Details

I think Jane Austen does indeed put too much detail and minutia into the lines of Mansfield Park. In reading the novel, it is clear that Austen had an agenda when writing the lines of her story other than to just write and open-ended recount of events. One essay I read in high school regarding Jane Austen’s writing style said that Austen almost plays God when she is writing. He style is a certain form of power trip and the details and care she puts into crafting her books stems from a desire to direct the interpretation and opinions of her readers regarding the events and people within her stories. I agree with this claim and furthermore believe that by doing so Austen leaves her audience with a biased method of interpreting her novels and robs countless people of their fundamental right to understand what they are reading on their own terms. The amount of detail Jane Austen puts into developing each of her characters in Mansfield Park causes her readers to quickly formulate opinions about the actions and events within the plot; this in turn causes the readers to view the book with a bias and leaves little room for interpretation. . Henry Crawford is a perfect example of this trick that Austen so skillfully and frequently plays. In her article, Sheehan makes the point that Henry Crawford is victimized by Jane Austen because he is initially portrayed as a man of weak morals and questionable love interests, especially when compared to the extensively described Edmund Bertram whose strong virtues cast a dark shadow on Henry. Furthermore, the thorough detail of Henry’s associates that Austen provides the reader with, specifically his sister Mary, makes an even strong case for a reader of Mansfield Park to gaze upon Henry through biased eyes as more of a villain than a hero, much less a gentleman. Towards the end of the novel, however, when Henry Crawford suddenly starts to appear to be a genuine man after all, the negativity and animosity that have been conditioned into the minds of Austen’s readers do not allow them to fully understand or accept the change of character that is presented.

            Austen’s novels remind me of a printed photo as compared to all other books which are water-color paintings. The difference is that Austen paints a picture so realistic, there is nothing to interpret, the reader can only understand what is happening in real life; there is no need for deeper meaning. By eliminating the close readings of her novels, Austen certainly makes her book a lighter read, but disappoints in the aspect of interpretation.