I read Mansfield Park to impress my wife. Never again!

I have to say, I’ve enjoyed watching the films based on Jane Austen novels, especially Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet.

I read Mansfield park, and I will read it again!  It is an excellent work of art the delves into the heart of the nature of man.  Fanny is an excellent, and believably human portrayal of that long-suffering lover who is always happy for the beloved’s joy, even if that joy is at the expense of the lover.

Not to mention, the less scrupulous characters are perfect examples of attitudes and conceit that we should all be careful to avoid.

I find Fanny rather annoying. She should have married Mr. Crawford; the story was clearly going in that direction before Austen wrenched it away. One of her few flawed storylines.

Mr. Crawford’s a cad.  You think she’s annoying because you’re jealous of her goodness, I’m sure.  Don’t be a hater.

Love, love Jane Austin!  All her books are good, but I love Pride & Prejudice the best! I’ve read Pride & Prejudice probably around 20 times.  The BBC’s mini-series of it is THE best.

I don’t think the theme of Pride & Prejudice is so much that “People can change. And love prompts good actions.”  It was originally titled “First Impressions” for a reason.  The real point is that people are not always what they seem on first impression, for good and bad.

It is not that either Mr. Darcy or Elizabeth really changes their core character.  But their perceptions of each other change as they get to know each other better and that is reflected in their later behavior.

Maggie, I don’t totally agree with you, but it always bothered me that Edmund had the blindness and weak character to fall for Miss Crawford.  To think he would actually have married her had she not dropped the bomb on his family. He never seemed worthy of Fanny’s love. Obsessive Jane Austen rant over :^)

Hey, didn’t Elizabeth Bennett marry Mr. Darcy for his money?  Her whole attitude changed once she saw Pemberley…

I mean, she found out he wasn’t the cad she took him for.  But what prompted the love, exactly?  It seems like Pemberley; they’re all talking money from the start of the book to the end.

Well, Anon {SPOILER ALERT}:

Elizabeth’s heart first softens when she finds out the truth about his sister’s past situation.  She realizes that he had not acted as dishonorably as it was claimed by Wickham.  And while she is impressed with Pemberly what really impresses her is the way he treats his servants, his sister, and her relatives when she runs into him there.  Then what seals the deal is when she learns that he went above and beyond to save her family’s reputation.

Elizabeth’s main concern was making a love match.  She could have had a very comfortable life (and eventually been mistress of her childhood home) if she married Mr. Collins but she detests him.  She would have married Wickham, a mere soldier, if he hadn’t dumped her for some one wealthier and had she not learned his true character from Darcy.

Money is an important plot point because if Mr. Bennett dies his wife and daughters will be penniless and homeless.  They are wealthy enough to have a small estate with a few servants, but none of the girls have enough of a dowry to make them appealing to many men at or above their current station.  The mother is determined to marry them off to avoid poverty, and if she can marry one of them off rich then she knows that she will be taken care of when her husband dies.

There are multiple examples of reasons for marriage:  love, lust, compatibility, station in life, and female security.  Elizabeth and Jane marry for love to men who happen to be wealthy.  Lydia marries for lust.  Charlotte Lucas marries for security without love or compatibility.  And Mr. and Mrs. Bennett offer an example of marriage originally based on lust (his side) and social climbing (her side) that is just a shell with little love or compatibility.

@Anon; I think you’re being a bit simplistic. Lizzie had read his letter at Hunsford explaining his actions long before she saw Pemberly. Additionally, at Pemberly she had heard the report of his housekeeper about his kindly behaviour toward those who were under his authority. Additionally, she reflects during the housekeeper’s tour that his rejection of her family meant she could not have been mistress of that grand estate. When Darcy behaves courteously toward the Gardiners, Lizzie is surprised. However, it is only when Darcy humbles himself to save Lizzie’s (& incidentally Lydia’s) honour that she truly feels affection and admiration for him. Even then, she only comes to this new state of mind after being wholly convinced that Darcy is beyond her reach for ever. His wealth doesn’t hurt but it is his character (after it has matured somewhat) that seals the deal.

Re Austen and money:  We also have to keep in mind Austen’s practicality: she understands the importance of virtue, and as Eamonn notes, a close look at the story shows that she always gives it highest priority. But it’s not a disembodied virtue, and Austen is too realistic to pretend that in Regency society it’s easy for a woman to marry a poor man (or, for that matter, for a man to marry a poor woman—the monetary considerations go both ways in this period, although it’s still a harder road for women). Actually, it’s arguably a strength of her stories that she shows how virtue can be kept a priority (and the consequences of not keeping it a priority) even in the face of considerations about how you are going to avoid destitution. (Also, that Elizabeth is not merely marrying for money is precisely the point of Mr. Collins—the Bennett girls will be inheriting next to nothing, because it will all go to Mr. Collins. By refusing Mr. Collins, who is already well-off and will only grow more so, Lizzie is passing on any certain chance of a comfortable life.)

Re Mansfield Park: Mansfield Park is my favorite Austen novel. I think precisely Austen’s point is to subvert our expectations. Fanny, who weeps at the drop of a hat, is the strongest character in the book; she’s exactly the sort of person we would expect to be mocked if she showed up in Pride and Prejudice, but here she carries the day. The Crawfords are precisely the sort of people everyone tends to regard as wonderful—friendly, outgoing, fun, charming, clever, in many ways decent—but they are weak in an essential point of character—not wicked, but with a flaw compared to which all their charm and excellence is secondary. And so forth. It’s part of Austen’s greatness that she not only wrote the consummate novels of the English language, she also wrote the consummate answer to superficial readings of them, the ones more wowed by Elizabeth’s wit and liveliness than by her character, or by Emma’s charm and cleverness than by her capacity for good friendship.

I’ll admit that I’m not ‘well read’ like my wife who would read constantly if she could. When we were courting, I asked her for a list of her favorite books so that I could read them.  A couple of them were Jane Austin novels and I nearly called off the wedding over them - who would want to marry someone that reads and enjoys that kind of stuff!  (OK, I didn’t actually consider calling off the wedding, but I still think the books were a waste of a tree!).  Maybe if the woman would get to the point and the characters wouldn’t require 6 pages to say “Good morning” to each other they would be more tolerable because they’d be about 20 pages each.  Maybe if they weren’t all so stuck on themselves and worried about their social position.  Maybe if the books didn’t glorify people’s ability to cut each other to the core through the use of words the would be of value.  A book that teaches or offers a lesson is a good thing, but if it offers a positive at the cost of teaching negatives, the net benefit is neutral or in this case negative so they are on my children’s ‘do not read’ list until they are adults. They can go read Beowulf instead

Sheesh…Long-winded responses…but…
Her stories are timeless classics that reach into the hearts of the young (especially young women) and remind them that being virtuous and holding out for real love is so worth it. And her stories shed light on the fact that our society is so sadly removed from such times.
I find myself wishing I could be like Jane Bennett and thinking well of people and being so “good” as Elizabeth says. LOVE her novels.

Many wonderful, insightful comments. I will say only that Jane Austen is too often labeled not only a “woman novelist” but also a “woman’s novelist”, causing too many men to ignore her. I have read her works many times over, and have learned far more from her than I have from two of my other favorites, Melville and Dickens. After a half-century of Austen reading, I’ve come to the conclusion that she is the greatest English-language novelist, one of the few who will still be read 500 or 1,000 years from now.