“Mansfield Park is too dark.” Really???

I don’t think so. How can a novel where nobody perishes, a novel where there is no scene of violence, war, destruction or self-destruction possibly be dark?

Some people do fret about the slave trade (Sir Thomas’s plantations were 99% certain to have been worked by slaves. This is mentioned, obliquely, exactly once.)

Now, there’s almost no subject on earth wickeder than slavery, and I’m 99% sure that Austen herself opposed it — though there’s no actual evidence beyond the fact that three of her brothers were well-known abolitionists. It’s even possible that she disagreed with them.

However, Sir Thomas is never represented as a wicked slaveholder. Instead, he’s portrayed as rigid, unimaginative and a little humourless but still conscientious and caring. Even when angered — whether justifiably about Lovers’ Vows messing up his property or unfairly about Fanny’s refusal of Mr Crawford — he appears humane, mannerly and self-controlled. As even Mary Crawford acknowledges at one point, “He is just what the head of such a house should be. Nay, in sober sadness, now I love you all!”

Another supposedly “dark” part of Mansfield Park is the “cruelty” of sending poor children away from their parents to their richer relatives — despite this generally gifting them more comfortable life outcomes. (This fate befalls…