Jane Eyre vs Pride and Prejudice

I'd have liked Mansfield Park much better if Fanny had married Henry Crawford and Edmond had married Mary Crawford. But the sanctimonious duo end up with each other not because of active pursuit but because everyone else has spent themselves out living life impulsively and passionately.

I don't think Henry Crawford is like Mr. Rochester but there is a point of similarity - they are both men of questionable moral character who are charmed by pure and virtuous women.

Jane Eyre however is nothing at all like Fanny. Fanny is quiet, passive and judgmental. Jane too is a little judgmental, but just the opposite of quiet and passive. She's a firebrand and a rebel. Look at this abused orphan at the age of ten, "John thrust his tongue in his cheek whenever he saw me, and once attempted chastisement; but as I instantly turned against him, roused by the same sentiment of deep ire and desperate revolt which had stirred my corruption before, he thought it better to desist, and ran from me tittering execrations, and vowing I had burst his nose. I had indeed leveled at that prominent feature as hard a blow as my knuckles could inflict; and when I saw that either that or my look daunted him, I had the greatest inclination to follow up my advantage to purpose; but he was already with his mama." Go Jane!

Maybe I do not remember Fanny properly and am misjudging her, but Jane Eyre I can vouch for - I've read it so many times I think I know the book by heart. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'd have liked Mansfield Park much better if Fanny had married Henry Crawford and Edmond had married Mary Crawford. But the sanctimonious duo end up with each other not because of active pursuit but because everyone else has spent themselves out living life impulsively and passionately.

:)

---

Fanny Price and Henry Crawford would have been a match made in hell.

Like Northanger Abbey (Austen's other novel named after an estate), Mansfield Park is a parody of standard literary forms. However, it is more mature and subtle than Northanger Abbey (not to knock N.A., which is hilarious, and was written when Austen was not yet one and twenty).

In the standard romance, the hero goes out into the wide world to seek his fortune. In MP, Fanny Price wants nothing more than to stay home (at her adopted home of MP).

Although Henry Crawford is the villain of the piece, he is set up to resonate as the hero. Austen introduces him as follows: "“To anything like a permanence of abode, or limitation of society, Henry Crawford had, unluckily, a great dislike……” Why, the reader wonders, are Henry's heroic preferences "unlucky"? One possible reason: they are precisely the opposite of Fanny's preferences. Fanny is unadventurous and unsociable. A more unfortunate match can scarcely be imagined.

In an early scene in which Henry Crawford appears, Austen sets up the conflict around which the novel revolves. Mrs. Grant and Mary Crawford are talking about the surprises matrimony may bring: “You are as bad as your brother, Mary; but we will cure you both. Mansfield shall cure you both, and without any taking in. Stay with us, and we will cure you.”

Will the Crawfords change Mansfield (which is Fanny's Eden)? Or will Mansfield change the Crawfords? The whole shebang about the play, -- in which the participants actually DO change Mansfield by turning one of the rooms into a theater -- symbolizes this conflict.

Like Jane Eyre, Fanny Price is an abandoned child, searching for a home. Fanny has neither the spunk nor the physical courage of Miss Eyre, but her quest is no less poignant, and far more realistic. Fanny is a shrewd moral observer, when it comes to the Crawfords, or her own parents, or (even) Tom. But she (as is the case with Austen's other heroines) is blinded by her affections and desires for a home.

Here Fanny and Edmund ride back to Mansfield from her parents' house in Portsmouth:

Quote:

---

“They were in the environs of Mansfield long before the usual dinner-time, and as they approached the beloved place…..her pleasures were of the keenest sort. It was three months, full three months, since her quitting it, and the change was from winter to summer. Her eye fell everywhere on lawns and plantations of the freshest green; and the trees, though not fully clothed, were in that delightful state when farther beauty is known to be at hand, and when, while much is actually given to the sight, more yet remains for the imagination. ”

---

Clearly, Mansfield is an Eden to Fanny, despite being funded by slave labor in Antigua, and being ruled by an unloving and dictatorial Sir Thomas. But Fanny wants nothing more than the approbation of Sir Thomas, despite the fact that his failings as a father are clear, and he never really loves Maria or Julia.

At the end of the book, Sir Thomas exiles Maria, and learns to love Fanny. "Fanny was indeed the daughter that he (Sir Thomas) wanted. His charitable kindness had been rearing a prime comfort for himself..." Sir Thomas, of course, lacks "charity". His kindness did provide him with a prime comfort, but charity (St. Paul tells us) "never faileth". In fact, St. Paul claims that charity "beareth all things" and "endureth all things" (presumably even such horrors as adultery). It is Mary Crawford (whom Edmund wishes had felt "modest loathings" at her brother's adultery) who wants what is best for her brother -- and even for Maria -- not Edmund, and not Sir Thomas. It is Mary Crawford whose love "never faileth". Sir Thomas' "charitable kindness" (is the word, so familiar from the King James Bible, chosen at random?) turns out to be merely "rearing a prime comfort for himself".

I don't blame Fanny for any of this, though. She is never more admirable than when she faces Sir Thomas's demands that she marry Henry Crawford, and simply says, "I - I cannot like him, sir, well enough to marry him." However well we readers might like Henry Crawford, Fanny is correct and honorable in refusing him.

Fanny loves Edmund because from when she was a child, he was the only person in the house who treated her with consideration as a person in her own right. If that is to be self righteous prig, then the world needs more of them.

She has seen Henry playing off Maria and Julia while ignoring her. Not surprisingly, she is not likely to be impressed when he tries to woo her having up to then ignored her.

I would like to add this to the discussion if I may be so bold (and a bit mischievous) ?

Can preferring one to the other, (Austen Vs Bronte, Jane Vs Elizabeth) be a Class thing, or indeed a North/South divide question ? I am from the North of England and working class - I much prefer the Bronte`s works to Jane Austen`s. I am not suggesting that it IS a class thing, but I wonder, is there something going on which subconsciously makes me feel this way ? :crazy: Does anyone else think this way ?

I'm a northerner and live in Bronte country, but I much prefer Austen. I see what you mean though about the class thing, you often find scornful comments of Austen's own narrow and privileged situation, and that of her heroines. A bit unfair I think, the Brontes were not exactly working class - nor were their subjects. Austen does appear more genteel, but she has a steely edge she barely keeps sheathed.

But your question was about the reader - I'll have to think about that.

Tam Lin has an interesting point, but the difference is not primarily class or geography, to my mind. Both heroines marry landed gentleman and the books are set in the same social milieu. I don’t think the geographical setting is significant.

E P Thomson in The History of the Working Class spends some time discussing the Bronte’s political sympathies, which were Tory. Apparently in Charlotte’s Shirley the working class agitators are regarded in a hostile light.

The difference between Austen and C Bronte I’d suggest is personality. But I’ll post about that later.

Without any evidence at all, apart from the tone of her book, I feel that Anne was a Liberal and was disaproved of by Charlotte.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonathanB

Fanny loves Edmund because from when she was a child, he was the only person in the house who treated her with consideration as a person in her own right. If that is to be self righteous prig, then the world needs more of them.

She has seen Henry playing off Maria and Julia while ignoring her. Not surprisingly, she is not likely to be impressed when he tries to woo her having up to then ignored her.

---

That was teenage me, couldn't talk to any girl I fancied.

I don't think Henry ever has any problem talking to anyone he wants. He didn't talk to Fanny because he was amusing himself with Maria.

My theory about the difference between the two authors can look like the class/north/south thing for reasons of their personality.

Jane Austen with her awareness of social distinctions and concern for appropriate social behaviour can appeal to snobs or at least the stereotype of the effete Southern middle class.

Jane Eyre’s feistiness and refusal to fit in could well appeal to the stereotype of Northern combative working class.

Edmund is a kind teenager; he is seldom as attractive as when he helps Fanny write the letter to her brother. All credit to him.

Fanny's secret love for Edmund protects her from Henry Crawford. Who knows if she would have been as judgmental about his behavior had her heart been unprotected? Some readers see Fanny as an astute, impartial observer. I see her as more like Austen's other heroines -- influenced by her own prejudices and desires.

Charlotte Bronte and Jane Austen were both the daughters of impecunious clergymen. Charlotte married in her late 30s, and died soon after of runaway morning sickness. Jane died of (probably) Addison's disease. They were both 39 (I think) when they died. So they were both the single (for most of their adult lives) daughters of relatively poor clergy.

The Bronte family met tragic ends: only Charlotte lived to see 31. Austen's siblings were more successful financially (and in terms of their health); one of Austen's brothers rose to the rank of Admiral in the British navy. Economically, England was changing from a rural, Regency society (for Austen) to a more financially diverse society (for Bronte), so class consciousness was changing as well. Nonetheless, Elizabeth Bennet would have been almost as impoverished as Jane Eyre, once her father died, if she hadn't found a husband. We are invited to scoff at Mrs. Bennet's husband hunting, but what loving mother would do otherwise?

Clergymen, however, were "gentlemen" in both societies, however rich or poor they might be. A pound might have been worth $100 in Austen's days (and slightly less in Bronte's), based on today's American money. So Darcy's 10,000 ponds a year was equivalent to $1,000,000 a year. There can be no direct comparisons, however, because goods were relatively expensive, and labor and food (servants, etc.) very cheap. I remember in some Victorian novels a good horse might cost between 50 and 100 pounds, which is almost as much as a decent (used) car today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Fanny's secret love for Edmund protects her from Henry Crawford. Who knows if she would have been as judgmental about his behavior had her heart been unprotected? Some readers see Fanny as an astute, impartial observer. I see her as more like Austen's other heroines -- influenced by her own prejudices and desires.

---

I have only read it a couple of times, and some time ago, but I think Fanny is simply wrong for today's reader. We like our heroines assertive and sexy, like Emma for instance - which is ironic because Austen said with Emma she created a heroine no one would like. As I remember Fanny gets her desires by waiting patiently and doing nothing to promote them. She is never active on her own behalf, she is completely selfless. Its an overtly christian moral tale, she knows her place, she waits and waits she is good, then everything falls into place for her. it's unsatisfying.

I have to say that I identify with Fanny far more than Lizzie or Emma. But that says something about me.

Elizabeth Bennet is the World's darling (and with good reason), and Emma shares her active nature, pride, and intelligence. Catherine Morland has a heart of pure gold (and transparency). Fanny is quiet, observant, and little used to expressing her firmly held opinions. In this sense, she is like Anne Eliot. But everyone loves Anne. When she goes out to her sister's in-laws, everyone wants to talk to her. When she visits Lyme, Benwick and Mr. Eliot are instantly attracted to her. Although she is (at home) almost as quiet and disregarded as Fanny, she has a genuine desire to please others. She plays the piano for hours so that her beloved Captain Wentworth can dance with Henrietta and Louisa Musgrove. I can't imagine Fanny doing that -- she would go to her room with a headache.

Fanny is a bit of a prim spoilsport -- not so bad that we must dislike her for it, but the contrast with Anne makes it clear. Perhaps when she reaches Anne's age, after several years of happy marriage, she will develop some of Anne's quiet social confidence.

p.s. What's wrong with putting on a play? I'll grant that the shenanigans surrounding the play at Mansfield were unseemly, but we know that the Austen family put on family theatricals regularly when Jane was a girl. What is Austen getting at here? Is she opposing what we moderns would call "role playing"? Does it symbolize the Crawford's battle to either change Mansfield or be changed by it?

That the play is so obviously inappropriate to Edmund, Fanny and Sir Thomas is the hardest thing to take about the book (as well as the Bertram's financial security being built on the slave trade.)

That is far more of a difficulty for me than the character of Fanny.