Talk:Mansfield Park

Quality of plot summary

This displays poor reading judgement: Sir Thomas is not "stern" - he is firm but caring, for example; similarly Edmund's motivation in agreeing to act is crucial, but omitted; I could go on. This really needs to be re-written from scratch by someone better able (it reads like a summary from a hasty c1900 "great books" encyclopedia.)

Sir Thomas is precisely what "stern" means. It is not inconsistent with caring. Zaslav (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Popularity?

Under the heading critical appraisal we have this: "Mansfield Park is one of Austen's least popular works". One can make a distinction between quality and popular so I am not upset that Mansfield Park is being dissed here, although I should point out that Kingsley Amis, in his essay Whatever Became of Jane Austen, first page, says "There is something to be said for the view, held by rational critics as well as by mere going-through-the-motions appreciators, that Mansfield Park is the best of Jane Austen's works."

Anyway, not having been an English major, I am not up on what is. I suppose that it is true that is is her least popular work but could we have a citation?

My copy is in storage right now, but in its introduction, the writer called it the least popular of Austen's novels (saying its preachy and prudish tone put readers off). If I can find out which version I had and who wrote that line, I'll put it in the article. | MrDarcy talk 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the least popular - but I think the statement needs to be qualified, as it is also one of the most challenging novels that has received a large amount of critical interest. Perhaps it would be good to mention that people have found it difficult to reconcile the rather more rebellious, mocking and glittering independence of heroines such as Elizabeth Bennet with the stoical, Christian independence of Fanny?

I think "one of the least popular" also sounds strange because there are only six altogether. Wouldn't something like "perhaps the least popular" be better, with a reference?ProfPirate 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Will and Ariel Durant seem to like Mansfield Park better than Pride and Prejudice in their discussion of Austen in The Story of Civilization - they find the plot of Pride and Prejudice improbable (although they make it rather more improbable than it actually is through their rather typical errors of fact in describing the plot), and feel that Mansfield Park is a better plotted and more believable work. Is this an older critical view which has, in more recent years, been rejected? Or is this just a Durant idiosyncrasy? (The Age of Napoleon, the volume from which it comes, was published in 1973, but the Durants' taste was probably pretty firmly set by the 1920s or so - they were really old by the 1970s). At any rate, if there was an older critical view that Mansfield Park was Austen's best work - as the Amis quote seems also to suggest - it might be worth a quote. john k 08:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the book isn't very popular because everyone is expecting a love story and it is not. I find I am not a great fan of Miss Price either but what an incredible book! The skill with which Austen draws her characters and how they all interact with each other - and Mr Crawford is amazing. I doubt there is a cooler bad guy in her books. He is infinitely more sophisticated than Wickham, much more sexier than Mr Eliot, and way smoother than Mr Churchill. I honestly find that Mansfield Park is her best book. I like that there is less caricaturing and less comedy. I like that it is serious because I think she has much more serious content in the book. She is discussing, I think how people play with other peoples lives, affections and status - for amusement. Auchick (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Price

Jane Austen's own mother thought Fanny "insipid," and many other readers have found her priggish and unlikeable. (See here for the opinion of Jane Austen's mother. See here for a description of the many criticisms of Fanny Price—such as "insignificant", "moralizing prig", "feeble", "dull", or "nebbish"—on the AUSTEN-L mailing list, ironically presented by a defender of the character.)

I'm a bit surprised how enthusiastically some users here defend their negative view of Fanny Price. But anyway, the thing is that the passage about Jane Austen's mother does not belong here.

To make this clear: It's absolutely right that many modern readers feel uncomfortable with Fanny Price. But I see no point in mentioning this widespread disapproval twice. The sentence above already states:

Many modern readers find Fanny's timidity and disapproval of the theatricals difficult to sympathise with, and the idea (made explicit in the final chapter) that she is a better person for the relative privations of her childhood rather unpleasant.

Don't forget that this is an encyclopaedic article, NOT a Fanny-Price-hatesite!

And honestly, what's the deal with mentioning what Jane Austen's mother thought about this matter? If the intention was to point out the influence the mother might have had on Jane Austen's works it would all be fine and suitable. But her personal point of view has no relevance whatsoever. No one would give a damn what Charles Dickens' great uncle might have thought about Oliver Twist. The same goes for Jane Austen's mother. Besides, the listing of invectives used against Fanny Price in the citations is completely unnecessary.--Sokrat3000 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fanny wars continue! Anyway, the article already contains a number of very favorable comments about Fanny:

"Despite often being unhappy during her childhood, Fanny grows up with a strong sense of propriety and virtue."

"However, her [Fanny's] genuine gentleness and kindness cause this plan to backfire."

"But Fanny holds her ground, knowing that she has acted correctly."

"She [Fanny] shows courage and grows in self-esteem during the latter part of the story."

Sokrat3000 rightly says that the article should not be a Fanny hatefest. But neither should it be a Fanny lovefest. The article should present a balanced view of Fanny Price. The fact that Jane Austen's own mother disliked the character is relevant to the discussion because it was the view of somebody extremely close to the novelist, who wasn't afraid to tell her daughter face-to-face about her unfavorable opinion of Fanny Price. I was asked to supply a citation for this quote, and I did. I also supplied a citation which discusses how controversial Fanny Price is...and this controversy seems to have spilled over into Wikipedia.

I have partially reverted. I left out the list of unflattering descriptions of the character, though there are, as we have seen, many very flattering comments about Fanny interspersed throughout the article. I have no intention of refighting the Fanny wars that plagued AUSTEN-L, but the article should be roughly balanced with both favorable and unfavorable views of this character. I believe the article as it stands is now reasonably NPOV on this most controversial aspect of the novel. Casey Abell 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Casey Abell on this one. This is precisely the place for critical and popular opinions of the novel, its plot, and its characters. Mentioning the controversy over the character once in the intro and again in the section on the book's reception is appropriate. I think the current version - now properly sourced - is NPOV. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I never intented to start a "Fanny war". I haven't even noticed that there was one going on. I simply had some problems with the mention of Jane Austen's mum and I thought that the passage partly repeated the sentence above. But if the balance of positive and negative statements about the character is so important to you I have no objections to this being mentioned twice.

Of course, I could also start to be a quibbler and point out that all the quoted "pro-Fanny"-statements are from the section Plot. Well, it's just logical to present the plot from the author's point of view. And it was Jane Austen who considered Fanny Price to be a person of great virtue.

By the way, two of the quoted sentences don't even contradict your critical view of the character. If you consider Fanny to be insipid and priggish it does not prevent her from being gentle and growing in self-esteem.

The appraisal of the character, however, belongs to the section Critical appraisal. I think there is even a slight prevalence of negative appraisal there, but never mind.

So I have no objections against the second part of your sentence (though I don't agree with it) but the part about the mother still sounds inappropriate to me. Your answer left me wondering if you really considered Jane Austen's mother to be relevant or if, in fact, your intention was merely an act of counterbalance. Jane Austen had six brothers, one sister and many friends and each one must have had his own perception of her novel. But is this really important concerning the novel? I don't think so as I don't see any influence of her readers' reactions that might have caused her to alter her style of writing in her last novel. I remember having once read that Jane Austen stated that she liked Mansfield Park best of all her novels.--Sokrat3000 12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment from Jane Austen's mother demonstrates how controversial Fanny Price was from the beginning, and the disagreement about her has only grown over time. Lionel Trilling was intentionally exaggerating when he said (in the essay mentioned at the very end of the article) that nobody likes Fanny Price, but the cited website shows how many readers have found her, well, less than appealing. I'm pretty neutral on the issue. As you say, Fanny can be considered insipid, priggish, gentle and growing in self-esteem all at once. The article now offers a reasonable balance of opinion on the character.

By the way, Trilling's exact comment was: "Nobody, I believe, has ever found it possible to like the heroine of Mansfield Park." Again, that's an obvious and conscious overstatement. But he went on to defend Fanny Price and the novel in general. The essay is worth reading, though detractors of the novel and its heroine will probably not be convinced by Trilling's sometimes convoluted defense, especially after he concedes so much to those detractors in the beginning of the essay. Casey Abell 12:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery reference in Mansfield Park

I have concerns about the following sentence from the article:

"Claire Tomalin, following literary critic Brian Southam, points out that Fanny, usually so timid, questions her uncle vigorously about the slave trade and receives no answer, suggesting that her vision of the trade's immorality is clearer than his."

Tomalin does not use the word "vigorously." Tomalin's exact wording is as follows:

"Brian Southam has suggested that her question [Tomalin quotes Fanny's question to her uncle] is met with dead silence because Sir Thomas could not answer her to his own satisfaction, being necessarily a supporter of the slave trade, and that by raising the question at all, Fanny bravely makes her own abolitionist sympathies clear" (Jane Austen: A Life, p. 233).

Furthermore, Austen's text does not support this reading. The exact quote is as follows:

"But I do talk to him more than I used. I am sure I do. Did not you hear me ask him about the slave–trade last night?"

"I did — and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther."

"And I longed to do it — but there was such a dead silence! And while my cousins were sitting by without speaking a word, or seeming at all interested in the subject, I did not like — I thought it would appear as if I wanted to set myself off at their expense, by shewing a curiosity and pleasure in his information which he must wish his own daughters to feel" (Mansfield Park, chapter 21).

Austen does not portray Fanny as "question[ing] her uncle VIGOROUSLY." This wording gives an inacurate portrayal of what transpires in that scene, so I have deleted the word "vigorously" from the article.

Thank you BellyOption 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you-- I did not remember it being very vigorous at all and your quote above backs that up. It's only in that awful adaptation that they did in the 90s that it plays such a prominent role. plange 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Vigourous criticism and Fanny Price hardly belong together in the same sentence, particularly bearing in mind the terror with which she regards Sir Thomas. --131.111.8.99 11:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Austen’s text does not support the notion of Sir Thomas being implicated in the slave trade at all. In fact, it implies just the opposite. Why, if Sir Thomas were involved in the slave trade and unwilling to talk about it, would Edmund assert that Sir Thomas would have welcomed being questioned on the issue further? Similarly, why would Sir Thomas wish his daughters to show more curiosity about the matter, if he were in fact try to dodge the subject altogether? The entire exchange between Fanny and Edmund would make no sense if in fact her uncle were on the defensive about slavery.

From the exchange, it is clear what occurred: Fanny asked her uncle about the slave trade. He answered her and would have welcomed a follow-up question. But Fanny’s cousins Maria and Julia (and maybe Tom) were profoundly uninterested (and still brooding over the loss of Lovers Vows), thus the “dead silence.” And as Fanny explains, she didn’t want to put herself forward by seeming to be more interested in their father’s opinions than her cousins themselves were. Thaale 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In general I would agree - but for the fact that he went to Antigua for so long, where his estate there likely had slaves. However I am no scholar in Antigua at the time so I cannot be certain that it was definitely the case. Also Fanny knew Sir Thomas would know something of the slave-trade. Austen wants us to be thinking of the slave-trade when we are reading the book otherwise she wouldn't have put the line in there at all. She wouldve asked him instead what the weather was like in Antigua instead perhaps - or what the sugar industry was like or whatever he did in Antigua. The other implication that Austen may be making regarding even having Fanny ask Sir Thomas at all about it is that the rich tend to treat the poor as slaves to some degree. For instance, Fanny is pulled out of her childhood home without reference to how she may feel on the subject. Her parents were happy to have one less mouth to feed. Is Austen saying that slaves are better off because they are useful to the rich like Fanny is supposedly better off by being with the Bertrams? Fanny makes herself useful to her family by being an ever present reminder to have her uncle help her brother in his career. The uncle willingly takes her sister Susan into the household... hence there is one less mouth to feed in Portsmouth. Auchick (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the 'vigorously' reference, I find that the characters seemed to be described according to some film adaptation also. Auchick (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This article isn't neutral at all.

• Correct. The article makes numerous inaccurate claims about Edward Said's interpretation of Jane Austen. For example: "Said was relentless in his attacks against Austen, depicting her as a racist and supporter of slavery whose books should be condemned rather than celebrated." This is totally false as a description of what Said actually wrote. Said himself praises the novel in Chapter 2 of Culture and Imperialism even as he teases out its relation to the geopolitics of its moment; in fact, he argues against more radical critics who would condemn the book wholesale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A051:85F0:ED02:790D:E043:50E8 (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Southam and Moody

I have a problem with this part, as it seems clear that Southam's implication is simply wrong - it takes part of the book out of context and creates a false context for it which simply cannot be supported from the text. Moody is clearly right that we can't tell anything from this passage about anyone's view of the slave trade. Sir Thomas himself may very well oppose the (Transatlantic) slave trade even as he makes his wealth from slave-farmed plantations in Antigua. Or he may view the (then recent) abolition of the slave trade as a terrible business which might ruin him (the fact that his business prospects have recently diminished, and forced him to go off to Antigua for two years, or whatever it was, would suggest at least the possibility that abolition has hurt him financially). At any rate, I think Said's point is significant enough to stay, but I think the whole discussion of Fanny's question about the slave trade should be gotten rid of. Mentioning it, when any fair reading of the text pretty clearly shows that Southam is simply wrong, is to give a false impression, even if we then quote Moody to the effect that Southam is wrong. If it is to stay, would it not be preferable to get a quote from Southam himself, rather than quoting him second hand? john k 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Marriage between cousins

This plot is built around an attraction between first cousins, resulting in marriage. This is currently often discouraged or prohibited. It would help modern readers understand the plot, to know what the situation was then, in England, for various classes. And how this book was received then, in this regard. -69.87.200.152 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was and is quite common among that class for cousins to marry. Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma Edgewood in 1831, 16 years after this book was written. In addition Joshia Wedgewood (Emma's brother) married Caroline Darwin (Charle's sister) thus they too were cousins. See the Darwin family tree.

Only lately in America is cousin marriage somehow looked down on as improper. But currently it is legal in 19 states, and another seven permit them under special circumstances. This means that cousin marriage is legal in 26 states a majority.

In 1911 the Roman Catholic church considered it incest. See the Catholic Encyclopedia

Nick Beeson (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fanny's Age

I am reading Mansfield Park. My edition (Tally Hall Press, Ann Arbor, 1997) in chapter 4 at the begining of the fifteenth paragraph has this "and Fanny had just reached her eighteenth year." This is on page 44 out of 528. So 92% of the text takes place in Fanny's eighteenth and nineteenth years. I change the incorrect assertion that the book takes place in her 15-18th years. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I am unsure why people think Fanny is so virtuous. She is envious, wrathful, forgives some people with exactly the same faults as others she doesn't. Austen was too shrewd not to flaw Miss Price, as she flawed all her other heroines. She did this to make her heroines interesting and something for us to see how they develop. Anyone thinking Fanny is virtuous probably thinks Mary Bennet is intelligent and accomplished.

Fanny is intelligent and she can see through Mr Crawford and Mr Crawford sees through her. I think we are meant to compare and contrast the difference between Henry Crawford and herself.

I also think Fanny is a fly on the wall, if you will, watching what is happening in the Bertram family.

We are meant to compare and contrast the differences between her and her Aunt Norris, who, in their different ways are dependent on the Bertrams, Mrs Norris because she is sponging off them to pad her own income, each year being able to put away a little extra. Fanny is completely dependent upon the Bertrams, after all Mrs Norris has 700 pounds a year and really could support herself quite well, if she needed to. Fanny is closer to being a 'slave', and her function seems to be reinforce the Bertrams and Mrs Norris of their superior positions in society and the world. After all it was Mrs Norris' idea to raise one of her poor sister's children. But at the same time Fanny makes herself indispensable, both to the family and to her Aunt Bertram who needs company when the others go out, whereas the loss of Mrs Norris is no loss to the Bertrams at all.

Another recurrent theme of Austen's is that we are greatly influenced by those we associate with. For instance Miss and Mr Crawford have course opinions and behaviour as a result of their living with their nasty uncle. Auchick (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mansfield Park Is Jane Austen's Most Ambitious Book

It is a really clever book. A lot of complex characters. A really good book for someone wanting to understand the Regency period and dawn of the modern age. For J.A. to want to use a quiet person in a passive role as the main character, makes it a very difficult thing for a writer to pull off for an entire book and makes Fanny Price a difficult person to call a heroine.

On the slavery issue. J.A. has deliberately made Sir Thomas's wealth due to his plantation in Antigua. I think it's probably because she wanted the character removed from the book for a period of time. She could have chosen any other reason for his absence. Sir Thomas is described as a charitable man who doesn't know how to display affection at the beginning of the book. J.A. brings him back a better man, he is then far more open in manner to his home and all his family.The book published in 1814 is not about slavery, (abolition act in 1807) nor is it about revolution (waterloo 1812) It is about love and lust. J.A. has to confront the issue at the beginning of chapter 21 by having Fanny question sir Thomas. It is mentioned as a reported event in conversation with Fanny and Edmund. J.A. is getting Fanny to ask a question she has insufficient knowledge to answer herself. Sir Thomas's answer is not recounted although it is clear he gave one. The silence is that of everyone else in the room and their shock. Edmund says he wishes she would have asked more questions even though he had said nothing himself. Khufu1 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The battle at Waterloo occurred in June 1815. I do agree that this novel is all about how people interact with each other. The only ties to the war are the two brothers of Fanny wanting to be sailors. The elder brother sails all over the world, as we learn in Patrick O'Brian's historical fiction about the Royal Navy in that long, long war. In Persuasion, the war is more visible, in the description of how captains succeed. But in both novels, those large world political issues were not the stuff of everyday life in a wealthy country house, and not the stuff of her novels. Yes, she needed the father to be away at the critical time for his daughters, as of course the story would have been different with him at home. If slavery was outlawed in 1808 then it would have been a polite topic on which to ask a question, it having been settled nationally. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What is Jane Austen's view on slavery?

Despite what a Wikipedia contributor has added, about Edward Said's opinions, Jane Austen apparently disapproved of slavery.

• "All the evidence says that even the most routine aspects of holding slaves on a West Indian sugar plantation were cruel stuff. And everything we know about Jane Austen and her values is at odds with the cruelty of slavery. Fanny Price reminds her cousin that after asking Sir Thomas about the slave trade, “there was such a dead silence” as to suggest that one world could not be connected with the other since there simply is no common language for both. That is true." [1]

I didn't have to search very long to find this quote; I just googled "mansfield park slave fanny colony" and took the first result.

To be neutral, the article should include all relevant points of view. Did Edward Said condemn the book and approve it? If so, we ought not to quote only his disapproval. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

. . . no one objected, so I added Said's other quote. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks to Steve for removing the bit about the 1999 film; I added a short reference in the TV & Film section, which is all that is required. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on edit: [18:04, 10 August 2019‎ 45.119.203.106 The idea that Said thought Austen's work should be "condemned" is not present in the given source, and is contradicted in said's own writing (p. 96 of Culture and Imperialism). The tone of sentence was also needlessly inflammatory.] This deletion seems eminently reasonable. The opinion is probably that of Windschuttle, but this section needed shortening and Windschuttle, while entertaining, is not always reliable.Petrosbizar (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox template

"Infobox template in need of a 1st Edition Cover" It was published before "covers" - this is meaningless - can someone who knows how, remove this tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.176.232 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Done GrahamHardy (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research in slavery discussion

I've flagged one paragraph — in the discussion on Austen's attitude towards slavery — as original research. The paragraph makes some excellent points about the role of the external world in Austen's novels, but it cites no sources for the discussion. If it's the contributor's own analysis, then it belongs in a different medium (such as a blog posting). David (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary is too long, so are many character descriptions

I put a flag on the Plot summary, which is more than twice as long as Wikipedia suggests, see WP:NOVELPLOT. Even with all that detail, several of the character descriptions retell the plot, rather than describing the character concisely. Maria Bertram is one example, as is Julia Bertram. I worked on some of the references, mostly all with full information, save one marked as needing more from the editor who added it, and one with a dubious isbn. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation issues, can you help?

The incomplete citation: I found the citation for David Selwyn 2005 page 341? in the Symbols section, but the edition of the book I found on line does not match the incomplete citation left by a previous editor. Editor did not provide isbn, indicate publisher, hardback or paperback. World Cat shows the table of contents for the hardback in 2005, where this essay begins on page 354, close but not a match to page in text. This comment follows the citation for Selwyn 2005 page=341? in the html edit text: -- isbn is for hardback, can someone check page? This section begins on page 354, after the page indicated by a prior editor, who left incomplete citation. -- oops forgot to sign my post --Prairieplant (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A further look at the Jane Austen article Sources section for the dubious isbn and the World Cat table of contents for that book, gets the question down to two essays in the book Jane Austen in Context, for the confused citation. The author listed in the borrowed text wrote a different essay. Or put another way, the essay title given has a different author. When the editors working on Jane Austen (in Published author section of that article) clarify which essay and which author is wanted, then that citation in Literary reception for Mansfield Park, first paragraph, can be cleared up. Presently it is marked with Full citation needed in this article. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Prairieplant, it says you copied from this version of Jane Austen to this article, but it's very confusing to understand what you've done. The version you copied from had been edited by Ceoil but I seriously doubt he added citation templates, yet you added them throughout without gaining consensus and now there's another mess. I've fixed Sutherland which had the wrong title (copy/paste error, sorry about that). I've not yet ordered Todd from the library to check pages to the sources so it might all change once I have that book in hand. Fergus is wrong in the Jane Austen article - I have the 2014 edition, the cites and ISBN and page numbers are for an earlier edition, so they don't yet match up. I was in the process of fixing when I got interrupted but will do it as soon as possible. It takes some concentration to read the article's text and find the correct page number in the book and then change in the article, so I probably won't have the time to get to it for a few days, but thanks for the reminder. Essentially, to be very frank, what this underscores is the danger of copying text from one article (which is actively being worked) to another and changing the citation style - all in a single edit. Victoria (tk) 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No dangers, Victoriaearle. It was simple, I copied two sentences that had four references attached to them. You can see the two sentences here with edit view, as I left a comment next to them as the opening paragraph of the Literary reception sectio, or look at the last two sentences of the first paragraph of section 1.8 Published author in Jane Austen#Published author. That is it. There are two valid citations on the those sentences, which is enough to start, for sure. Now three, with the correct title for Sutherland, all is well. Fixing reference formats to include all the necessary information is mechanical stuff to do, like making sure each isbn points to that book, that each url goes somewhere logical and that each reference is complete. You can see a worse problem left in the paragraph that opens this section of the talk page, where someone left a page number without specifying the edition of the book at all. Maybe it will get straightened out, but the editor who left that error did not much care. I know you are working to get references straight, so it will all work out in time for those four, or three references in due time; you said you were working at your own pace. I have no idea who edited this article before; I suspect many people stopped by and made changes, as one person has come by and added links to the lead today since I stopped. The sentences needed to be in this article, and they were already well written and cited, precisely about this novel in Jane Austen. RexxS taught how to put the box on the talk page to keep it honest. I had known how to indicate translated texts from French Wikipedia, now from English as well. The need I saw is this: It is basic to start the Literary reception story from first publication, and the article was missing that, starting the topic from the 1970s. Now it starts from publication, first need met. Second, that same text backs up what someone else put in the lead about the success of the first print run. I tried to make that plain in my edit descriptions. Not to worry. There is always time, and all these other readers stopping by this article. Glad to know that it was the right author, wrong title for the essay. This article is not long enough for that system you use at Jane Austen, so it has the usual format for references from books, journals and text found on web pages. Some references were to the exact same page in one reference three times, but the refs were not written up the same, so I used ref name= to make clear they are from the same exact source. I am not up for a format fight at all, and this change was done by the rules. It was fun to see the whole table of contents of a book on World Cat, first time I encountered that option there, seeing a lot about a book without holding the book in my hands. Always more to learn. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Prairieplant, the Selwin attribution was added in this edit on 27 Aug 2010 and in that format it's fine, providing title of book and author (Todd) and page number where it can be found. That edit was still in place yesterday in this version. In this edit it was flagged as needing a full citation, though the book, author and page number are correct. This edit supplies the title "Consumer goods" (an essay Selwyn wrote in Todd) yet the page numbers don't match, and there's a long inline comment. The problem is this: if you search Todd's book on google books (it's here ) and input "card game" in the "search in this book" field on the left column, the result returned is here, and we can determine that the page number is correct, as made in the original the edit six years ago and in place until yesterday. We also see that the author is quoting Selwin. If you believe, as you wrote above that "This article is not long enough for that system you use at Jane Austen, so it has the usual format for references from books, journals and text found on web pages", then it would be best to have left the ref alone, because it was right. If you want to use the "system" I use on Jane Austen, and in most of the articles I write, then we have to figure out who wrote the essay that's on page 341. Because this book is viewable on google books, that's easily done by looking at the second page of the table of contents, shown here, and there it shows that Penny Gay's essay titled "Pastimes" is in that page range. Without having the book in hand (which is always my first preference), we can assume since the material being sourced is about card games, that it makes sense to be in an essay titled "Pastimes". The system I use (which you say you don't want to use) splits essays out by author, but that relies on having to be able verify, and as this big long post (and the big long posts above) show, that requires being able to see all the pages in a book - either having it in hand, or being able to view on g-books (which is unreliable), or on Questia, or elsewhere - instead of relying on a questionable bibliographic entry from a website (WorldCat sometimes returns errors). Also, since we can see the title page of that book, it's best to use that ISBN. If has to be converted to the 13 ISBN, I'd suggest running it through this conversion tool, [2]. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Victoriaearle My change to the ref for the quote attributed to Selwyn was to find the essay. When I came upon the article, the ref said Todd and Todd is the editor, not the author of the quote. That is not a sufficient cite to me, missing the essay title, Selwyn's name if Selwyn is the person as the text says or whoever is the author quoting Selwyn, and missing the ISBN to identify the book. I use the Book Sources page and then World Cat to test out ISBN values, for what is found in the libraries of the world. With a few other resources when needed. I hope it is clear to you that I DO want the essay title in the citation, and it did need changes. I had not found the book as a google book, so I am grateful for that information and will hunt for that quote so it may be correctly attributed. I use cite formats, as that is the Wikipedia style, but I like them to be complete and accurate. Re the infobox, many articles/many editors use the preceding/next book for authors who did not write in series but wrote more than one book. It is rather convenient, and for the author of six full novels, makes it clearer how the one book a person is reading fits in the scheme. But I am sure you will keep reverting. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Prairieplant, a significant number of ISBNs are wrong, including on Google. When trying to identify an essay, the best way is to look at the book (preferably in hand), including the table of contents. In this case, it's clear that Selwyn isn't the author because the text says "[a]s David Selwyn argues". It would be better to cite him directly. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I found a copy of Jane Austen in Context and have cleared up the reference issues in Literary reception section. Thanks for the pointer to the google book, which helped in figuring out too many ISBN for what seemed one book. It was published in 2005 and again in 2006, with a new ISBN and a new cover image, so that small mystery is solved. I added a quote from Fergus regarding selling out the first print run, as her essay is the one with the numbers remarked. One other sentence added about the 1821 review before the Literary reception section is taken over by the slavery issue and the counter positions. Selwyn issue is also cleared up, using his book and the essay that quotes him for the point about Symbols. If you doubt any of the ISBN, click on them and see where Book Sources brings you, using Open Source or World Cat. I have checked every ISBN in this article, and every link to a web page, updating a few of the links for the adaptations. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Victoriaearle Another reason to make use of the followed by, preceded by is for all those people who read the articles on their mobile phones. The nice summary that appears at the bottom of the articles when shown on a lap top or desk top computer, listing all her novels, short novels, juvenilia, all the articles about Jane Austen, that does not appear on the mobile phone version of Wikipedia. The infobox does appear on the mobile phone, and a reader can go from the article about one novel to the next with little effort. I am new to the world of mobile phones, but even with larger computers, I make much use of that feature in the infobox. Something to consider. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The template documentation indicates that follow by/preceded by should only be used for series, not for connecting separate books. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of the name "Fanny"?

Okay, I know that Fanny is a nickname for Frances. I also know that Fanny Price prevailed by essentially sitting still. She didn't take to the roads like Jane Eyre did. She sat on her fanny! Has anyone read anything about the choice of the name, "Fanny", or read where literary scholars have discussed it? Did "Fanny" also bear that slang meaning (aka: derrière) back in Austen's time? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ashanti

@A.S. Brown: In what way does the comment about the Ashanti enslaving other Africans provide meaningful "context" about Mansfield Park? This seems like a textbook case of WP:OR. If a reliable source thinks that's an important thing for someone reading Mansfield Park to know, then they'll say so. To me it just reads like a WP:POINTy "see, colonialism isn't real, black people took slaves too." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

'Improvements' to the writing

I was surprised by how many typos and grammatical errors there were in this article. I have made a start on corrections, improvements and on the unravelling of convoluted sentences. Hopefully this will bring much useful material to the surface. I will try not to distort or destroy worthy material. (It's a bit like the challenges to Austen's landscape gardeners!) I have also introduced sub-headings with a view to clarifying content. These sub-heads are not necessarily permanent.

I have added a new section on 'theatre' which is currently based on the Mansfield Park section of Antitheatricality. I intend to expand and modify this a bit further.

I also intend to work on the section about 'slavery' which is currently quite confusing, probably unbalanced, and probably contains excess material and unnecessary repetitions. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE
I have now completed the main phase of the above. I have concentrated on the 'commentary' but then revised the lead to reflect more accurately the balance of content. There was a lot of interesting and useful information, and I hope the landscape is now considerably improved. There are still some sections where the content seems less than satisfactory to me, but as I do not have access to the source documents I have resisted the urge to rewrite. (Occasionally I have deleted, but have left explanations in the notes for anyone who might want to restore.) I will still contribute from time to time.

I have added more space (Capability Brown and Repton would approve). I have also introduced a number of illustrations (less Repton, more Victorian gardening) which both help to break up the text, and add some markers along the way. The pictures may help the casual reader to explore further and delve deeper. Petrosbizar (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the section attributed to Susan Morgan which reads:
"A telling example of Mary’s character occurs when she says"Look, where I will, I see that it is so; and I feel that it must be". She assumes that what she sees before her is all that will ever be, and the possibility of anything else existing does not occur to her."
I have done so because, as it stands, it is unclear. It relates to a discussion about marriage in MP ch.5, but the interpretation does not work. It is probably much clearer in Morgan's essay and could be restored if clear justification can be provided.Petrosbizar (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

the section seems very long. Might I suggest a split to Themes of Mansfield Park or something like it? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you mean by the long section. Rather than guessing, could you clarify a bit further. Thanks Petrosbizar (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, judging by the eye test, I would guess that up to half or three-quarters of the page is devoted to the "themes" of this novel. I would be proposing a content split, see WP:CONSPLIT, maybe putting a shorter summary of some of the major themes often discussed or analyzed and going into more detail in the split article. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is worth exploring. I will have a look at WP:CONSPLIT and then make some comments. Petrosbizar (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Content split?

I have given some thought to your suggestion of a content split but have not come to any final conclusion. So, here are some of my reflections.

a) The novel is far more than its Plot Summary and its List of Characters. The discussion of 'themes' brings out some of those things that make the novel so significant. And since MP has been so controversial, it is inevitably longer than the discussion of Austen's other novels.

b) However, commentators are not only those who exegete the text and its context in a relevant way. There are those who are significant in the history of criticism but not so relevant for today's readers, and also those who impose their own agenda on Austen's work. Some fall into more than one such category. For example, Edward Said might be considered to misunderstand Austen, but his position has been very influential. Some, like Auerbach, exaggerate, have important things to say, but can be incomprehensible. It might be worth having a simplified version of 'themes' for the main article and more comprehensive discussions for the 'themes' article, but that would be quite a challenge.

c) There ares issue about maintaining some compatibility with the Austen collection. There are already a number of 'spin-off' articles from MP, in particular several of the main characters, e.g. Fanny Price. These appear to be start-class, about 10 years old, and of mixed quality. There is also a 'Reception History of Jane Austen' rated as Featured -article, but back in March, it was of very mixed quality. I attempted to improve some of its grammar, punctuation etc, but it still needs more work. It might be that other editors could review the way the entire Austen group works (or fails to work).

d) MP, like other Austen novels, is rated B-Class. This universal rating seems a bit arbitrary, possibly generous. I assume both the main article and its split, would have to be re-rated. (I've never split an established article before.) I assume also, to be faithful to past editors and maintain its editing history, the split would start as a duplicate of the original and then be cut down to its focus on themes.

e) My provisional conclusion is to leave things as they are for now, but to continue editing in a way that might make a division more realistic as a creative development.Petrosbizar (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: WP:MOS:NOVELS states that the THEME is the most important section of the page because it details the "meat" of the novel. Petrosbizar (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Are the critics reliably quoted?

I have been concerned that distortions may be present in the way some of the critics' views are represented. It can happen only too easily, either when summarising a complex viewpoint, inadvertently quoting out of context, or in a re-edit that cannot be checked against the original material. I have now tracked down a version of Edwards' essay, and am making appropriate revisions to his material as represented here. Editors with access to other critics quoted in the article, especially those in the essay compilation edited by Harold Bloom, are invited to do further checking.Petrosbizar (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Modifications to the lead.

Phinumu (talk) I'm rather belatedly responding to your revert of the lead (lede). Guidance for the content of the lead is as follows:

"The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more."

It "should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any."

Further information: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Lead section

The material you reverted was designed to follow that advice. In the few days the new material was there, pageviews rose by 50% from the average 600 to 900. It is just possible that was a coincidence though it is a very unusual pattern. I am therefore intending to restore that material (and will continue to monitor pageviews). If you are unhappy with the restoration, we can discuss the details here and come to an agreement on any modifications.Petrosbizar (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My main objection is to the tone, as it sounds more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. WP:TONE says, "Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations. This is generally true of question marks (?) as well; do not pose rhetorical questions for the reader." If there's a way to cover the same points with encyclopedic tone, that seems like it would be better. I also think the section titles that are questions should be rewritten. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the explanatory supplement article and its para on TONE. I agree entirely about exclamation marks, and also that it is 'generally true of question marks'. I agree too that this questions the use of a question for the Fanny Price subhead. The difficulty for me is that there is a tension between this principle and other principles. Regarding "Who is Fanny Price?, this subhead is effectively an abbreviation of the first quote which identifies one of the great debates amongst critics about this novel. Regarding the Lead, again I am describing a summary of questions that are the subject of critical controversy about the novel and which are dealt with at length in the main text. I have tried to express them as indirect questions. They are themes, not questions posed by the editor. I will restore my original material, monitor the pageview count, and look into reducing or eliminating the question marks. But I do think it is important in the lead of a long article to signal that there are interesting topics to explore. I will report back here when I think I am done.Petrosbizar (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

1999 film and Said

How is the 1999 film repudiating or disagreeing with Said about the novel? It seems to be explicitly an endorsement of Said, doesn't it? "If Jane Austen had really thought about slavery in the book, she would have depicted Sir Thomas like this, not like she does in the book." This section ought to be reworded. 2601:41:4000:E790:415C:30C3:EA2A:CEE3 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this para is confusing and needs revising. It seems to be the result of gradual abridging of an overlong section on Said which references Windshuttle's article. The original simply argued that Rozema's film drew attention to Said's thesis. However, I'm not clear what you mean by your sentence in quotes. Rozema made it clear that her interpretation of the novel expressed her own views, but while her representation of Sir Thomas is quite different to Austen's, it can be reasonably argued that she is making explicit the implicit anti-slavery views of Jane Austen. Petrosbizar (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported opinion on "priggishness"

The following is personal emotion, historically inaccurate, and irrelevant to Fanny's character. I removed it from the article.

Her father's attitude is one that modern readers might also condemn, given the tone of incestuous sexual harassment in a man who scarcely notices her except "to make her the object of a coarse joke".

Zaslav (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Zaslav (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References