You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
3.5 stars
My second read as I follow along with The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) movie (it started as a Hugh Dancy thirst watch, but I don’t think I could classify it as a joke anymore). I was supposed to have Mansfield Park done in March, but my Virginia Woolf course got in the way. I don’t think that this break in the middle of the novel made me dislike it more than I would have, but there’s no way to know.
Mansfield Park should be shorter. That specific brand of Jane Austen humor was there, but it gets lost in Fanny and Edmund’s constant “oh i’m such a good person, and all of you are wicked” morality. Fanny’s was an interesting viewpoint to read from. I related to her in many ways, but I don’t think I like her. Are we supposed to like her? Are we supposed to want to be as upstanding as her? I, for one, would have wholeheartedly taken part in the play.
Overall, though, Mansfield Park was enjoyable and wholesome to read—especially nearing the end when I feel like Jane Austen realized how much she still had to wrap up and did it as quickly as possible by quickening the pace. Even though I did not fall in love with it, I found this peek into the domesticity of all those connected with Mansfield to be quaint and charming. It’s the sort of thing that envelops you and makes you feel like you’re being hugged (if you ignore the Alabama-ness of the ending and the of-the-time sexism throughout), and I think everyone should read Jane Austen because of that.
Now, onto Northanger Abbey which promises to be my favorite!
My second read as I follow along with The Jane Austen Book Club (2007) movie (it started as a Hugh Dancy thirst watch, but I don’t think I could classify it as a joke anymore). I was supposed to have Mansfield Park done in March, but my Virginia Woolf course got in the way. I don’t think that this break in the middle of the novel made me dislike it more than I would have, but there’s no way to know.
Mansfield Park should be shorter. That specific brand of Jane Austen humor was there, but it gets lost in Fanny and Edmund’s constant “oh i’m such a good person, and all of you are wicked” morality. Fanny’s was an interesting viewpoint to read from. I related to her in many ways, but I don’t think I like her. Are we supposed to like her? Are we supposed to want to be as upstanding as her? I, for one, would have wholeheartedly taken part in the play.
Overall, though, Mansfield Park was enjoyable and wholesome to read—especially nearing the end when I feel like Jane Austen realized how much she still had to wrap up and did it as quickly as possible by quickening the pace. Even though I did not fall in love with it, I found this peek into the domesticity of all those connected with Mansfield to be quaint and charming. It’s the sort of thing that envelops you and makes you feel like you’re being hugged (if you ignore the Alabama-ness of the ending and the of-the-time sexism throughout), and I think everyone should read Jane Austen because of that.
Now, onto Northanger Abbey which promises to be my favorite!
funny
lighthearted
medium-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
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Although this is my least favorite austen book so far (have yet to read sense and sensibility), i enjoyed reading it more than i expected, given how i keep reading mixed reviews of the book.
It follows one Fanny Price, an underprivileged girl who has to leave her poor parents to live with her much more affluent relatives, and how that shapes her life.
The best part of this book is Fanny Price (duh). She is one of the sweetest, nicest and kindest female protagonists ever. I loved how her character evolved and she is so resolute, resilient and unyielding when it comes to her own feelings and matters that are important and life-changing.
Unfortunately, the male characters are just so dull and boring (for my liking) with no redeeming qualities whatsoever (except William price and maybe Sir Thomas).
It follows one Fanny Price, an underprivileged girl who has to leave her poor parents to live with her much more affluent relatives, and how that shapes her life.
The best part of this book is Fanny Price (duh). She is one of the sweetest, nicest and kindest female protagonists ever. I loved how her character evolved and she is so resolute, resilient and unyielding when it comes to her own feelings and matters that are important and life-changing.
Unfortunately, the male characters are just so dull and boring (for my liking) with no redeeming qualities whatsoever (except William price and maybe Sir Thomas).
The story explores the class politics, societal disparity, and marital expectations that come with love and does so beautifully.
The very thing i had problem with is that the romance of the main couple (if you would even call it romance) is very underdeveloped, and felt very rushed and forced (my guy was calling her his sister just one chapter before they officially got together) There were no grand declarations, trembling confessions, heartwarming gestures and endless pining. (the austen fan in me who actively expects them in her books was severely disappointed but we move)
Nonetheless, i would highly recommend it if you are into classics like i am.
The very thing i had problem with is that the romance of the main couple (if you would even call it romance) is very underdeveloped, and felt very rushed and forced (my guy was calling her his sister just one chapter before they officially got together) There were no grand declarations, trembling confessions, heartwarming gestures and endless pining. (the austen fan in me who actively expects them in her books was severely disappointed but we move)
Nonetheless, i would highly recommend it if you are into classics like i am.
All the Austen wonders, but a teeny bit over-long and a disappointingly flat ending
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Che fastidio che vanno sempre tutti contro a Fanny, mi facevano venire un nervoso giuro
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
ive now read all of austens major novels other than sense & sensibility... wow. and although I may LIKE the other novels I've read more I think mansfield park is the most interesting.
first of all it is long af. and it is easy to get weary bc setting is so limited in scope, kind of like in emma, but emma's actions drive the plot of the novel while stuff just happens to fanny, her life is so small, so insular, that it honestly reads like a horror story of someone who has no control over their fate.
I wonder why austen chose to create a meek protagonist like this. you really get the sense that fanny is completely beaten down by her aunt's constant pointed reminders of her low status compared to her cousins. so she just tries not to be noticed or make herself visible. she actually has very few lines of dialogue compared to everybody else. I feel like austen has deep sympathy for her, and as a reader I did too, but through her lack of dialogue it feels a bit like the author is complicit in the narrative's minimizing of her, almost? you can definitely see, though, why fanny is the way she is. I found it hard to dislike her, despite her moral high handedness and tendency to judge everybody. after all she really is quite perceptive and observant of peoples emotions and their character. she reminds me of people I've known, or even myself at different points in my life, and she ends up feeling like a realistic portrayal of somebody in her situation.
mary crawford is my favorite character in this book and now one of my favorite austen characters ever like I have a TON to say about her that I won't get into rn but it is interesting that despite not being a protagonist she has a lot of the traits of other austen protags... she's outspoken and witty and tries to take action to change her world in some way. but she is destined to because within the diegesis of the novel she is fatally flawed; she's excessively irreverent (and she's not as good at reading people as she thinks she is but I digress) , she doesn't put stock in the sanctity of things like marriage, with her mercenary attitude towards it, or the church. and obviously she and her brother are londoners. it makes me wonder wtf austen is trying to say about london bc the novel has a very "London city folk are Corrupt in the soul and only the people of the country, spared from the insidious urban influence, are truly noble" vibe??? but it's austen so there are definitely layers.
there is just soooo much to analyze in this novel and its characters, in the awkward and strange place fanny is caught in, between being destitute and privileged, in her interactions with mary and her Stockholm syndrome-like love for mansfield, in its disturbingly passive mentions of the slave trade, in Maria and Julia's fates and the role of women in this society... in how stupid af Edmund is even. like!!! he misses SOOO MANY THINGS that fanny catches and yet to her he's still kind of a god who will always be her teacher. this book kind of makes me want to be back in college so I could write a paper or 10 about it.
as exemplified by the london thing it's a little one note/black and white in its treatment of morality. or is it?!?!!? after all fanny is such an unreliable narrator. idk. can we bring back austen from the dead so I can interview about this. agh. anyway I am constantly astounded by her ability to portray emotions and probe deeply into the internal worlds of so many lifelike characters and it will always be a pleasure to read her.
first of all it is long af. and it is easy to get weary bc setting is so limited in scope, kind of like in emma, but emma's actions drive the plot of the novel while stuff just happens to fanny, her life is so small, so insular, that it honestly reads like a horror story of someone who has no control over their fate.
I wonder why austen chose to create a meek protagonist like this. you really get the sense that fanny is completely beaten down by her aunt's constant pointed reminders of her low status compared to her cousins. so she just tries not to be noticed or make herself visible. she actually has very few lines of dialogue compared to everybody else. I feel like austen has deep sympathy for her, and as a reader I did too, but through her lack of dialogue it feels a bit like the author is complicit in the narrative's minimizing of her, almost? you can definitely see, though, why fanny is the way she is. I found it hard to dislike her, despite her moral high handedness and tendency to judge everybody. after all she really is quite perceptive and observant of peoples emotions and their character. she reminds me of people I've known, or even myself at different points in my life, and she ends up feeling like a realistic portrayal of somebody in her situation.
mary crawford is my favorite character in this book and now one of my favorite austen characters ever like I have a TON to say about her that I won't get into rn but it is interesting that despite not being a protagonist she has a lot of the traits of other austen protags... she's outspoken and witty and tries to take action to change her world in some way. but she is destined to because within the diegesis of the novel she is fatally flawed; she's excessively irreverent (and she's not as good at reading people as she thinks she is but I digress) , she doesn't put stock in the sanctity of things like marriage, with her mercenary attitude towards it, or the church. and obviously she and her brother are londoners. it makes me wonder wtf austen is trying to say about london bc the novel has a very "London city folk are Corrupt in the soul and only the people of the country, spared from the insidious urban influence, are truly noble" vibe??? but it's austen so there are definitely layers.
there is just soooo much to analyze in this novel and its characters, in the awkward and strange place fanny is caught in, between being destitute and privileged, in her interactions with mary and her Stockholm syndrome-like love for mansfield, in its disturbingly passive mentions of the slave trade, in Maria and Julia's fates and the role of women in this society... in how stupid af Edmund is even. like!!! he misses SOOO MANY THINGS that fanny catches and yet to her he's still kind of a god who will always be her teacher. this book kind of makes me want to be back in college so I could write a paper or 10 about it.
as exemplified by the london thing it's a little one note/black and white in its treatment of morality. or is it?!?!!? after all fanny is such an unreliable narrator. idk. can we bring back austen from the dead so I can interview about this. agh. anyway I am constantly astounded by her ability to portray emotions and probe deeply into the internal worlds of so many lifelike characters and it will always be a pleasure to read her.