'Mansfield Park' by Jane Austen a Disappointment in Ideals

Sophia Alexander with her omnibus
of Jane Austen works,
read in full over a quarter-century ago!

I am continuing my trek back through Jane Austen's novels—and have to confess my disappointment with Mansfield Park. No doubt it's because my expectations of Jane Austen are so determinedly high. She is, of course, an amazing writer (Note the ‘is’ as she is fairly immortalized at this point!), and aside from her infinitely intelligent writing, I did find some merit in Mansfield Park as a study of the values and conduct of the times—but even here, Jane does not commend herself to me.  In her portrayal of Miss Crawford, she proves that in spite of her own favorite characters, that even 208 years ago some individuals were kind, delightful, joyful, and open-minded—despite Miss Crawford not being eager for Edmund to go into the ministry (even insulting it a bit, which was her worst fault).

(Spoiler Alert.) When Miss Crawford contrives to save a difficult situation involving both their families, Fanny and her dear Edmund are at last blissfully united forever in their ubiquitous condemnation of both her and the lovers in question—Miss Crawford being rejected and lumped in merely for showing tolerance for such iniquity. But please note that Fanny herself has ample tolerance when she asks her uncle about his slave plantations in the West Indies, her curiosity merely a sign of better breeding and greater intelligence than her disinterested female cousins!  I could almost buy that as a sign of an open mind reserving judgment, but not a peep was ever made with the first concern about slavery—and then to be so harsh against mere lovers!  Meanwhile, her uncle is consistently presented as a paragon of virtue and good judgment throughout the book, even though he goes off to the West Indies without his wife for years, it might have been, doing God knows what. And while not once does Fanny question the ethics of the slave plantations, we know Jane Austen would certainly have heard such abolitionist debate in her time. Poorly done, Jane!

The beginning of this Austen novel is unusually slow, and the narrator seems to disdain Fanny as much as I ended up disdaining her, for she reads Fanny’s voice as high-pitched, breathy, and ridiculous.  I fortified myself against it (and aside from that, I enjoyed the audiobook), but Jane Austen once again brought me low with her harsh judgment and false friendship.  As in Northanger Abbey, the heroine develops a close ‘friendship’ with a lovely, vibrant woman but proves herself to be a false friend, over and again—whereas in this case (as opposed to in Northanger Abbey) Miss Crawford continues to shine. It does not reflect well on Austen, either, that she seemed to enjoy writing the dark fate of Fanny’s cousin—who is not saved by Miss Crawford’s machinations, no doubt thanks in part to the heartlessness of Fanny and Edmund.  I am glad that Miss Crawford doesn’t end up with Edmund, as he does not deserve her.

I suppose the value of this book to young readers would be to depict the social realism of the world—how their misconduct will be harshly condemned, at least by some, including close friends. And thus such social warnings are perhaps of a certain value I now underestimate, even if Austen fails to prioritize tolerance and kindness as much as I would like.

P. S.  Amusing language sidenote:  Jane repeatedly uses the phrase ‘knocked up’ to mean tired. I suppose at some point it became a euphemism for pregnancy, but there seems no trace of that meaning here!