Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I went into Mansfield Park with low expectations since I know that this is generally Austen’s least liked work, but now that I’ve finished it I can say that I had nothing to worry about. This book was laugh out loud funny several times. I’ve heard people complain about Fanny, but I love her—I also like avoiding things that give me anxiety until they simply go away on their own without me having to do anything that changes my routine.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Emotional abuse
emotional
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Is it just me or is every character in this book kind of annoying?
funny
hopeful
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I'm not quite sure about this book...
it had some good lessons about life and perspective as well as the nature of people but overall, I found the ending just kind of drifted away, as though it was heading somewhere but stopped and suddenly the book was over.
It is a beautiful book and I cannot fault it other than the lack of the story being wound up (which is just a personal thing) I feel that there could have been more, which is in my opinion the tell of a good book.
it had some good lessons about life and perspective as well as the nature of people but overall, I found the ending just kind of drifted away, as though it was heading somewhere but stopped and suddenly the book was over.
It is a beautiful book and I cannot fault it other than the lack of the story being wound up (which is just a personal thing) I feel that there could have been more, which is in my opinion the tell of a good book.
3.5. The whole section about the play was a slog, but it picked up in the second half of the book. Not my favorite Austen, but still worth a read and better than Sense & Sensibility :)
UGH. I mean, with all due respect to Miss Austen, UGH. Getting through this book was like knawing through a chunk of cement. The writing style is so blocky, and yet also so headache-enducingly painful. If 'Persuasion' is Austen at her cleanest, most succinct and most romantic, 'Mansfield Park' must be Austen at her sloppiest, most long-winded and weirdest.
Let's break this down into a few points: 1. Fanny is the original Debbie Downer. She cries about everything, and is both pitiful and spongelike. What an odd choice of protagonist when so many other of Austen's heroines are just so much more interesting. Fanny Price has the charisma of a wet towel someone has left on the bed overnight. I get that she is the model of propriety amidst an island of misfit toy asshole characters, but still -- if this is the hero I'm supposed to root for…God help me.
2. Edmund. Let's talk about what a toolbox Edmund is. He never really says, "Hey sorry I was a smug, pressuring d-bag and tried to nag you into marrying Henry. You were right, that guy was a complete ass. I'm glad you held your ground and kept refusing his proposals of marriage, even when ALL OF US PEER PRESSURED YOU INTO DOING IT". Also, the relationship between him and Fanny is borderline incestuous since they are cousins that have been raised as siblings (the cousins part I could forgive, but the siblings part is…yech.) And the fact that Edmund only kind of sees Fanny as a possible love interest in the last two seconds of the book feels like a throwaway plot point. She's absolutely a consolation prize thrown in at the 11th hour, mostly because all the other women in the story are either Edmund's biological sisters or they're Mary Crawford, who's a crazy b*tch. So, when there is nothing better around, go for Fanny.
3. The novel is strangely paced. About 60% of the time, the plots unfold at the speed of smell, with extremely long and meandering conversations (if I ever had to be in the same room as Mary Crawford in real life I think I'd Vincent van Gogh myself and voluntarily remove my own ears to avoid listening to her talk). Then, as if realizing she still has a great deal of plot points to wrap up, Austen crashes her way through the last 2 chapters at break-neck speed, making the last fifteen pages of the book more or less feel like you're reading word diarrhea.
Jane Austen is a better writer than I am, and will ever be. I am in no way dismissing her as one of the most brilliant minds in literature. But JAYSUS this book was horrible and I hated it and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.
Let's break this down into a few points: 1. Fanny is the original Debbie Downer. She cries about everything, and is both pitiful and spongelike. What an odd choice of protagonist when so many other of Austen's heroines are just so much more interesting. Fanny Price has the charisma of a wet towel someone has left on the bed overnight. I get that she is the model of propriety amidst an island of misfit toy asshole characters, but still -- if this is the hero I'm supposed to root for…God help me.
2. Edmund. Let's talk about what a toolbox Edmund is. He never really says, "Hey sorry I was a smug, pressuring d-bag and tried to nag you into marrying Henry. You were right, that guy was a complete ass. I'm glad you held your ground and kept refusing his proposals of marriage, even when ALL OF US PEER PRESSURED YOU INTO DOING IT". Also, the relationship between him and Fanny is borderline incestuous since they are cousins that have been raised as siblings (the cousins part I could forgive, but the siblings part is…yech.) And the fact that Edmund only kind of sees Fanny as a possible love interest in the last two seconds of the book feels like a throwaway plot point. She's absolutely a consolation prize thrown in at the 11th hour, mostly because all the other women in the story are either Edmund's biological sisters or they're Mary Crawford, who's a crazy b*tch. So, when there is nothing better around, go for Fanny.
3. The novel is strangely paced. About 60% of the time, the plots unfold at the speed of smell, with extremely long and meandering conversations (if I ever had to be in the same room as Mary Crawford in real life I think I'd Vincent van Gogh myself and voluntarily remove my own ears to avoid listening to her talk). Then, as if realizing she still has a great deal of plot points to wrap up, Austen crashes her way through the last 2 chapters at break-neck speed, making the last fifteen pages of the book more or less feel like you're reading word diarrhea.
Jane Austen is a better writer than I am, and will ever be. I am in no way dismissing her as one of the most brilliant minds in literature. But JAYSUS this book was horrible and I hated it and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.
So much going on in this book. Throughout the first part part I couldn't help being struck by how little humanity really changes over time. The competition and vanity and petty jealousies of youth have always been there, it seems. It took me about 200 pages to find Fanny interesting, and then she became equally annoying. This ideal vision of demure, innocent, weak, principled to her own detriment; of feminine perfection made me want to howl in opposition. The themes were interesting, the characters complex, and by the end, I had even mastered the language. I enjoyed the summation at the end, and if Fanny's getting her heart's desire annoyed me just a tiny bit at the end, I couldn't help rooting for her some of the way.
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Ack. As much as I wanted to love this book as much as Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Sanditon, or Northanger Abbey, Mansfield Park didn’t measure up. I was so bored and skimmed through the second half just to finish up and find out what happened. Even with skimming, the plot still took FOREVER.
Here’s my rating system for this book:
1. Is the writing style professional, understandable, and entertaining? Definitely not my preference. Jane Austen tends to have long, wordy sentences that take far too long to get through and I feel like I’m stumbling over them when I read them in my brain. I get that this partially has to do with the era she lived in and language then, but for me, getting through it was a S T R U G G L E.
2. Are the characters relatable, round, deep, and interesting? Yes, Jane Austin often does a good job at interesting and deep characters. I really like how Fanny’s backstory basically involves her trying to stay out of the way and be sweet and good for her aunt and uncle because she really wants everyone’s approval and to not be a burden. This manifests itself later in life when Fanny feels the need to base all of her decisions off of others and assumes herself to be the least important in the room. That’s why it’s such a critical moment for her when she refuses to marry Mr. Crawford even against the will of her uncle Sir Thomas.
3. Are there important and interesting themes, motifs, subtext, and lessons learned, whether obvious or subtle?
Yes. I’m sure I didn’t even pick up on half of them (since I skimmed A LOT) but I love how Jane Austin incorporates the culture she lived in, flawed and humorous as it was, to give us a peak at what life was like. What has society learned from this time period and what mistakes do we keep repeating? The classism really gets me in her novels. It’s really funny yet also fascinating how people can divide themselves up so easily based on their class, and base all of their critical opinions of others on these factors.
4. Is the plot creative, interesting, well-developed, and unpredictable? Disappointingly, no. Wayyy too many chapters covering unimportant events (how many covered the silly little play in the beginning again?) stretched on forever. When something interesting did happen, it was anticlimactic and easily foreseeable. I know the adultery in the end was supposed to be shocking and dramatic, but the way it was written just felt bland.
5. Is this a book I would want to own or read again? Sadly, I don’t think I’d read this book again.
Here’s my rating system for this book:
1. Is the writing style professional, understandable, and entertaining? Definitely not my preference. Jane Austen tends to have long, wordy sentences that take far too long to get through and I feel like I’m stumbling over them when I read them in my brain. I get that this partially has to do with the era she lived in and language then, but for me, getting through it was a S T R U G G L E.
2. Are the characters relatable, round, deep, and interesting? Yes, Jane Austin often does a good job at interesting and deep characters. I really like how Fanny’s backstory basically involves her trying to stay out of the way and be sweet and good for her aunt and uncle because she really wants everyone’s approval and to not be a burden. This manifests itself later in life when Fanny feels the need to base all of her decisions off of others and assumes herself to be the least important in the room. That’s why it’s such a critical moment for her when she refuses to marry Mr. Crawford even against the will of her uncle Sir Thomas.
3. Are there important and interesting themes, motifs, subtext, and lessons learned, whether obvious or subtle?
Yes. I’m sure I didn’t even pick up on half of them (since I skimmed A LOT) but I love how Jane Austin incorporates the culture she lived in, flawed and humorous as it was, to give us a peak at what life was like. What has society learned from this time period and what mistakes do we keep repeating? The classism really gets me in her novels. It’s really funny yet also fascinating how people can divide themselves up so easily based on their class, and base all of their critical opinions of others on these factors.
4. Is the plot creative, interesting, well-developed, and unpredictable? Disappointingly, no. Wayyy too many chapters covering unimportant events (how many covered the silly little play in the beginning again?) stretched on forever. When something interesting did happen, it was anticlimactic and easily foreseeable. I know the adultery in the end was supposed to be shocking and dramatic, but the way it was written just felt bland.
5. Is this a book I would want to own or read again? Sadly, I don’t think I’d read this book again.