After realising that I’ve not written a review for Mansfield Park, I thought it would be a good idea to combine a post that could be a book review with my attempt to defend Fanny Price. Fanny (unfortunate name aside) has been considered one of Austen’s most controversial characters. Do we like her, or do we not? Is she a prig? Is she insipid? Are there hidden depths to her?
If you haven’t read Mansfield Park, here’s a quick summary: Fanny Price is the eldest daughter of a woman who has made a “poor” marriage. Her aunt, Mrs Norris, starts the ball rolling by proposing to remove Fanny from her home to better circumstances – just not her place (Mrs Norris is notoriously cheap and a bully). Instead, Fanny moves to Mansfield Park, the home of Lord and Lady Bertram (another aunt). There, she is made to feel the distinction between her and her cousins and it is in this environment that she grows up and where the novel takes place. As her cousin Maria prepares to get married, the neighbourhood welcomes two glittering individuals – Henry and Mary.
Compared to Henry and Mary, Fanny seems dull. Actually, compared to Austen’s other characters, like Elizabeth Bennet and Emma, Fanny seems less assertive, less charming. But can we blame her? She’s been plucked out of her home and taught she is lesser than her cousins. She’s been reared to be submissive.
Which is why we should be surprised that Fanny displays the most strength of all Austen’s characters. Chwe points out in his book ‘Jane Austen, Game Theorist’ that Fanny is the only one of Austen’s characters that stands against a crowd of people who universally urging her to make a certain decision and tells them no. Even Anne from Persuasion listens to bad advice and chooses not too marry Captain Wentworth when she was young. Fanny doesn’t listen to the advice of her formidable uncle, her aunts, and her beloved cousin Edmund and decides not to marry Henry when he proposes. It’s a show of strength from someone who was intentionally taught not to be strong.
Another thing that surprised me about Fanny is her perceptiveness. Perhaps it’s because she has a strict moral compass, but she also sees through Henry and Mary (which the reader may not even do). Even Elizabeth Bennet didn’t see through Wickham or understand Darcy correctly at first! Perhaps its Fanny’s socially low position, but her assessments of people are accurate.
Given that Fanny has somehow broken through what was expected of her (to be meek and know her place) to show great mental strength and perceptiveness, I’m not sure how I can call her boring.
What about the charge of her priggishness? Fanny certainly has higher standards when it comes to morality, but she doesn’t go around making people follow her standards. With the play that she disapproved of, Fanny merely refuses to participate – she still listens and helps the others in practice. I think most people who think of her as priggish don’t like the fact that Fanny is uncompromising when it comes to her own actions regarding her own values (i.e. she will not do what she thinks is wrong) and her standards are higher than most of ours. Given that “priggish” is defined as self-righteously moralistic and superior, I’m not convinced Fanny fits the view.
I’ve talked so much about Fanny’s good qualities, now what about her faults? That’s easy – Fanny isn’t charming. She doesn’t charm the reader and she doesn’t charm most people in her family. I suspect Fanny would be classified as an introvert if we used today’s standards. But then again, introverts can have social skills and Fanny doesn’t really have them. She doesn’t know how to put her point across, when she refuses, she just says no. Unlike say, Lucy Steele (Sense & Sensibility) or Mrs Clay (Persuasion), Fanny does not have the talent of ingratiating herself with those who are higher on the social scale.
Is Fanny the perfect heroine? No. Is Mansfield Park the perfect book? No. But I think that Fanny is as lovable as Austen’s other heroines and I do think she’s been given an unfair reputation. Of course, liking or disliking a character is a personal thing but even if you’re not a fan of Fanny, I hope my post has been a fair defence of her.
I remember Mansfield Park being a bit duller than Austen’s other novels and so it’s not one I’ve reread. However, I think you’re right that Fanny is not priggish. I think perhaps that contemporary readers might see her that way, not only because she’s uncompromising in her values but also because her values aren’t ones that contemporary readers necessarily recognize. The whole concept of refusing to act in a play, for instance, certainly might seem ridiculous today because society doesn’t view plays or acting as immoral–that just seems like some silly old-fashioned nonsense. Readers aren’t necessarily going to admire Fanny for following her conscience over something that seems harmless, especially when all the other characters are doing it and they don’t seem worried.
That is true – Fanny’s values are so different from ours that it can be hard to empathise with her. But I wonder… I think most people can identify with a time where others thought a decision they made was silly or when they faced peer pressure to do something, and I would have thought that from that point of view, Fanny’s situation would be more understandable to the reader.
This is such an interesting point! My “thinking as I go” thought is that perhaps some old-fashioned values seem more relevant or translatable than others, and so it’s easier to relate? So, for instance, if there’s a book where the women can’t show their ankles, that does seem funny to most readers today. But, women are still under a lot of pressure for what they wear/get dress coded for being “immodest.” So maybe it’s easier to relate to a character who won’t show her ankles, even if that seems ridiculous to modern readers.
On the other hand, it’s a bit more difficult for me to think of contemporary examples where playacting could be a similar scenario. It’s actually easier for me to think of media where the audience roots for the characters to break those types of norms. Stuff like Shakespeare in Love, where we want to female to sneak onstage even though that’s taboo. Or even something like Footloose where the whole idea is throwing off the oppression of people who think dance is immoral.
Of course, we have media where we root for more modern-minded characters and we may often WANT them. It seems easier for an audience to relate to a protagonist who is willing to show her ankles to get the job done than for the side character who’s properly scandalized. But I can still understand the whole concept of not wanting society to shun you for how you dress because that’s still embedded in the culture in other ways. It’s harder for me, at least, to relate to, “Oh no, speaking lines in front of an audience is TERRIBLE!”
[…] Eustacia attempts to defend Fanny Price. […]
I studied Mansfield Park as part of my Eng Lit degree and I vividly remember walking into a discussion session one morning with the question “Is Fanny Price a wimp?” in large letters on the board. Our general consensus was that she definitely wasn’t. She’s not the most gripping of Jane Austen’s heroines but that’s one reason I love Austen’s novels. All of her female main characters are different and none of them are perfect. I love Fanny partly I think because her social ineptness feels quite familiar to me.
That discussion sounds fascinating! Was there anyone who firmly thought Fanny was a wimp, even though the general consensus said otherwise? I’d like to hear their reasons because I don’t see Fanny like that.
And yes, I agree that Austen does a good job portraying a range of female heroines!
[…] Next up we’ve got Eustacia talking about the good in Fanny Prince, the heroine of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park […]