![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Mansfield Park Reread Chapter 4
I can see why the Antigua estate would be brought up more in adaptations; one of the ways to retell a story is to look at what was hidden in the original, and it is relevant to the critiques of imperialism and racism that have become more acceptable in the mainstream than they used to be.
Not much of Fanny here. Fanny is excluded from the social treatment and experience given her female cousins; no surprise there, and also no surprise that she doesn't feel as if she should be included, because she wasn't meant to feel that way and has already been characterized as internalizing it well. Even Edmund compromises on this by trading one of his own horses and keeping hers under his own name. He expects that Fanny isn't worth the cost to his father, and he's probably right. And he seems to have no problem with that, so he's not just doing it to keep his father from getting angry.
Poor Maria. She was perfectly right, as far as her upbringing gave her to understand, to fix on someone with more money for a husband and work to get him. I suppose Edmund being the only one to object to prioritizing status and money - in this instance, because he certainly doesn't object all of the time, like with a lot of people who make these objections - is probably related to his affinity for religion.
Mary is like Maria, although more worldly. She will begin the novel with the same object for the same reasons, and fixes on a person she will later discard for another. At least she ends the novel better off.
Mrs. Grant's comment is interesting. More so than here and now (because I can only speak for where I live) marriage really was regarded as a natural fact of life and a deciding factor, especially for a woman. I can understand why she would say everybody is suited for marriage no matter what they say. It's something people are expected to resign themselves to, without actually putting it in such a negative way of course. And humans do adapt, even if not always well and even if the results aren't what I would call healthy from my vantage point. They have to make themselves suited in one way or another.
no subject
I agree that Fanny has internalized the fact that she shouldn't be included in the social stuff, but I also think she wouldn't want to be. She's very quiet, anxious, and sensitive -- not the type of person to enjoy social gatherings. (Of course that gets into a nature/nurture thing -- is she anxious and sensitive because of how she was raised? did the way she was raised exacerbate natural timidity? or would she be that level of anxious even if she had been raised with more kindness and encouragement?)
I don't think Edmund's dislike of Mr. Rushworth is related to his affinity for religion, though. I think he simply doesn't like the guy. His objection to the match doesn't seem rooted in a lack of love between Maria and Mr. Rushworth, but in the fact that Mr. Rushworth has nothing to recommend him except his fortune. I see it as part of Edmund's innate practicality more than anything else. He looks at relationships almost mathematically -- like when he thought Fanny would move in with Mrs. Norris and he thought that would be a good match because Mrs. Norris needed a companion and Fanny needed someone to push her out of her comfort zone. Nice in theory, but totally ignoring the emotional reality of how people relate.
One of the things I found interesting about Mary's introduction is that Austen took the time to discuss her and Henry's family situation. It wasn't long, but it was a level of detail that the narrative did not require to explain why Mary would come to live with Mrs. Grant. She could have just said that Mary decided to live with her half-sister for awhile without going into the details about Admiral and Mrs. Crawford's relationship, how they raised Mary & Henry, and the fact that Admiral Crawford brought his mistress into the house after Mrs. Crawford died. Its only importance that families are important to Austen. Nobody's character is formed entirely by themselves; families form the context of all people and therefore all relationships. So that little sidebar about Admiral & Mrs. Crawford was structurally unnecessary but thematically critical.
Mrs. Grant's comments remind me of what asexual people get told all the time -- just replace the word "marriage" with "relationship."
no subject
That's what I meant about Edmund - I thought that Christianity (while very complicated) is supposed to discourage making major life decisions based on materialism. So that he might criticize a match meant based on money. Your comparison is good. It's like how the others establish who is a suitable match for whom; only in different ways and contexts of course, since he is evaluating what's been decided while Mrs. Norris, Maria, Mr. Rushworth, etc. are deciding.
The quality of an Austen product has much to do with her skill at characterization. I think the Crawfords work better if she gives them that background. Otherwise they'd be closer to types than people, which would make the work too heavy with the morals.
That's essentially what it is! Just more old-fashioned. Though saying the way she said it is still done - I knew early that marriage was not for me, but it's not taken seriously.
no subject
no subject