So, I just read a new book that I think might explain a little bit about Jane Austen and Fanny Price—QUIET: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking by Susan Cain. (Here’s a good article summing up the book: The Rise of the New Groupthink.) No surprise that Fanny’s a world-class introvert; I think we can all agree on that. But part of Ms. Cain’s point is that extroversion has become much more important over the past few hundred years, and something called the Culture of Character gave over to the Culture of Personality, in which we live today. Here’s the ideal self the Culture of Character self-help books described:
- Citizenship
- Duty
- Work
- Golden Deeds
- Honor
- Reputation
- Morals
- Manners
- Integrity
That doesn’t [hint hint] sound familiar at all, does it?? Anybody we know? Not little Miss Price, sitting in the corner?
And what about the ideal self from the Culture of Personality? Here’s what her self-help books describe:
- Magnetic
- Fascinating
- Stunning
- Attractive
- Glowing
- Dominant
- Forceful
- Energetic
Hmmmm….. Is there anyone in Mansfield Park who embodies those traits? And might she just coincidentally be Fanny’s rival just a teeny bit? I think Jane Austen actually uses at least half those words to describe Miss Crawford.
Now, the odd part is that Ms. Cain and “influential cultural historian, Warren Susman,” who she gets all this from—they both say that this switch from admiring Character to admiring Personality happened roughly at the end of the 19th century, when people were moving to cities and working with people they didn’t know, and having to sell themselves. And yet, here we have Mansfield Park almost 100 years earlier, and Jane Austen seemingly talking through Character vs. Personality. (That’s not foreshadowing in any way, Miss Ball.)
In a way, this makes Fanny more believable to me; that Our Jane would write a heroine like her makes sense if those qualities were more important. And yet, everyone in the book clearly finds Fanny awfully trying—they don’t hold her up as an ideal, no, they’re all over Miss Personality Crawford. So… maybe what Jane Austen is doing is looking at books that idealize the Fanny Price type and saying, “You pretend you like this girl, but in real life you think she’s a drip. See, I’ll prove it.”
When you think about it, that’s what Jane Austen does. Take stereotypes and look at them in real life: Catherine Morland vs. the Gothic novel. Marianne Dashwood vs. Ro-mance. Elizabeth Bennet vs. Prejudice . . . Wow, looking at it like that, Mansfield Park actually makes sense to me. And are we surprised that Jane Austen picked up on how people really thought of each other years before the self-help books did? No. No, we are not.
austenacious 
So… maybe what Jane Austen is doing is looking at books that idealize the Fanny Price type and saying, “You pretend you like this girl, but in real life you think she’s a drip. See, I’ll prove it.”
Oh my God, it all makes sense now. Jane is so awesome.
LikeLike
It totally does all make sense now.
I still don’t like that girl (not that I liked Miss Personality any better). Jane did her job extremely well.
LikeLike
That would make everything make so much more sense. What’s interesting to consider, though, is where Anne Elliot fits into all of this. I would definitely consider her more Culture of Character, while many of the others in her story are either Culture of Personality-ish or really aren’t either way. And we like Anne, right? (Or is that just me?) At the very least, other characters in the book like Anne (even if it’s just because she’ll provide a listening ear or babysit your injured kid). So what are we to learn from Anne Elliot?
LikeLike
I have to agree that Anne is more likeable. Though I did end up liking Fanny a lot more by the end of the book during this re-read. Clearly I’m going to have to re-read Persuasion again and try to figure out why Anne is more likeable from start to finish compared to Fanny.
LikeLike
Good catch, Emily Michelle. 🙂 I have to admit, I tried to think of an easy parable for Persuasion and could not – so I left it off the list. Post for another time…
LikeLike
This is such an eye-opener for me. But at the same time, Austen does allow Fanny Price to have her ‘happy ending’ so that must mean she approves of Fanny’s character, right? She seems to be one of those authors who seems to reward her ‘good’ characters and condemn the not so good ones.
I do like Anne, too, Emily Michelle, but to me Anne seems to have more personality than Fanny. Fanny’s the meekest out of the Austen heroines, but to her credit she does sort of hold her own towards the end of the novel. Though, funnily enough, that’s where a lot of readers think she did wrong, in the way she treated Henry Crawford.
LikeLike
I don’t get why everyone (as it seems to me) thinks that Henry Crawford was some kind of hero. If there is one thing I know about Jane Austen, it is that she hated, hated, hated guys who played with women’s feelings to gratify their own vanity. Both John Willoughby and Henry Crawford were this type of person.
Crawford was a real piece of work. He decides to play with Fanny’s feelings because he has nothing better to do. Then he falls in ‘love’ with her, which doesn’t mean he really loves her, as her happiness is not his concern at all.
He decides to trick Fanny into accepting his necklace, to make everyone think that she accepted his proposal and put pressure on Fanny. His sister was a willing partner in this. When he finds out that William Price is frustrated in his position in the navy, he uses his influence to get him a commission. The very next thing he says to Fanny is “will you marry me”. What is she supposed to say at that point?
This isn’t coincidence. There is a part where William is telling everyone about his adventures at sea and Crawford is thinking to himself. It’s actually one of the few times in any Austen novel where we get the internal thoughts of a man. It’s fascinating to me because it suggests what Jane actually thought of a person like this :
(from the end of Chapter 24 – Henry is considering why it’s better to be a ‘gentleman of fortune’ who hasn’t actually done anything as opposed to a naval officer like William Price)
“In one respect it was better, as it gave him the means of conferring a kindness where he wished to oblige.”
Henry Crawford knew the psychology of power. He knew that he had the power to give to people and in turn make them feel indebted to him.
When Fanny again turns him down, he goes to Lord Bertram to turn up the heat on Fanny, as Bertram truly intimidates her.
Fanny rejected Crawford because he was a person of very bad character. The fact that he had the affair with Maria is proof of that. Fanny was right, and her courage and judgement is what makes her a quiet hero.
This is a woman that Jane admired and identified with. There are so many elements in this book that have parallels in her life. It’s what makes it a great book.
LikeLike