Every time I read an 記事 または review about Jane Austen's 1814 novel, "MANSFIELD PARK", the authors of these 記事 always コメント on the unpopularity of the novel's leading character, Fanny Price. I could say the same about most 記事 and reviews on the novel's テレビ and movie adaptations. Time and again, both critics and others claim that most Austen ファン have a low opinion of Fanny Price. At the same time, these same commentators like to point out the popularity of the novel's antagonists, Henry and Mary Crawford.
The first time I had come across such a statement about Fanny Price and the Crawfords, I decided to 検索 for further 記事 that verified these claims. In all honesty, I have come across at least less than a half-a-dozen 記事 または blogs that either criticized Fanny または praised the Crawfords to the sky - especially Mary Crawford - または did both. But most of the 記事 and reviews I have discovered usually followed this structure:
1. Fanny Price is very unpopular with Austen fans.
2. The Crawfords - especially Mary - is very 人気 with Austen fans.
3. The authors claim that they harbor the same opinions, until recently.
4. The authors eventually state that they believe Fanny Price is a misunderstood character and praise her character to the sky as a paragon of virtue and courage.
5. または the authors would point out Fanny's personality flaws and claim that Austen used as some kind of metaphor for eighteenth century morality play, または etc.
6. Bring up the Crawfords and reveal how degenerate they really were, despite any virtues they may possess. Both characters have been called the worse names in an effort to make Fanny look good.
I like to call the above structure または formula - "The Defense of Fanny Price Campaign". And most 記事 I have read about "MANSFIELD PARK" usually follow this formula. In fact, I have come across so many 記事 of this nature that I now have doubts that most Austen ファン really dislike Fanny または even like the Crawfords.
I am well aware that Mary and Henry Crawford were flawed. And I believe that Austen did an excellent job of making their flaws rather obvious. On the other hand, I believe that she did a pretty good job in portraying their virtues, as well. Fanny Price was no different, in my opinion. Mind you, I found her rather dull at times. But I have never dismissed her on those grounds. Fanny did have her virtues. But I believe that she also possesed flaws. And like the Crawfords, she never overcame hers によって the end of the novel. But whereas Austen literally ignored Fanny's flaws によって the end of novel . . . and gave her a wide berth, she castigated the Crawfords for failing to overcome their flaws. Many critics and ファン who have 投稿されました 記事 in the very fashion I brought up, also did the same. And so did the movie and テレビ adaptations.
This is the main problem I have about "MANSFIELD PARK". If Austen had been willing to acknowledge Fanny's flaws (let alone those of her cousin, Edmund Bertram), I would have never found it difficult to enjoy the story. I suspect that "MANSFIELD PARK" could have easily been one of those novels that explored the complex nature of all of its major characters without labeling one または two of them as "villains". または . . . if she really wanted to villify the Crawfords that badly, she would have been better off portraying them as superficial, one-note characters.
But what I find really frustrating is this so-called "Defense of Fanny Price" campaign that seemed to have swamped the Internet for the past four-to-five years. によって utilizing the structure that I had earlier pointed out, these critics and ファン seem willing to turn a blind eye to Fanny's flaws; at the same time, castigate Mary and Henry Crawfords as villains on the same level as George Wickham of "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE". Of all the 記事 I have come across about the characters featured in the 1814 novel, only one has seemed willing to view them all as morally complex and ambiguous. If there are other "MANSFIELD PARK" 記事 of similar nature, I can only hope that someone would inform me.
