA always makes me have profound sympathy for the women of her day and makes me feel both sad
Maybe parts of all women.... I posted some speculative rant about that above...I am glad situation for women changed but I must say many of these attitudes still exists even today albeit hidden under the surface.
ziki
kiakar wrote:I was shocked to learn that Henry had gone to Fanny's home to pursue her further. He seemed so prideful at first, he was the one to have been chased and then he would leave the scene but now he is going all out for Fannie. That is strange. I guess Love can be that way though. He must have loved her.
perhaps he was possessed
ziki
LizzieAnn wrote:
I think this is a great humorous touch on JA's part. Perhaps she was stressing that no one benefits from greed or gluttony - or any other of the seven deadly sins?
Gluttony & greed do in Dr. Grant. Lust & pride do in Henry & Maria. Pride & envy do in Mrs. Norris. Lust and wrath do in Mary.
I think Fanny was greedy, angry, a fake, fulof pride, manipulative, competitive, boring but she hid her whole shadow in order to finally get married....
ziki
Mary Wollstonecraft would be proud of you Ziki! However, it worries me that even today there are elements of this 'slavery' amongst women - the need to constantly beautify themselves in order to find a man, the house beautiful etc.
ziki wrote:
Jansten75 wrote: For me,there is an historical perspective of women's circumstances in reading Jane's books now. I have to pause on that note to say I feel the characterizations are ever present. Our reading it now seems to me to be more of an exercise in sensitivity to or reflection of the circumstances for women through history; and, because we like to read Jane Austen's novels in general.
The conditions for women at that time are shocking to us, today. It's even hard to imagine how it was and for that I am glad. A man had the financial power and the power of the choosing gaze.
To get to the money the girl needed to be looked at. It's as the only possibility to survive/exist was to make herself available to a man's desires, a man's gaze. She was objectified and put on the market. This was perfected into social routines. It is really degrading when you think about it. Slaves were bought, here the 'female slave' needed to worry about her looks and other abilities in order to become marketable enough. Women perfected this into an art, it was their only tool to define themselves. Strength, independence and intelligence were masculine qualities incompatible with pleasing nature. She's a toy or breeding machine.
As a subject of desire the woman needed to remain passive,invisible in her true nature. Where can she exist if she can't be heard, appreciate din her totality? She transforms herself into a thing without a need, a desire, she denies herself. Was that a way to survive?
I simply wonder if JA sensed ans somehow tried to put these traits into Fanny?
ziki
speculating
pedsphleb wrote:
As I was finishing MP last night, I was continually nagged by a question - I had read the name "Mrs. Norris" in a book recently, but which one? Well, it turns out that Mrs. Norris is also the name of Argus Filch's cat in the Harry Potter books. And the personalities are a little similar - only does what she pleases, has a tendency to upset the characters. Generally unpleasant. Mrs. Norris (cat) even gets pertrified by a basilisk in HP2. What does everyone else think?
yes, I knew about it, nice that you discovered that.....remain on watchout for hidden JA's characters in other books in the future
and check the length of you skirts
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pembfun/1868lglg
