I love what everyone is saying about how we all, like Sir Thomas, have our moral blindspots and areas of hypocrisy. Always good to be reminded that we are perhaps, more like the less pleasant Jane Austen characters than we might like to think. Sir Thomas returns the veneer of respectability and good order to Mansfield Park, but he is unable to make his children and their friends understand why their actions were intemperate. He can control them but cannot truly help them to become the people they could or ought to be. One thing I do appreciate about him as a character is that he begins to become better. He has his eyes opened to the true goodness of Fanny, who he has always underrated, and tries to at least fix that failure in his character/responsibilities even if it’s too late to help his other children change course. He also begins to realize how problematic Mrs. Norris is, though I always wish he would try harder to get her cruelty and silliness under control.
I totally missed the slavery question the first several times I read Mansfield Park--it was the movie that sensitized me to it, and though I know Jane Austen dealt with intimate questions, not global ones, I've always wished she were a *little* more forthcoming. Reading again this time, I thought Sir Thomas came across more or less as a decent human being. Flawed as a father--but who isn't? And his idea, of countering Mrs. Norris' excesses by being severe, is a pretty common mistake to make, I would guess. He was carrying all the moral weight on his own, with a useless wife, so I am inclined to be generous for his mistakes. Also, I've always thought Edmund had a moral compass-that it was just clouded by infatuation.
Along with other commenters, I missed the slavery question in my reading. It was really helpful to read the article you linked, Haley, to get a better sense of what was going on and why Austen dropped that seemingly unrelated comment into her story. (Unrelated, maybe: Was she the original Mastermind, from whom Taylor Swift has been taking lessons?)
I was disappointed in the characters who were more bothered that their "bit of fun" got interrupted when Sir Thomas returned home, rather than that they were saved from continuing down a path they should not have been on. For all of Aunt Norris's busy-bodying, I agreed with Sir Thomas that she should have had something to say to the young people about their activities. But also, their own MOTHER should have also been paying attention and guiding them. Who was in charge when Sir Thomas was away??
I appreciated Sir Thomas's delight over seeing Fanny again. I think he set the tone as to her rising place in the family and could have given the others pause as to their behavior towards her. Or maybe that's my own wishful thinking!
My son’s daycare (in London where we live) is teaching him to say “well done me” when he accomplishes something, and sometimes he will shout “I did it! Everyone say ‘well done me’. WELL DONE ME!”
With the return of Sir Thomas, it seems like, after revealing their true character, everyone is forced back into the “normal” flow of life. I’m seeing a theme in this book about characters blinding themselves to the future. Maria doesn’t want to think about her marriage while she is flirting with Mr. Crawford, Mary Crawford doesn’t want to think about Edmund taking orders, Mr. Crawford just wants to flirt with Fanny for a couple weeks and be done. Even Fanny, in a way, seems to have no thoughts for the future. She is a good person, but she just floats along through events, not that she has very much power. I’m very interested to see how it all turns out.
I think Sir Thomas is very much the sort of person, at least so far, who is perfectly happy to sweet uncomfortable things under the rug, so long as it doesn’t disturb his peace of mind. We see this in how he reacts to the play, as well as his very quick turnaround when Maria claims she’s alright with marriage to Mr. Rushworth after all. He seems like a pleasant man, and goes out of his way to not be boisterous or angry, and I don’t fault him for wanting peace and constancy in his own home; but, he’s very willing to sacrifice forthrightness and real concern for the sake of his comfort, a trait that seems to be shared (to a more extreme degree) with his wife.
I will say though that his newfound appreciation for Fanny, and his (attempt at) chiding Mrs. Norris does show some growth, and look forward to seeing how his character develops as the novel goes on. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks?
I love what everyone is saying about how we all, like Sir Thomas, have our moral blindspots and areas of hypocrisy. Always good to be reminded that we are perhaps, more like the less pleasant Jane Austen characters than we might like to think. Sir Thomas returns the veneer of respectability and good order to Mansfield Park, but he is unable to make his children and their friends understand why their actions were intemperate. He can control them but cannot truly help them to become the people they could or ought to be. One thing I do appreciate about him as a character is that he begins to become better. He has his eyes opened to the true goodness of Fanny, who he has always underrated, and tries to at least fix that failure in his character/responsibilities even if it’s too late to help his other children change course. He also begins to realize how problematic Mrs. Norris is, though I always wish he would try harder to get her cruelty and silliness under control.
I totally missed the slavery question the first several times I read Mansfield Park--it was the movie that sensitized me to it, and though I know Jane Austen dealt with intimate questions, not global ones, I've always wished she were a *little* more forthcoming. Reading again this time, I thought Sir Thomas came across more or less as a decent human being. Flawed as a father--but who isn't? And his idea, of countering Mrs. Norris' excesses by being severe, is a pretty common mistake to make, I would guess. He was carrying all the moral weight on his own, with a useless wife, so I am inclined to be generous for his mistakes. Also, I've always thought Edmund had a moral compass-that it was just clouded by infatuation.
Along with other commenters, I missed the slavery question in my reading. It was really helpful to read the article you linked, Haley, to get a better sense of what was going on and why Austen dropped that seemingly unrelated comment into her story. (Unrelated, maybe: Was she the original Mastermind, from whom Taylor Swift has been taking lessons?)
I was disappointed in the characters who were more bothered that their "bit of fun" got interrupted when Sir Thomas returned home, rather than that they were saved from continuing down a path they should not have been on. For all of Aunt Norris's busy-bodying, I agreed with Sir Thomas that she should have had something to say to the young people about their activities. But also, their own MOTHER should have also been paying attention and guiding them. Who was in charge when Sir Thomas was away??
I appreciated Sir Thomas's delight over seeing Fanny again. I think he set the tone as to her rising place in the family and could have given the others pause as to their behavior towards her. Or maybe that's my own wishful thinking!
👏 everyone clap!!
My son’s daycare (in London where we live) is teaching him to say “well done me” when he accomplishes something, and sometimes he will shout “I did it! Everyone say ‘well done me’. WELL DONE ME!”
I love this.
With the return of Sir Thomas, it seems like, after revealing their true character, everyone is forced back into the “normal” flow of life. I’m seeing a theme in this book about characters blinding themselves to the future. Maria doesn’t want to think about her marriage while she is flirting with Mr. Crawford, Mary Crawford doesn’t want to think about Edmund taking orders, Mr. Crawford just wants to flirt with Fanny for a couple weeks and be done. Even Fanny, in a way, seems to have no thoughts for the future. She is a good person, but she just floats along through events, not that she has very much power. I’m very interested to see how it all turns out.
I think Sir Thomas is very much the sort of person, at least so far, who is perfectly happy to sweet uncomfortable things under the rug, so long as it doesn’t disturb his peace of mind. We see this in how he reacts to the play, as well as his very quick turnaround when Maria claims she’s alright with marriage to Mr. Rushworth after all. He seems like a pleasant man, and goes out of his way to not be boisterous or angry, and I don’t fault him for wanting peace and constancy in his own home; but, he’s very willing to sacrifice forthrightness and real concern for the sake of his comfort, a trait that seems to be shared (to a more extreme degree) with his wife.
I will say though that his newfound appreciation for Fanny, and his (attempt at) chiding Mrs. Norris does show some growth, and look forward to seeing how his character develops as the novel goes on. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks?