#it’s like. you’re reading about his infatuation with Fanny and you almost want to root for him!!

[whenthegoldrays]

The thing that drives me crazy about Henry Crawford is that he almost made it. He almost changed. A bit more restraint, a little more core morality, and his life could’ve been so different. Everything could’ve been so different.

[incorrectprideandprejudicequotes]

You said: "Mansfield Park is probably the bleakest of Austen novels, and I particularly wished a very specific thing had turned out differently, even though I get why it didn’t, but to me it is a great book" I really want to know what thing you're talking about! Though I have some ideas of course.. Please explain yourself, I am keen to listen :)

Hi anon! I’m glad you’re interested in listening what I have to say.

For those of you who haven’t read Mansfield Park yet and don’t want spoilers, I advise you not to read the rest of this post.

So, what I wished that had turned out differently was Henry Crawford’s story. I really hoped for the reformation of his character. I liked how he went from just wanting to mess with Fanny to genuinely falling in love with her and having, to some extent, transformed. Of course, old habits die hard, and his old ways were stronger than the new conduct he had adopted in his pursuit of Fanny’s affections.

While Austen’s novels aren’t romantic stories, even though romance plays a part in them, Mansfield Park is the least romantic of all of her books. I think that this is probably why so many people dislike it. As I said, this is the bleakest of her novels, the realism of it is quite disconcerting, and almost no one is transformed in the process, at least not in the same manner that, say, Marianne Dashwood or Elizabeth Bennet. This isn’t a criticism of Austen’s writing, quite the contrary. Here she focuses on the importance of constancy and integrity. By this I don’t mean that the characters in Mansfield Parkare flat, because they are not. It’s not that Fanny doesn’t evolve, it’s just that her development is rooted in her constancy and integrity.

I think it’s important to remember that Austen wrote Mansfield Park upon finishing Pride and Prejudice, something that I take as her will to explore different facets of the human condition. And I believe this is connected to her approach towards Henry Crawford.

Of the gallery of rakes written by Austen - Sense and Sensibility’s Willoughby, Pride and Prejudice’s Wickham, Mansfield Park’s Crawford, Persuasion’s Mr. Elliot, and Frank Churchill, Emma’s much lighter version of the trope -, Henry Crawford is the only one I saw myself rooting for. He was the only one I thought that would turn into someone actually good. But then, he just didn’t. He couldn’t really bring himself to change. Contrasting his journey to Darcy’s, even though they pertain to different character tropes and have a very different inner character, shows us that Darcy took his change much closer to his heart.

Fanny’s integrity is deeply rooted in her, and she won’t bend it to the fickle ways of the world. While this is praise worthy, Henry Crawford’s fall into his old habits, which are the total opposite of Fanny’s, is condemnable. The “constancy” of his dissolute behaviour has the exact opposite effect to that of Fanny’s constancy. One must know when it’s necessary to stay the same and when it’s necessary to transform.

That’s why I understand why Henry Crawford fell, being unable to complete the reformation of his character. However, I would have liked very much to see him truly change. As I said before, Austen’s novels aren’t about who the heroine gets to marry in the end, but I’d rather see Fanny paired up with a transformed Henry Crawford than to Edmund Bertram. Henry proposed a challenge to her, not because of his dubious morals, of course, but his quick mind and general disposition would be far more beneficial to her, had he reformed, than a life lived with Edmund. To me, Edmund was never worthy of Fanny. His infatuation with Mary Crawford really speaks against him, and not because Fanny had always been in love with him, but because it shows he didn’t really have a sharp mind. Besides, Henry’s transformation would be inherently connected to who Fanny is, to her morals and to her conduct, providing an interesting take on the theme of the novel (the novel’s narrator even speculates that had he been more patient, Fanny would most likely have accepted him).

I understand Austen’s motives and wishes with the writing of Mansfield Park, but I would have loved to see how she would have conducted Henry’s reformation and the dynamics this would have brought to the narrative.

Do you care to share your thoughts, anon? ;)