Jane Austen's Boldest Novel Is Also Her Least Understood

https://archive.is/4f3AY

A book that helped me understand what's going on in Austen the best was titled "Jane Austen and the Fiction of Her Time". Jane Austen loved novels, but was also dissatisfied with what she saw as the flaws of a lot of the novels around her -- both in the plots (unrealistic situations or unrealistic characters), and with the message they were trying to present. So many of the situations are direct allusions to other novels, and many of the main messages are subtle and subversive.

One of the things pointed out about Mansfield Park is that although all ends well for the main characters, it's basically by accident. If Henry Crawford had just gone back to check on his steward, as he knew he should have, he never would have been snubbed by Julia; would never have been tempted by wounded vanity to win her back; would never have run off with her, putting himself completely out of Fanny's reach; and would, in the author's estimation, have won her over eventually. And if Henry hadn't run off with Julia, Mary would never have exposed her lack of principles to Edmund, and they would have been married shortly too.

Aha! Mansfield Park has been my favourite, since the 1980s. Most Austen fans seem to dislike it, and see the central character as weak and insipid. But, I see it as about code switching and timidity, she's clearly an introvert being bullied by the family.

The intrusion of Caribbean wealth is slavery. Edmond should be more overtly concerned about his families wealth, although to be fair it was mainly dissenters who did this, not the recipients of a family living.

She's on the money for naval preferment. Without help, commoner middies didn't make the crucial step up towards post captain. And for preferment, sexual favours by a sister would be common.

One of the minor subplot points in Whit Stillman's movie "Metropolitan" was a couple of the characters' debate over the merits of "Mansfield Park".