Mr. Miyagi’s America

The aesthetic appeal of Japanese culture in the West has, I think, had at least as many points of continuity as points of rupture over the decades. Consistently Western observers of Japan have noted that it has an exceptionally beautiful visual and material culture, in ways that are difficult to define without lapsing into Orientalist cliché, regardless of what the observer thinks of the social and ideological aspects of Japanese life. Yet the way people in the West respond to this aesthetic appeal has obviously shifted over time; a Victorian artist’s model lounging in a kimono gives one a feeling of change-in-continuity vis-à-vis a cosplayer wearing a similar kimono at a late-2000s anime convention.

            The points of continuity and points of rupture become a little easier to identify if one allows oneself to consider some of the cliches, which, after all, are cliches precisely because they are widespread conventional wisdom. As I write this there is in my own apartment a whole stack of books on Japanese subjects from the mid-to-late twentieth century, after World War II and the Occupation but before the anime-focused Cool Japan boom of the 1990s and 2000s. We have The Inland Sea, Donald Ritchie’s travelogue about the waterways and coastal towns between Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu that presents Japan as a land of precariously-surviving tradition semiconsciously negotiating with globalized modernity; The Tale of the Shining Princess, an adaptation of Taketori monogatari whose title seems intended to imply a connection to Genji monogatari; The Makioka Sisters, the English translation of Tanizaki’s Sasameyuki, whose English paratext and reception history emphasize the same things as The Inland Sea despite the novel also containing a great deal of political content and Tanizakian cultural hobbyhorses; and The Golden Naginata, a pulp fantasy novel about Tomoe Gozen that I have not read yet, which is by an author named Jessica Amanda Salmonson and is dedicated to, among other people, Kaji Meiko.

            I have a lot of these kinds of books because I do like this visual and storytelling approach, even though I’m aware of the many things that are the matter with it. I always have liked it; as a child it sparked a lot of my earliest interest in Japanese society, before anything anime-related did. That being the case, it is surprising even to me that until recently I had not seen The Karate Kid.

            I’m going to be discussing the first three movies here, made in the 1980s and starring Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita. There’s a fourth movie with Hilary Swank, a remake from around 2010, and the recent TV series Cobra Kai, but these were made in somewhat later periods in terms of US-Japan cultural exchange. The first movie, which came out in 1984, is down-to-earth and in fact semi-autobiographical. Macchio’s character, Daniel LaRusso, moves from New Jersey to a Southern California community full of affluent beachy assholes; he gets bullied; then an aging Japanese handyman, the iconic Mr. Miyagi, teaches him to use karate to stand up to his bullies. At the end of the movie Daniel wins a local karate tournament and earns the respect of his main bully, whose harassment of Daniel is established to be downstream from his own karate teacher’s abusive treatment of him. Nothing in the movie is that implausible, and it’s an interesting and surprisingly intimate portrait of a certain sector of mid-80s West Coast life, even though the events on which it’s based took place decades earlier.

            Nothing about the movie necessitates sequels, but it did well enough to get them anyway—and more, as we’re seeing with the fact that Cobra Kai is still on the air almost forty years later. The sequels, as is often the way, go a bit off the rails. The stakes are higher, the characters less plausible, the conflicts continually mediated through a karate tournament for Californian teenagers. The third movie has an evil billionaire waste disposal executive who is just as invested in youth karate as everyone else is, to the point of personally backing the first movie’s evil dojo. (A lot of eighties movies have evil property management and utilities executives, a needed counterweight to the view held widely elsewhere in American society at the time that a property management or utilities executive was a type of culture hero.) The second movie, which is set mostly in Okinawa, is a bit more grounded than the third, but there are still serious problems with it that that original Karate Kid lacks, most of which boil down to the old “is this a sequel that needed to happen?” question. The Karate Kid Part II is a so-so movie; The Karate Kid Part III, a bad one (in, do not get me wrong, a very fun way, and one that continues to have a sound emotional and thematic heart slathered in ropey balderdash).

            Even watching a mediocre movie from 1986 like The Karate Kid Part II is, however, an inspiring and convicting experience after fifteen-odd years of box offices being dominated by half-billion-dollar exercises in copyright trolling that seek to resemble movies. Watching it I kept noting things that filled me with blindsided joy: what considered acting and directing! What a human touch even in the corny, implausible villains! What a shrewd decision to make the August Karate Room of Old so obviously important to Mr. Miyagi, so that even if the audience only ever spends one scene in it, they’ll care about its destruction because they care about him! This is competent moviemaking in late-twentieth-century Hollywood. Not even always that, as with the villains, although I wonder if perhaps viewers in Okinawa find it more plausible that someone who teaches martial arts to American military police could use Evil Karate to dispossess and kill people with impunity than do audiences and critics in the United States.

            With this USFJ base issue, as with other of the more geopolitical and (thus?) more moral aspects of Japan’s relationship with the United States, the Karate Kid movies take a stance that is subtle, at least for this series, but present and difficult to stop noticing once one starts. Mr. Miyagi is a World War II veteran; he served in the US Army and won the Medal of Honor, even though given the facts of his biography we are to understand that at the time of Pearl Harbor he had been in the country for very little time and possibly only slightly legally. This decorated veteran of the 442nd, a bona fide World War II hero if there ever was one, is humble or even dismissive about his war record; indeed, Daniel learns about it while Mr. Miyagi is drunk, trying to sleep, and in great emotional pain. The emotional pain is more than understandable considering that, while Mr. Miyagi fought for the United States against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, his young wife died in childbirth at Manzanar! John Kreese, the evil sensei from the first and third movies, is, conversely, an arrogant white Vietnam veteran about twenty years Mr. Miyagi’s junior. Ostentatiously self-confident, he insists on the style “sensei” despite not seeming to speak Japanese and insists on teaching a highly aggressive, deliberately unmerciful style of karate to his mostly high-status white students. World War II and Vietnam are tacitly depicted not only as different but as poles apart, opposite ends of the movies’ moral universe.

            Yet America’s role in postwar Japan isn’t presented as straightforwardly good in the second movie, as we see with the villains, who are intimately tied up with the American military presence, and with the constant presence of American military aircraft in the backgrounds of otherwise idyllic scenes. There’s a great scene early on where Daniel, reading a book about Okinawa on the plane to Japan with Mr. Miyagi, turns to him and excitedly, guilelessly says “did you know that Okinawa has the largest US air base in the Pacific?” Mr. Miyagi barely responds; of course he knows that, even though the movie makes it clear that this is his first time going home in forty-five years. It’s practically impossible to follow Okinawan affairs and broader Ryukyuan issues at all without knowing that. It’s a decisive issue in most prefectural elections, and as of this writing there has been a decade-long dispute between the prefectural government and the all-Japan government in Tokyo over moving the US base, because the prefectural government and the vast majority of the prefecture’s population want it gone entirely. So Mr. Miyagi—and Daniel, who adopts his perspective on Okinawan issues after spending time there with him—are men alone, at least within the movie’s framework; they’re American patriots who don’t always side with America, aficionados of things Japanese and Okinawan who believe that Japan and Okinawa were at one time badly in the wrong.

            Mr. Miyagi’s relatives, and most other older people in his village—not necessarily younger people or residents of the relatively large city of Naha—are presented mostly as cowed, intimidated normies. They stand up to the villains but only to an extent, in part because these are economically powerful people on whom their community is dependent. Even when Sato, the relatively-reasonable uncle, starts demolishing the entire village until Mr. Miyagi agrees to fight him in a duel, there’s only so much they feel inclined to do about it. Yet one somehow doesn’t get the sense that this is a commentary on the qualities of Okinawan people; the aesthetic of Japanese “submissiveness” is almost completely absent. Even in a scene in which Daniel and a young woman named Kumiko share a kiss over a sort of tea ceremony, we do not really get that sense. This scene could very easily have descended into a Miss Saigon-esque creepy fantasia of Oriental femininity (especially since in real life this sort of thing tends to happen with sake, not with tea; but this is the Reagan 80s, when moral panic about underage drinking among American audiences is at its height). The fact that it does not is mostly a testament to the acting, which is good in general and excellent for this type of movie.

            The demoralization that most of the supporting characters in the second movie feel may not be a commentary on the so-called Japanese character, but it certainly works as a broader commentary. Indeed most people in political situations like that on Okinawa are cowed, intimidated normies, just like most civilians in violent dictatorships, most civilians in non-violent non-dictatorships, and even people who are “caught in the middle” in our own society here in America. We could name not-particularly-pro-Israel Jewish students on college campuses throughout this great land as an especially pertinent example, one that would currently be very high-profile if the media had any interest in understanding them or knowing what they have to say. There is moral significance to this experience of things just as there is to fighting forthrightly for some side or cause or another.

            Mr. Miyagi does not need to be or for that matter want to be some kind of historical protagonist in order for his relationship with Daniel and his relationships with other Okinawan people to have a moral weight to them. He does not need to be in order for his Medal of Honor to have a real significance to it, either, even though the significance is not to him—it is to Daniel, who would have grown up on straightforward stories of World War II heroics and who clearly does not see any reason to doubt the benevolence of Reagan’s America until well into the second movie. The villains in the third movie at first use Mr. Miyagi’s war record to ingratiate themselves to him, then, later, mock it to his face. It should be noted that John Kreese is back in this movie, and that his backer Terry Silver, the above-mentioned evil businessman, was with him in Vietnam. They actively bring up World War II in conversation, to manipulate and belittle someone who fought in it. Daniel brings it up less, and Mr. Miyagi deliberately downplays it; their relationship the subject, conversely, is presented as straightforward, grateful, and, bluntly, morally sane.

            Albert Camus’s novel The Plague has a lot to say about the concept of heroism. Camus is suspicious of it, and for that matter he is as suspicious of saints as he is of heroes. I don’t share the suspicion of sanctity, which, as an abstract concept and as an ideal reality to be lived out (or lived into) I do believe exists, but with the Karate Kid movies’ treatment of war and politics I think that there is an admirably Camusian refusal to advocate going around as a self-ordained moral superman, even if you’re one of the few people in your world who’s taking a consistent moral stance on things. Mr. Miyagi’s nonfatal karate leaves people, crucially, free to make up their own minds and, when possible, see the error of their ways, even if it can sometimes seem implausible when some characters, like Sato in the second movie, actually do so.

            I am Catholic and the belief in a transcendent, abstract, absolute moral law is therefore not optional for me. But when morality becomes concretized between human persons—and little can possibly be more concrete than a martial arts movie, where moral significance is applied literally and directly to specific postures and movements of the human body—a sort of reverse alchemy happens to the moral principles that are commended to us from somewhere on high. It becomes possible for a moral decision to show greater or lesser fidelity, not only to the abstract moral law, but to the concrete human person as such. Anything that gets treated as an edge case in Kantian ethics is likely to be something of this kind. So too is the set of ways in which something like America’s military and political history during World War II can be so admirable and worthy an object of national myth-making on some levels and yet so squalid and unedifying on others. It’s perhaps appropriate, then, that the fascinating food for thought in these movies comes alongside a great deal of phoned-in, Orientalist, or just plain schlocky material. The storyline and tone of The Karate Kid and its immediate sequels support the thematics even in the trilogy’s moments of full-tilt campy hokum, not just when it is grounded and its verisimilitude is assured.

Things That God Created to Train the Faithful: A Partial List

I write this from a more or less okay hotel lobby computer in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, dashed off in a slapdash fashion. It is my second Dune-inspired not-quite-essay, after the wildly successful (in some, extremely narrow, circles, which I suppose robs the expression “wildly successful” of most or all of its force) “Who Said It: God-Emperor Leto II or Greta Thunberg?” The original saying, attributed by noted pro-life femcel Irulan Corrino to (who else?) Muad’dib, is, of course, “God created Arrakis to train the faithful.”

To Irulan’s immortalization of her husband’s observation, I add:

God created prestige TV, and its attendant practices around both viewing culture and narrative mode, to train the faithful. (Not to tip my hand about my current fandom participation overmuch, but…)

God created Florida to train the faithful.

God created Trustco Bank to train the faithful.

God created old-school anime fandom to train the faithful.

God created small talk to train the faithful.

God created dating to train the faithful.

God created Don DeLillo/Murakami Haruki-type swill about depoliticized consumerist realism, and the idea that this is “good” literature, to train the faithful.

God created hangnails to train the faithful.

God created car culture to train the faithful.

God created unseasonably warm weather to train the faithful.

God created sleep apnea to train the faithful.

God created the Republic of Ireland’s political system to train the faithful.

God created the funhouse-mirror version of the overgrown-high-school-mean-girl mindset, where you assume everyone else is an overgrown high school mean girl if they ever disagree with you on anything, to train the faithful.

God created some, but not all, of the Interstate Highway System to train the faithful.

God created both the phrase “anti-Zionism is antisemitism” and its logical complement to train the faithful—but, since He also created the phrase “both sides do it” to train the faithful, it’s best not to stress this overmuch.

God created people who loudly complain about cold weather, and treat their preferences regarding this as objective fact with which everyone agrees, to train the faithful.

God created margarine to train the faithful.

Must Art Be Good?

For much of the Early Modern period the French were, to most tastes, not at good at playwrighting as the English. This was not because France lacked talented people in its theaters and its literary culture; there were Racine, Molière, and Corneille, to name just a few. The problem was, rather, one of standards being set at the cultural level, especially at the level of the elite culture; French playwrights were still expected to adhere to certain “unities” that artificially constrained things like time and setting, whereas in English theater Shakespeare and most playwrights after him, as well as some before him, had exuberantly dispensed with the unities and with the absolutist, prescriptive attitude towards “good” narrative that they represented. Some playwrights, especially Molière, occasionally mocked the unities, but the fact that they had to be responded to in the first place constrained the dramatic tradition in the French language for well over a hundred years, even as the language and the Parisian literary class that spoke it exploded with creativity in other genres.

Today we can look back on the unities, laugh, and mourn what could have been in terms of French theater in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is easy, however, to get complacent about this. The truth is that current artistic production, too, has rules for good art, especially good narrative art, that seem objective to us most of the time but are in fact just as culture-bound as were the unities. It is not at all obvious across all times and places that The Lord of the Rings having non-naturalistic dialogue and character writing that progressively reveals static personalities to the reader are objective problems with the text. It has these “flaws” insofar as current readers often dislike books that are written this way. Tolkien's audience first and foremost was himself, and the fact that a large audience of other people like his writing as well was, for him, a happy accident. This is without even getting into more expressly political or ideological aspects of artistic taste like the idea that a story should seek to “represent” the experiences of an abstract intended reader. I asked my mother once what she thought of representation as a priority in narrative art and she said that, when she was growing up, she wanted to read about practically anyone other than lower-middle-class white Catholic girls from suburban New England, an experience of the world that she already knew more about than she cared to by virtue of her self-awareness. In that sense my mother was more “represented by” the characters in books by authors like Kipling and Hardy than by those in, for instance, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, because her priorities as a reader were being represented and it isn't self-evident that every reader's priorities will include self-recognition. This is without even reaching the cases of those who might learn new things about themselves by encountering the apparent other in fiction, like religious converts, transgender people, and people inspired to learn a new language after reading or watching something in translation.

Some of these newer norms for “good art” are religious or religion-related in character. Yellowjackets, my favorite current television show and one that I think has the potential to be the most interesting mainstream American television show of the 2020s, is a survival horror story that treats the question of supernatural agency within the plot with a light (or, in less well-considered moments, muddied) touch. The effect is somewhat akin to that achieved in classic folk horror movies like The Wicker Man and Witchfinder General. Are the characters having the severe psychological problems that they are because of literal, external supernatural agency, or is the darkness entirely located within them? We don’t know for sure, although there are suggestions that something genuinely spiritual or paranormal is occurring, but this does not stop certain viewers of the show from arguing for the sake of “realism” that the supernatural must be absent—as if people who believe in the supernatural never have psychological problems in real life. The effect of this is to imply that what someone who has supernatural or religious beliefs sees in her own experiences of the world is deficient and can never rise to the same significance as what someone with no such beliefs sees in the experiences of her “believer” peer; the idea that Yellowjackets is a show where the supernatural events aren’t actually occurring isn’t itself a prescriptive or exclusionary one, but the idea that it “should” be that type of show for “realism’s” sake certainly is. Never mind that in many other societies in the past it would be seen as unusual for this kind of story not to include supernatural forces. As Doris Bargen points out in A Woman’s Weapon, the well-known episode in Genji monogatari in which Lady Rokujō possesses Lady Aoi and causes her to die in childbirth reflects Genji’s origin in a society where attempting to possess people one disliked was simply what one did as a woman in certain types of social situations.

Sometimes the implied preference for secularity as a precondition for artistic merit affects entire genres. Most of us take it for granted that, put frankly, Christian contemporary music, especially of the sort that burgeoned in Evangelical and some Catholic spaces in the 1990s, sucks. Why? Is it because it is religiously motivated? So is half of Bach. Is it because the artists are mostly right-wing? So was Ian Curtis. Is it because they tend to have bad taste in other media? So do tons of secular pop stars. Is it because it prioritizes achieving effects other than maximum artistic and technical ambitiousness? In the age of poptimism, that usually does not matter. I think the issue is less any of this and more that this music has the “vibes” of being for a narrow religious interest—which, to be fair, it is; the genre, especially today, pillarizes itself from outside culture in a way that gives the impression that most Christian contemporary artists would rather not be considered “good” by secular critics. If there were a Natalie Merchant song from the same time period as Rebecca St. James’s rendition of “Be Thou My Vision,” even if it was a cover of a hymn (and there are Natalie Merchant songs that are!), where halfway through the track the lyrics cut out and a combination of reverb effects and hi-hat cymbals and helicopter sound effects from a bad Vietnam War movie started eating the melody alive, the secular music press would take that song dead seriously. St. James, however, probably does not want the secular music press to take her “Be Thou My Vision” dead seriously, because the foolishness of God is wiser than Pitchfork.

Readers will have noted a generally author-focused approach in this essay so far; this is because I think that the pop reception of Roland Barthes and the “death of the author” harms attempts to assess art as a process of communication between a creator, or creative community, and an audience. The pop-Barthesian reader is solipsistic and is unable to assess what she thinks makes art good or bad because she is unable to assess the social and cultural pressures on the creator or creative community. This is once again relevant to Yellowjackets, a show whose fandom tends to misattribute its flaws to the screenwriters even though most of them are demonstrably the fault of other people, such as network and production executives. It is also relevant to essentially anything that is read or watched in translation, because pop-Barthesianism puts forward John Dryden’s attempt in his translation of the Georgics “to make Virgil speak such English, as he wou’d himself have spoken, if he had been born in England, and in this present Age” as the only kind of good or even conceptually apprehensible translation, for what amount to ideological reasons.[1] A translator cannot, instead, with Friedrich Schleiermacher, seek to build a conversation between two people, the (abstract structure of the) author and the (abstract structure of the) reader, unless she is willing to try to make the reader have a conversation with a corpse. Certainly it looks a bit morbid for a translator who takes the death of the author seriously to attempt to lead the reader towards the original author rather than vice versa, as was Schleiermacher’s own preference. Pop-Barthesianism’s extremely low understanding of “authorship” overthrows the tyranny of the author at the expense of imposing a tyranny of the reader that takes on overtones of cultural supremacism whenever the reader’s values are closer than the author’s to those values that are culturally dominant. (Barthes as a critic of the “dead white men” canon may or may not have believed that this was possible, but it obviously is.) Combine this with straightforward misunderstanding of what the artistic production process actually involves, as in the Yellowjackets example, and one gets the basic conditions for the infamously entitled reading style of modern media fandoms.

I do not mean to suggest that criticizing the quality of a piece of art or writing is always ungenerous or entitled on the part of an audience, only that it should be undertaken with some humility about what “quality” means, and what aspects of a work might come across as quasi-objectively good or bad to some generations of readers, or fans, but not others. I often see younger people recommending older anime series like Haibane-Renmei and the original Trigun with caveats about the sketchy art styles and choppy animation; I, conversely, can’t watch many newer anime series because they are so smooth and high-definition that they make me feel like I am swimming in a vat of motor oil. I can practically hear the rank-and-file animators breaking out into “The Red Flag” in my head. Arguing that a piece of art or writing or music “just isn’t good,” or for that matter that it “just is good,” is never as simple as one thinks it will be when the argument begins.

❦

[1] Dryden had, as we say nowadays, bad takes on the unities as well. In An Essay on Dramatick Poesie he accuses Shakespeare’s history plays of seeking “not to imitate or paint Nature, but rather to draw her in miniature, to take her in little; to look upon her through the wrong end of a Perspective, and receive her Images not onely much less, but infinitely more imperfect then the life.” It’s not impossible to imagine him having the same problem with the supernatural elements of Yellowjackets, the dialogue in The Lord of the Rings, or the didacticism of Christian rock “if he had been born in America, and in this present Age.”

Unkillable Grief Monsters

Of late I have been getting very into the television show Yellowjackets, and also into the Locked Tomb books by Tamsyn Muir. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that I have been into the books for a while and have only recently discovered the program, but that I am currently getting similar things out of them. Both of these are series that assess grief very openly and in great emotional and narrative detail. The overtly fantastical setting of The Locked Tomb is built, cosmologically, on grief (for loved ones, for the natural world, for human societies), and in the superficially more normal but still demon-haunted world of Yellowjackets grief is the only thing that gives the relationships between some of the characters their longevity and meaning.

I’ve long been partial to what I call “unkillable grief monster” characters in art and literature. It could be argued that in the West this sort of character goes all the way back to Achilles, if we interpret the μῆνιν Ἀχιλῆος that the Iliad depicts as a form of grief. Key touchstones in non-Western, or at least non-Greco-Roman-derived, literary traditions might include the voice of the 137th Psalm (“by the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept and remembered Zion”), and even Prince Kaoru from Genji monogatari, who has what Dostoyevsky called “civic grief” rather than grief for a particular person or place. Miss Havisham’s permanent, moratorial state of jiltedness in Great Expectations is not quite the same thing, but it is similar; she too inhabits a permanent snapshot of a past blow to her heart. Dickens is not especially generous to Miss Havisham, but this has not, traditionally, prevented readers from finding her situation touching.

Fundamentally this is a type of character who is a tomb for someone or something else. The Locked Tomb and Yellowjackets both dramatize this in an unusually externalized way since both narratives contain cannibalism; think of Achilles eating Patroclus’ corpse in his μῆνιν or Prince Kaoru attempting to physically ingest the Japanese body politic and you will start to understand some of these more recent works’ themes even if you have not read or watched either of them yourself. The bodies of some characters in these narratives physically become permanent mortuary sites for loved ones whom they simply cannot or will not put to rest.

All of this is horrifying to most people, including most people who have felt grief that intense in the past, but I think there is also an element of wish fulfillment to it. Entering a permanent state of grieving, becoming grief oneself in this very body, can be a power fantasy of sorts. These characters are people who try to eternalize their loss as a way of expressing its importance against the idea that they ought to “get over it” or “move on.” People who were not “over” the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995 within an arbitrary two-week timetable were pathologized as depressed; one of my least favorite public figures in the world, the notoriously abusive Russian figure skating coach Eteri Tutberdize, was in Oklahoma City for an ice show at the time of the bombing, and ever since I learned this about her it has been difficult not to surmise that she was treated with the coldness then with which she treats others now. Even the more generous and humane mourning period of Victorian Britain’s middle class tapered off after a year or two. The Locked Tomb has characters in it who have been in mourning for ten thousand years; Yellowjackets has characters who might very well end up being in mourning into eternity. This grief impels them to do horrible things, but another way of putting this might be that the grief allows them to do horrible things. In these narratives, people who have undergone tremendous loss and heartbreak are not made to conform to other people’s standards, are not made to settle for less sorrow.

“Anxious Not to Appear Unhappy”; or, Why Mansfield Park Is the Austen Novel One Never Knew One Needed

So-called “classic” art and literature comes into and goes out of fashion just as do popular culture trends. For most of the twentieth century Edward Elgar was considered a fundamentally unserious composer; today he has reentered the classical concert repertoire. Johann Sebastian Bach, unbelievably, went through the same rehabilitation in the early nineteenth century. Renaissance castigation of High Medieval art has gradually over the past several centuries given way to appreciation of that art’s numinous aspects. Post-World War II horror at Victorian architecture and interior design, as seen for instance in Shirley Jackson’s novels, seems itself quaint and dated today. In literature, too, we see such long-term trends. To the end of understanding why certain books spend decades or centuries in or out of favor, I recently read the Jane Austen novel Mansfield Park. For many years Mansfield Park was considered a contender for Austen’s best novel; today it is widely seen as her worst.

            A great deal about Mansfield Park makes it immediately obvious why it is currently unfashionable. It is a didactic, relatively unfunny novel, whose passive and extremely introverted heroine, Fanny Price, comes across quite frankly as a personality-free drip to current sensibilities. Fanny drifts from one abusive situation (with her parents and siblings; her sisters sleep with knives in hand on account of her father’s drunk and handsy Royal Navy friends) to another (with her rich slaver uncle Sir Thomas Bertram, who is absent for much of the novel and whose wife and children treat her as a glorified domestic servant). She falls in with the witty and urbane Crawford siblings, Mary and Henry, then breaks from them after getting relentlessly hammered for chapter after chapter to compromise her strict Protestant morals for the sake of their social circles. Finally, she marries her cousin Edmund, an aspiring Church of England priest who is the only character to consistently treat her like a person (albeit still not one whom he seems to like very much). The book’s treatment of where the Bertram family’s wealth comes from is mostly off-page, with one exception: Fanny asks her uncle to his face at dinner what he thinks of the slave trade, only to be met with “dead silence” that she takes as her cousins being bored of discussing politics. Edward Said infamously interpreted the novel as tacitly pro-slavery due to the extremely limited explicit treatment of the subject; although, as I will argue, the novel is swarming with implicit condemnation of slavery, not spelling it out in extremely clear terms goes against current tastes in political art.

            All of this being the case, I actually liked Mansfield Park very much and am glad I read it. The lurking implications and intimations of deep evil within the novel attracted me to its moral imagination despite its over-the-top sermonizing about less serious subjects like live theatre. Indeed the way the book relegates deeper moral and social pathologies to subtext strikes me as a level of irony more characteristic of Austen than most of today’s readers seem to think. Sense and Sensibility does the same thing, has a resolution to its marriage plot that is at least as unsettling as Fanny’s marriage to Edmund, and probably only escapes being excoriated for the same reasons as Mansfield Park because it is funnier.

            It is my belief that the book becomes much harder to understand if one refuses to situate it biographically. I’m not particularly interested in set phrases like “separating art from the artist” or “death of the author.” I think it’s common sense that at least some aspects of an artist’s personality will show up in her art, at least some aspects of a work of art will reflect the artist’s or artists’ personal circumstances, and the pertinent questions are what aspects and how the reader or viewer or listener feels about them (“deciding to ignore them” is a perfectly valid answer to this). With Mansfield Park a great deal is going on that reminds one of Jane Austen’s own life and family; she was a Tory who admired anti-slavery Tory thinkers like Burke and Johnson, she had intimate family connections both to right-wing politics and to the Royal Navy, and some of these family connections would themselves eventually become anti-slavery in nature. Admiral Sir Francis Austen would, decades after his younger sister’s death, spend four years responsible for the Navy’s efforts to intercept slave ships as Commander-in-Chief of the North America and West Indies Station.

            This odd dynamic of “Toryism” (in the broadest sense) opposing itself to something far worse than Toryism is, as I keep saying, currently unfashionable. It is, however, familiar to me, both from other British literature and from the heavily Austen-influenced Japanese novel Sasameyuki. The World War II-era ultranationalist regime in Japan interdicted Sasameyuki’s publication due to the book’s antiwar and antifascist content, yet this antiwar and antifascist content takes the form mostly of depicting militarism as a modern aberration distracting the Japanese people from their real traditions, such as midsummer firefly hunts and collecting very specific types of dolls. Similarly, much of Mansfield Park’s moral criticism of the wealthy slavers in Fanny’s life takes the form of intimating that they are un-English: Mary Crawford plays the harp (seen at the time as a very Continental instrument); the theatricals are an affront to English Protestant moral piety; characters make constant reference to Mansfield’s park’s “air,” and the Earl of Mansfield’s anti-slavery opinion in the 1772 King’s Bench case Somerset v Stewart had used “English air” as a metonym for freedom.

            Mary Crawford brings us to the subject of sexuality in the book. (In fact the heroine’s name brings us to this subject, but part of what makes the name “Fanny Price” so funny is that nobody in the book remarks upon it, so I’m not going to remark upon it at any great length either.) I tend to resist reading same-sex desire into books like Mansfield Park, not because I have a bias against such readings but because I have a bias towards them and have a habit of overcorrecting for this bias when doing serious analysis of this type of novel. With Mansfield Park, however, I genuinely think that much of the deviant or proscribed sexuality hinted at in the book is being hinted at on purpose. Mary Crawford, raised in a circle of perverted admirals, makes what is either an anal sex joke or a BDSM joke in mixed company in Chapter VI; Fanny overtly says that she is physically attracted to Mary in Chapter VII (almost immediately before the narration describes Edmund’s own interest in Mary as “a line of admiration of Miss Crawford, which might lead him where Fanny could not follow”—wording that has hints of apophasis) and muses on her fascination with her in Chapter XXIII:

Fanny went to her every two or three days: it seemed a kind of fascination: she could not be easy without going, and yet it was without loving her, without ever thinking like her, without any sense of obligation for being sought after now when nobody else was to be had; and deriving no higher pleasure from her conversation than occasional amusement, and that often at the expense of her judgment, when it was raised by pleasantry on people or subjects which she wished to be respected. She went, however….

Attempts to analyze and address this attraction between Fanny and Mary in adaptations and fanfiction usually present the more brazen and transgressive Mary as the sexual or romantic pursuer, but this isn’t what we see in Mansfield Park itself. Instead it’s the pious killjoy Fanny who seems to respond to Mary in a way that she does not to anyone else in the book, including her eventual husband Edmund. Austen disposes of Fanny and Edmund’s wedding in an oddly perfunctory and unenthusiastic way, vaguely referring to it as “a hopeful undertaking” and “quite natural.” In a novel advocating values as conservative as those advocated in this one, this is not the clear damnation with faint praise that it would be in a romance novel written today, but it still raises the question of how appealing exactly this marriage actually is to Fanny, or to Edmund for that matter.

            With a book that is didactic in the very strange and archaic way that Mansfield Park is—slavery is bad, adultery is bad, flirting is bad, live theatre is bad, and all four things are the province of the same basic types of hedonistic rich people—one cannot really claim anything related to sex as “representation” in a positive or affirming sense. In terms of what’s depicted in the novel, though, whether Austen approves of it or not, the way these characters relate to and experience sexuality treats very little as beyond the pale. Here is my reading of the sexual aspects of the story, all of which I am able to cite from the text, with a focus on Mary Crawford and her problems:

            Fanny and Mary are both raised in deeply dangerous circles of depraved Navy men. Both are traumatized in ways that the reader isn’t wholly privy to, Mary probably worse than Fanny. Fanny reacts by becoming withdrawn, submissive, and morally irreproachable; Mary reacts by becoming a charismatic social butterfly who thinks life is about taking other people for the proverbial ride at all costs. They meet and get along at first; Fanny especially is taken with Mary, who sparks confusing feelings in her. Mary makes sex jokes in public and wholeheartedly embraces the Bertram family’s raunchy (for 1814) lifestyle; Fanny, pressured relentlessly to compromise her puritanical values by just about every other character, hangs on until her slaver uncle (himself probably up to no good) comes home and has a My Immortal-esque “what the hell are you doing, you motherfuckers?” reaction that takes the heat off her. When Maria Rushworth cheats on her husband with Mary’s brother later on, Mary’s antinomian reaction alienates Edmund and burns all remaining bridges with Fanny, who, Mansfield Park after all being a deeply conservative novel, drifts into a path-of-least-resistance marriage to the only male character who is as moralistic as she is. Mary, meanwhile, implicitly shakes off the psychic influence of the perverted admirals eventually, but not for a long time.

            This was the only Austen novel that Vladimir Nabokov held in high regard, and it isn’t difficult to see why once one looks at it through the “sex is tyranny is sex is tyranny is sex” lens that Nabokov perfected in Lolita. Mansfield Park might not be as interested in slavery in particular as critics like Edward Said have wished it to be, but it is very interested in abuse of power in general. The “air” references are, in this reading, part of a semantic field that also includes repeated use of lemmas like “oppress” (which occurs seven times by my count, mostly with Fanny as the person being oppressed), “tyrant” (which occurs three times, two of them referring to the slaver Sir Thomas and his family), “abuse” or “ill-use” (four times), “cruel” (twelve times), and “wicked” (four times). The book uses its vision of human evil as a hammer rather than a scalpel, and although it’s still funny and often even sweet it is not difficult to see why people who find Pride and Prejudice and Emma comforting and consoling reads might disfavor it.

            Mansfield Park’s vision of evil and tyranny is, like it or not—and I don’t like it very much myself—inseparable from its preachy Protestant piousness, something that I think derails many modern readers and makes them less able to notice or realize that the book does contain social critique. Protestantism is unlike Catholicism, the Destiel of religions, partly in that it tends to be either epicurean or censorious; even the Social Gospel progressives of the early twentieth century had tendencies towards the no-fun positions on attempted social reforms like Prohibition and, more regrettably, eugenics. The antislavery movement in Britain had strong Methodist and Evangelical contingents and included figures who were, as mentioned above, staunchly conservative even for the time on other issues. It thus should not surprise the theologically knowledgeable reader that the Austen heroine who attempts to grill her uncle about the slave trade at dinner is also the one who stubbornly insists that it is immoral to act in a play alongside her own extended family.

            People should read Mansfield Park. People who have already read Mansfield Park and disliked what they thought it had to say should read it again. The book has a fundamental stance and vision that seems alien at first but has a bracing moral clarity to it once one digs into the depths of the text. It is good and salutary to subject oneself to unfashionable classics; indeed, I would say that doing so is at least as good and salutary as is reading fashionable classics. Certainly Fanny Price herself would think so, and she would know; she is a bootlicking scold.