Jane Austen discussion
Group Read: Mansfield Park
>
Character Discussion: Fanny Price
message 1:
by
Rachel, The Honorable Miss Moderator
(new)
Aug 30, 2014 11:21AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
For me, she's a classic case of a child thrown out of the context she takes for granted, unable to fully trust anyone, who learns that the only person she can really trust is herself. This is the source of her strength--to stick to the belief that if she is only true to herself, things will turn out okay. Perhaps this is what I see because that was the central lesson of my own childhood. It takes an extraordinary sensitivity in Jane Austen, who had a happy childhood secure in her family, to be able to understand and describe so eloquently such a character.
This is my 3rd or 4th reread of MP, and this time through I wasn't really sure why we even needed Fanny Price. Yes, we see everything through her eyes, but I wonder if those events could have been told just as well without her. The events/happenings don't change her, and (view spoiler) I don't see that she changes anybody/thing. In fact, I can't help thinking that (view spoiler) she would have been just as content, just as happy as before to be needed and allowed to be self-effacing.Maybe I'm being a bit of a wet blanket here? - but I don't mean to be.
Mod
Elizabeth, I don't see what you mean. I haven't finished my reread yet, but if I remember correctly, the Bertrams, Sir Thomas especially, are taught to value Fanny's qualities after the big plot points near the end of the novel involving (view spoiler). And Fanny would NOT be content and happy if that second spoiler you wrote had happened. And neither would (view spoiler). Besides, Aunt Norris would have no one to be completely horrible to!
Elizabeth wrote: "This is my 3rd or 4th reread of MP, and this time through I wasn't really sure why we even needed Fanny Price. Yes, we see everything through her eyes, but I wonder if those events could have been ..."I sort of see what you mean. Whilst I understand that her life experiences made Fanny self-effacing (although I often don't believe it, I think the self-effacing way she acts sometimes, especially with her cousins, is HER way of getting what she wants to a degree). I'm afraid I don't like her very much and whilst she is much, much better than Mrs Norris, I feel give her a few years/decades in conjunction with Edmund getting bored of her (who could be happy past getting over the heardache of losing Mary, if you have loved Mary) she will be not to unsimilar to her aunt.
Mod
WHOA, I don't see Fanny EVER becoming like Mrs. Norris. EVER. Not only would being treated like that be strong incentive to not turn into someone who could treat another person that way, but Fanny's personality itself is too different from Mrs. Norris. (For just one example, Mrs. Norris like to be in control of everything and we don't see that tendency in Fanny.) I don't think even decades of unhappiness would turn her into that.
Fanny is also does NOT have even a drop of the manipulative personality it would take for her self-effacing nature to be used just to get what she wants. Being self-effacing is just her personality. I would also find it hard to believe Edmund would get "bored" of Fanny. He just doesn't seem like that type of guy. Henry Crawford would, certainly, and a guy like Tom Bertram would, but not Edmund.
Gisela wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "This is my 3rd or 4th reread of MP, and this time through I wasn't really sure why we even needed Fanny Price. Yes, we see everything through her eyes, but I wonder if those event..."Hmmm, Gisela! I don't think I see any manipulative tendencies in Fanny at all. Can you give us an example of what you're seeing?
"WHOA, I don't see Fanny EVER becoming like Mrs. Norris. EVER. Not only would being treated like that be strong incentive to not turn into someone who could treat another person that way, but Fanny's personality itself is too different from Mrs. Norris"Mrs Norris lacked common sense, was a terrible penny-pincher and, most damning of all, was blinded as to the true characters of the people around her. She is, thus, the exact opposite of Fanny Price. To that, Mrs Norris acted out of spite and hatred, but Fanny, even when she hated, was gentle and never set out to hurt anybody - she did this to a fault, even, because she probably should have tried to talk Edmund out of his love for Mary, or tried to speak to her cousins about Henry, only she did not think it was her place to say anything. Again, the opposite of Mrs Norris.
Hm, guess I stirred things up a bit. I just don't buy the self-effacement. The way I read her, she knows her place (as did Mrs Norris once-upon-a-time I am sure)and her learned behaviour is to fight her corner by being meak, but (good for her) she does stay her ground if she does not want to do something (like the acting)and being made love to by Henry Crawford. Mrs Norris, is what, 20 years older than Fanny, the sister who neither married lots of money, nor made a poor, but at least a love decision to marry, but had to settle for a parson. This will, if she didn't know it by then, also have taught her her place. Whilst I in no way think Fanny has some of the tendency like meanness and spitefulness like her aunt, I think given time, she might turn out similar to her. Edmund, in his own way, is a rich man's son and is used to getting what he wants. Although of course as the second son to a lesser degree than his brother. He loved the life, strength and excuberance of Mary and whilst I am sure Fanny will do him good and make him "a dutiful wife" she is no Mary. Bit like being married to Jacky O and in love with Marilyn! Austen in all her books and from the autobiographies I've read about her, was quite mischievous herself at times and looked deeper into people and wonder if she just wrote two such contrasting characters as Fanny and Mary to get show that the good girls can have bad or at least boring sides and the bad girls good sides and be a hell of a lot more interesting. I for sure, would love to know what happens to Mary, whilst I don't think there is much doubt about Fanny. Sorry, but there it is.
Rachel wrote: "That's an excellent point, Abigail.Elizabeth, I don't see what you mean. I haven't finished my reread yet, but if I remember correctly, the Bertrams, Sir Thomas especially, are taught to value Fa..."
First of all, I don't think Aunt Norris needs any special someone to be horrible to! lol
The Bertrams come to appreciate Fanny's virtues, yes, but remember they're the ones who sought to instill those virtues in her character. Don't you think (view spoiler) he saw them in Mr. Rushworth?
Austen does so much in this story that doesn't concern Fanny, and that's why I wonder exactly why she thought the character was even needed. Seems to me the story is about the difference between points of view about Thinking Correctly (view spoiler) - and not about how Fanny's character is defined and confirmed (as Elizabeth's is in P&P).
Gisela wrote: "Hm, guess I stirred things up a bit. I just don't buy the self-effacement. The way I read her, she knows her place (as did Mrs Norris once-upon-a-time I am sure)and her learned behaviour is to fi..."I can see your point how Fanny could grow manipulative like Aunt Norris. She's never really had to deal with people before - been in charge of them, had to work together with them like on a committee. She's always been put upon - 'Come live with us, little niece, because we want to be nice to you;' 'Go see your parents little Fanny because we want you to see them;' 'You can't return until we're ready to put ourselves out to bring you back.'
But by marrying Edmund she'll be a vicar's wife and have to deal with all sorts of people, so she's still untried in that regard.
I have always wondered though, why she didn't stick up for herself about having a horse to ride for her exercise. For crying out loud, the mare Edmund bought for her meant he now owned three! How many hunters did Tom have? Maria and Julia had their own horses; there were several I'm sure for the farm and the carriage; and with her little pony so recently dead - why would be it be so wrong for the Bertram stables to have just one more?
(So perhaps there is a bit of resentment against the Mansfield Park attitude ;) )
Mod
I completely agree, Emily.
Elizabeth wrote: "Gisela wrote: "Hm, guess I stirred things up a bit. I just don't buy the self-effacement. The way I read her, she knows her place (as did Mrs Norris once-upon-a-time I am sure)and her learned beh..."
I don't know about Fanny NEVER having to deal with all sorts of people--(view spoiler) and she deals with that well. That section also shows one of the things I love best about Fanny--she's so observant and perceptive.
Elizabeth wrote: "Gisela wrote: "Hm, guess I stirred things up a bit. I just don't buy the self-effacement. The way I read her, she knows her place (as did Mrs Norris once-upon-a-time I am sure)and her learned beh..."But Aunt Norris immediately puts a spoke in that wheel as Edmund brings up Fanny's needing a horse (and I'm sure that Fanny knew she would), when she cries about what an expense to the absent Sir Thomas it would be. Fanny had no reason to believe that if she were to ask for a horse of her own she would receive one; all of her gifts from the family were either second-hand or small, and a horse was not only a big purchase, but required a lot of up-keep.
I still just don't see Fanny as manipulative! I can't see any instances where she tries to pull any strings or control anyone else, and if she hasn't done it as a child and young woman when she was young and insecure, why in the world would she begin to lose her character as an older woman? I just can't buy it!
Karlyne wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Gisela wrote: "Hm, guess I stirred things up a bit. I just don't buy the self-effacement. The way I read her, she knows her place (as did Mrs Norris once-upon-a-time I am sure)a..."You're quite right Karlyne, but everybody must have known Aunt Norris was completely in the wrong as it would not have been an added expense to Sir Thomas; the horse bought for Fanny would have taken the time and stall of her little pony who had just died.
I can only suppose that Edmund (the only one who thought about such things) would have not wanted to appear to contradict a family elder (Aunt Norris), so that's why he sacrificed one of his hunters for a mare for his cousin.
Karlyne I see your point about Fanny not being manipulative in her youth.But I can't help wondering if, in her later years, she might try that method and see what results she gets. You gotta admit, her current system does not now get her results. (Please don't tell me how it all works out well for Fanny in the end - that's called a HEA :) )
But I think that's just the whole point of Fanny's character: she doesn't do things for the results! If she'd wanted results, things like money, position, entertainment, she could have married Henry, after all. And, as far as Fanny's HEA, I think that she will have no regrets (or at least very few and very minor) over her choices, and that does tend to increase the happiness factor. There's a lot to be said for a clear conscience!
Oh, and as far as the horse, I think it just points out the whole family's indifference to Fanny's welfare. No one even thinks of it!
Mod
Fanny is completely without cunning or artifice, which is why she is so put upon. Edmund tries to get her to stand up for herself but in great part she believes what she is told about her position and does not dare. The only times she does try to assert herself is when what she is being asked to do goes against her principles.
In one instance Louise you're wrong. Fanny does use artifice when (view spoiler)Otherwise, you're right. Fanny doesn't want to tell somebody how they should live/act (view spoiler); she wants others to follow her example. But not even that really - she wants others to live as she does, just automatically -- because you know, that's how they're supposed to. Except, that doesn't always work: a lot of people (view spoiler)need at least a friendly word of advice now and then.
And - Karlyne - it's this trait of Fanny's that makes me think she'll have to change some when she's a vicar's wife. She'll have to learn when and how to give that advice (view spoiler).
Elizabeth, I do not agree with you on what you term artifice (view spoiler)As for giving advice to Henry, he is not seeking advice for his own betterment but to trick her into betraying an interest in his affairs, which she knows. When she feels that she is in the superior position, where she can justify giving her advice, she does give it. There are simply few situations where she feels she has the right to do so.
Actually, Louise --(view spoiler)
I think Fanny is telling an untruth here.
I do see your point about Henry. :)
Elizabeth wrote: "Actually, Louise --" '... it is hardly possible that your affections --'
(Sir Thomas) paused and eyed (Fanny) fixedly. He saw her lips formed into a no, though the sound was inarticulate, but he..."
Erh... you think that Fanny had the right to say "yes, I am in fact in love with your son. He doesn't know it, and please keep my secret and let me live in your house and stay near your son, cool?" ??! I think you mistake Fanny's behaviour here - she is, as we know because that's what this novel is all about, not really a family member who stays there with independent powers and rights like Sir Thomas's children. She doesn't say a lot of things during that interview, like for example that Henry is a rake and that he trifled with his daughters, which makes him a terrible candidate for a husband. She doesn't do it because she doesn't think she has the right to (nor does she want to sink others in an affair that concerns only her). The fact that she doesn't say anything about her love for Edmund is a strong indicator of the type of relationship she has with Sir Thomas, and how impossible her aspiration is.
I've never thought that Fanny was saying "No, I don't love either of your sons", but rather "Nooooo. Please don't interrogate me and force me to reveal my hidden thoughts and feelings." She was horrified by the very thought of being exposed, and if Sir Thomas had continued, we'd be justified in thinking it abuse; everyone deserves privacy.As far as giving advice, I think Fanny is intelligent enough to know that rarely does anyone want advice. Even Edmund, although he values her opinion, does not want advice but rather wants her to listen to all of the reasons why Mary is wonderful. And, at eighteen, Fanny is also very aware that she has little to give her elders, anyway. Can you imagine her advising Aunt Norris?!? As a vicar's wife, she'll need to be tactful and available and able to distance herself from unprofitable controversy, and that's exactly what her upbringing has taught her.
She will, of course, have to change, but not just as a vicar's wife. Even if she'd stayed at Mansfield as an unpaid drudge, she'd have to change, because that's what life is! But I don't see her degenerating into a shrew or a whiner or a manipulator. If she's managed to grow stronger and stronger in the principles she held as a child, in the face of such large obstacles, she's bound to continue that growth in the same direction. I do, also, see her humor growing. Remember her amusement at Tom's railing about Aunt Norris' selfishness while at the same time selfishly making Fanny dance with him? If Edmund hadn't had the sense to make her his wife, I could see her becoming a cool, amused looker-on of life.
Emily wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Actually, Louise --" '... it is hardly possible that your affections --'
(Sir Thomas) paused and eyed (Fanny) fixedly. He saw her lips formed into a no, though the sound was in..."
Emily, I agree with you 100%.
And Karlyne, like you said, Fanny did have the right to privacy (though in that era the father/guardian also had the right to inquire into the young girl's feelings (view spoiler)
But - Fanny did have secrets to keep.
If something is secret, when the subject is brought up you can evade the issue or talk around it. But when you're asked outright, to keep faith with your self or your friends you can't tell the truth - so you have to tell a lie. So you do.
So Fanny did.
I tend to agree with Karlyne, I think she was warding off the question rather than answering it, in which case she simply did not answer.However, even if it is a lie by omission I wouldn't go so far as to call it artifice which I think implies something a little more active... we may have to just agree to disagree on the definition however.
But Sir Thomas did not ask her if she was in love with Edmund. She was horrified at the thought that he might ask her, and I still think that's what that "no" was, more of a plea than a denial. If he had outright asked her, would she have been able to stand firm and say, "My private thoughts and feelings must remain private and have no bearing on this matter."? Probably not: I'm guessing that she would have been overcome with bitter tears (as she is very shortly in this interview) and wouldn't have been able to answer at all. But, I do want to clarify that I don't think Fanny perfect! Everyone lies at some time or another, after all. But I think that Fanny would regret any lies she told and would not gloss them over with excuses. Although she would rather have died than own her love for Edmund, because of the embarrassment and shame she'd feel, if it had caused her to lie, she would have recognized it for what it was: a lie.
Louise, I agree that artifice is more akin to manipulation; it's more of lying, on purpose, in order to get something in return. And, although in court we're ordered to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", in real life we have to not tell the whole truth in a zillion little ways, or we're going to be guilty of tactlessness at the least or meanness in the extreme. Do we really have to say, "Your butt looks big in those jeans," instead of "I like the pockets."? Especially if we haven't even been asked for our opinions? If we are asked, of course, then we have to be able to both tell the truth and somehow tell it in such a way that it's not horrifically painful. Wasn't it Churchill that said that was the definition of tact, being able to tell people to go to hell in such a way that they enjoyed the trip? (Did I just get side-tracked here?)
Mod
I just read a description of Fanny that points out to me her sweetness of character. I think it strikes me because I cannot imagine myself feeling like this whatsoever! "Fanny's disposition was such that she could never even think of her aunt Norris in the meagreness and cheerlessness of her own small house without reproaching herself for some little want of attention to her when they had last been together." Really?! My inclination would have been much more inclined to cheerful murder!
Rachel wrote: "... we can all agree Austen wrote her characters consistently."Most definitely!
That's why (I admit it!) I'm having such trouble with Fanny. If her character is really that good, she's either too-good-to-be-true or An Ideal. If it isn't, then where/what are her common-to-humanity flaws?
That's funny, Elizabeth, because I have often thought that if Mansfield Park had been the first Austen I'd read, I would have thought, "Nice bit of writing, but I don't understand Fanny, and Mary is the only one I do understand, and I don't get what all of the fuss was about." Luckily for me, I was already hooked on Austen by the time that I read it and so I was willing to read it numerous times in order to come to an understanding of it (well, somewhat, anyway). As far as Fanny being-too-good-to-be-true, I was lucky enough to have a good friend who was pretty close to having Fanny's sweetness, so I do know that they exist. And Fanny does have flaws; she's timid to a fault, she falls prey to depression too easily, she believes what others tell her of herself and she even doubts herself. Not major flaws, perhaps, and I certainly don't see her teasing the dog or putting frogs in aunt Norris' bed, ordinary childhood naughtinesses, but then she hasn't had the scope for that, either. If she'd done those kinds of things, she would have been sent home in serious disgrace. She learned at an early age just who authority was and what it could do to her, and it colored every aspect of her behavior.
Karlyne wrote: "That's funny, Elizabeth, because I have often thought that if Mansfield Park had been the first Austen I'd read, I would have thought, "Nice bit of writing, but I don't understand Fanny, and Mary i..."Can we also add to her flaws that she is actively jealous of Mary? Because to me that was the part that humanised her most - she harboured a crush she really ought not to have had, she seems disinclined to fight it and she doesn't like Mary encroaching on her territory (though that is perhaps too aggressive a phrasing for Fanny). She also suffers greatly over being overlooked by Edmund when Mary comes around, as when he forgets to go stargazing with her, or gives her horse to Mary to use. I think we tend to underestimate how large a flaw in character this really is, especially for Fanny in her own worldview: she has no portion and is in rank and station below Edmund (if I understand rank and station of those times correctly). She knows that her family would, at best, disapprove of an attachment if it were formed. And though there is, if I remember rightly, a bit in the novel where it says that were Mary a better person she would not disapprove of his attachment so much, I think she would not think anybody good enough for Edmund.
Elizabeth wrote: "But - Fanny did have secrets to keep. If something is secret, when the subject is brought up you can evade the issue or talk around it. But when you're asked outright, to keep faith with your self or your friends you can't tell the truth - so you have to tell a lie. So you do.
So Fanny did.
I see your point, but I think you're still being too harsh on her :) She may not have confided the whole truth, but she did not exactly lie. She didn't say "I don't love Edmund" or even "I don't love anybody" or "My heart belongs to nobody". She said all that her uncle had the right to hear, and by not confessing all to him she was reasserting her rights as a person. Like Rachel and Karlyne said, it was a plea, evasion, all that, and none of it morally wrong, I think.
fanny price is a very different character from all the other austen heroines, she s not the witty lizzy , nor the confident emma , but she s special in her own way , she was excessively shy and i ve never seen someone take such joy in being invisible and unnoticed, edmund helped her overcome most of it , but i will always be of mind that mr crawford was a better choice . i felt as if jane austen plotted that last event against mr crawford just to make it easier for Fanny to refuse him
Mod
And I don't think Austen needed that last event to make Fanny refuse Henry Crawford. Fanny would never have accepted him anyway. I think that plot point just made it clear to everyone else that she made the correct choice. I do see what you mean, Dia-- Henry is more exciting than Edmund. But he's not the right one for Fanny.
I think what Henry did was actually the logical conclusion to his character. He would have done something like it sooner or later, and as Rachel said, Fanny suspected as much, hence her vehemence. Henry was a narcissist and needed to be adored. That's what first drew him to Fanny, because she would not gratify him by falling to his feet within a fortnight as he had planned. He was intelligent enough to recognise the true worth of her character in that time, which speaks for him, but eventually he would have met another young lady who did not gratify him as he needed to be gratified and he would have pursued her for the sport of it (as he did with Mariah). His sister seemed to have known as much about him, and saw no harm in it. Fanny would have suffered with him, however.
Dia wrote: "fanny price is a very different character from all the other austen heroines, she s not the witty lizzy , nor the confident emma , but she s special in her own way , she was excessively shy and i v..."I remember, Dia, being surprised the first time that I read Mansfield Park that Henry would run off with Maria so soon. It did seem abrupt and as though Austen was just trying to get him out of the way, but I think it just served to show us how very unstable his character was!
Elizabeth wrote: "Rachel wrote: "... we can all agree Austen wrote her characters consistently."Most definitely!
That's why (I admit it!) I'm having such trouble with Fanny. If her character is really that good, ..."
Exactly my point. Far too good to be true. Nobody is that GOOD.
Gisela wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Rachel wrote: "... we can all agree Austen wrote her characters consistently."Most definitely!
That's why (I admit it!) I'm having such trouble with Fanny. If her character is ..."
Well, I think we already pointed out that she wasn't perfect and certainly not perfectly good! And, again I have to say that I have known people as "good" as Fanny. They lived in different circumstances and had different personality quirks, but still they were "good"- or at least better than the run-of-the-mill human!
And, don't forget, either, that nowhere is it implied that Fanny enjoys being put-upon and ignored or revels in all of those chances to be good. She simply does what she thinks is right with as good a will as she can muster. I guess that does make her admirable, but she's still far from perfect!
Mod
Most definitely!
That's why (I admit it!) I'm having such trouble with Fanny. If he..."
You tell 'em, Karlyne! LOL! Like Louise, I completely agree with you. Fanny's not perfect--NO ONE is perfect-- but she just tries to live by what she feels is right as much as she can.
I just had another thought, too, about Fanny and her "goodness". The friend that I mentioned earlier who was also "good" and not selfish, was hysterically funny and simply a tremendous amount of fun to be with, but only with those she felt safe with. She was beyond shy and introverted with those in authority and those who were carping and constantly criticizing. I'm guessing that only her intimate friends knew what a wit she had. And doesn't that sound like Fanny?And, I do hope I haven't been too ornery about Fanny-- but let's face it, she and I don't share a lot of personality traits!
the thing with edmund , rachel , is that i don't believe he loved Fanny well enough , he might have thought her character more suiting to his expectations . i do not think he looked at her the way he looked at mary , and to be honest even mary wasnt such a antagonist . she and her brother were abruptly put aside by jane , to my mind . i knew that fanny loved edmund so i was sure from the beginning that nothing could induce J Austen to secure her character's with another. i can't help but remember her words :" my characters , after some struggle, will always find what they desire"
Rachel wrote: "You tell 'em, Karlyne! LOL! Like Louise, I completely agree with you. Fanny's not perfect--NO ONE is perfect-- but she just tries to live by what she feels is right as much as she can."Are we fighting? If I came across too harsh I apologize. If anything, I'm upset with Fanny -- and myself for not understanding her! :)
Karlyne, I see what you're saying about Fanny, but I've always thought 'goodness' was more positive than negative -- a presence, a force (if you will), a something you want to emulate. To me, she doesn't seem to be anything of that.
Hmmmmm , Elizabeth. I do see what you're saying, but I think that because Fanny isn't loud or obvious, it's easy to overlook her good qualities. I don't see her as negative or as a nonentity, either. The people around her don't want to emulate her because they are not looking for what she's got to offer. They're looking for power, money, position, comfort and popularity, all qualities that are rooted in self-interest. None of them seem to be interested in bettering their interior selves whatsoever, but are very comfortable with the way they are right now. I think one of the main points of the book is that Fanny is not seen. She is overlooked. She's not noticed. And I think that's true of good qualities, too. We often focus on what's bad simply because it is obvious, in our faces, and loud.
Mod
No, we're not fighting, Elizabeth! We're having a healthy debate, which is great. No need to apologize!
Yet again, I agree completely with what you said Karlyne. What you said about the other characters and Fanny in relation to one another is all spot-on.
