Friday, September 7, 2007
First response...
I'd like to keep this first post open, so feel free to explore myriad options. Essentially, I want to see what you are thinking about with Jane Eyre--what questions are still unanswered, what irks you, what made you the happiest. You can even think about it in the context of the "20" things we spoke about in class today. Have fun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
"Jane Eyre" is, supposedly, a classic. Why? I honestly have no idea. It plays out like what is perhaps the worst soap opera of all time. I say worst, because despite the fact that most SO's have fairly cliched plots, at least they have the common decency to contain amusing characters (most of whom have amnesia or eye-patches). Now that my oh-so-scathing review is out of the way, there were a few things I did actually like about the novel. These mostly centered around the "hidden" messages pertaining to religion and gender equality. Perhaps Jane's innate aversion to Christianity was purely because of the inherent gender bias' present. Whatever the case may have been, "Jane Eyre" was a mediocre book in my eyes, certainly not deserving of its "classic" status. I hope that was clever enough.
My main contention with “Jane Eyre” is Jane’s character. She is supposed to be a strong heroine, and she is…except for several key moments. It is said that “Jane Eyre” has feministic undertones and throughout the novel Jane does fight as an independent woman in a man’s world. She speaks freely towards Rochester and makes progress towards equality with him. But after she leaves Thornfield and meets St. John, she seems to lose that feminist quality. When she refuses St. John’s proposal of marriage, she still consents to accompany him to India. This presents a tremendous contrast in Jane’s character. During this scene it appears that Jane loses all her power as an equal and returns without much of a fight to a subservient role, which is an act that is not expected based on her previous actions. If Charlotte Bronte had intended “Jane Eyre” to advocate equality of the sexes, she should have continued Jane’s independence and not have subjected her to a lesser role.
"Jane Eyre" infuriated me with its lack of feminine backbone. Except for Jane, who else has the audacity to defy authority and speak her mind? Certainly not meek little Helen Burns, who stood for Ms. Scatcherd's abuse without protest. Rather than indicating internal strength, her silence reads poorly for a feminist novel. Then there are the women whose sinister intentions label them as purely antagonistic--Mrs. Reed and Blanche Ingram. Even the angelic Rosamond Oliver is an invertebrate; she never fully pursues St. John and ends up marrying the rich man her social status needed. Bertha Mason is another debacle--insane and vengeful, she is degraded to something less than human. Jane's female cousins are also portrayed in a dim light of ineptitude. Though Mary and Diana Rivers might rival Jane in terms of a strong female, they are hollow characters. They are portrayed so flatly and so similarly that they cease to leave any lasting impressions. Which is Diana? Which is Mary? They blend into each other as two "good women" who follow society's standard. They are both sickly sweet and unrealistically saintly. In truth, neither possess the Jane-ian strength to be a female orphan all alone in the hostile Victorian world.
After reading the other posts, I’m a little scared to post this because it seems that everyone except for me had a major issue with Jane Eyre. I actually was a fan of the book. In fact, when I was reading it I became so wrapped up in the story line that I did not really notice a significant amount of foreshadowing, symbolism, etc. However, towards the end of class on Friday we briefly discussed the healing of Rochester’s physical ailments when Jane finally returned to him after her stay at the Moore House. While I did not take note of this when I first read the novel, I love the way that Brontë intertwined the elements of physical and emotional pain. I think it really stresses the power that love possesses and was a clever way to demonstrate this to the reader.
Personally, I adored Jane Eyre’s defiant and feminist character. I thought Jane’s blunt and truthful way of speaking allowed her to become very likeable and relatable. Even though Jane was madly in love with Mr. Rochester, she would not allow her emotions to cloud and block her morals. Living as a mistress with Mr. Rochester would have make Jane submissive and dependant. However, I was upset that Jane gave up her ambitions of being a school teacher once she became an heiress. Since she had money, Jane decided that she no longer needed a job; this decision of Jane’s bothered me greatly. Furthermore, since Mr. Rochester was maimed by the fire, Jane had to give all her time to his needs. Charlotte Bronte could have made Jane a stronger feminist; nevertheless, given that this was written during the Victorian Era, Jane Eyre proves to be independent in retrospect to the docile women during that time.
The central question that popped up in my mind while I was reading Jane Eyre was whether she was the feminist heroine that I learned about in the introduction or not. And I subsequently devoted much of my time to discovering whether or not she lived up to this reputation of sorts. What I discovered seems to incorporate what people have said so far. At the beginning of the story, Jane was very young, in a position where she was dominated by her Aunt and cousin, and in no situation to champion what she felt was right. Hence, she thought a lot of evil thoughts about those that controlled her, but lacked the audacity to share them aloud. But, prior to leaving for the Lowood School, she does in fact speak her mind, and I marked this page down in my book as the first instance of feminist bravery Jane exhibited. From here, I believe Jane's courage dipped a little as she entered her new surroundings, and was once again forced to conform to other's principles. Nonetheless, she made the best of a poor situation, rising to the top of her class, and becoming a teacher after her schooling was up. She even gained the confidence to publish a job ad about herself in the newspaper, something I believe most women during her time would not have done. Therefore, she was beginning to fit my presupposed image as a self-promoting heroine. Yet, her job with Mr. Rochester seemed to eat away at whatever bravery or confidence she gained while at school. She once again became anxious to move on and explore the world, until she fell for Rochester, and he likewise fell for her. Here, she was beginning to conform to typical spousal duties of the era, receiving fancy dresses and other items that she did not care for. Upon discovering Rochester's secret, she once again took matters into her own hands and left. She almost fell victim to St. John's desire for marriage, but chose the correct decision for her, by leaving him to once again live and care for Mr. Rochester. Since he had become maimed, it was Jane that had the overwhelming power in this relationship, a fitting position for her feminist desires. Hence, I believe that Jane's bumpy road to heroine status made her character all the more enjoyable and realistic. One cannot be a strong heroine all the time, and the undulating path that Jane took to get there makes her label as feminist heroine all the more deserved.
Is it a problem that Bertha Mason is my favorite character in this novel?
I seem to be in good company when I say that Jane really bothered me. Honestly, I wasn't reading "Jane Eyre" asking myself if she was a feminist hero or not. If I could meet Jane, I would probably hate her. Let me explain: Jane seemed so sure of herself when she was making her decisions, when she decided to forgive Aunt Reed, when she left Rochester, when she refused to marry St. John. All of this came off as very self-righteous and proud of her ability to put what is right above what she wants. Sure, that's admirable, but it makes her so boring and a little bit too much like the ideal female hero a little less like a real human being. Jane must have a bad side, everyone does. She's always the poor feminist victim, and it was hard to put up with for 400 pages.
Bertha Mason, on the other hand, is an insane heiress who burns things. Can I rewrite the novel from her point of view?
After reading the other posts, I was very surprised hear so many negative thoughts about Jane Eyre. I personlly liked the novel the most out of the 4 summer books and appreciated that there was a cliched love story of sorts incorporated into our summer reading. I completely agree with Jess Shiekofer, Jane's defiant and independent spirit made her an enjoyable character- her blunt, witty comments were endearing and I loved her for them. However, being a sappy love story enthusiast, I really appreciated how Bronte built the intimacy between Mr. Rochester and Jane, leading up to the "erotic" walk in the woods at Thornfield (according to Ms. Siegel). Overall, I thought Charlotte Bronte did an excellent job creating this love story while also providing for the reader a strong, independent heroine, an unusual circumstance during the Victorian Era.
It is agreed that Charlotte Bronte draws attention to the plight of women suffering from injustices and social class prejudices in the Victorian period. However, I viewed the novel Jane Eyre as a story with a greater premise on human transformation. Jane’s development of character is seen throughout her several locations throughout the novel, with Mrs. Reed, Mr. Brocklehurst, St. John Rivers, and Rochester. Equality for women within a relationship is one of the most prominent themes in the story, while Jane fights to maintain her integrity when she encounters the pressures and temptations of male society. Submitting herself mentally to no one, she refuses to be inferior to her partner. Bronte’s work shows that independence is not only important in regards to relationships, but also important in one’s general personality. I believe that Jane Eyre is not simply a love story, but a plea for the recognition of one’s self worth. With Rochester, an urge for independence of mind possesses Jane to try and break through the conventional Victorian marriage. However, although Bronte clearly supports a woman’s independence and equality, she also recognizes the impossibility of completely breaking the social barrier. Therefore, it is not surprising that when Jane does marry Rochester, she has inherited her own money and he is literally a cripple, reduced in manly strength and blind, forced to depend on her. The fact that Bronte symbolically and literally placed the two on the same level as each other makes the story more realistic, for if Jane gained that equality purely on her own, sadly, it might seem too far-stretched for the Victorian period.
In my opinion, Jane Eyre is a novel that has tremendous value. Unlike many of my classmates who posted before me, I love Jane's character. But, whether a reader likes the characters or not, it is difficult for he or she to deny the novel's worthiness of being called a great literary work. The list of twenty elements to look for while reading a book that we discussed in class is useful in evaluating Jane Eyre's value. "Everything is political" is an example of one element that is exemplified in the novel. Charlotte Bronte was inspired by the time period in which she wrote. It is true that some of the characters in Jane Eyre are not obvious feminists. But it was undoubtedly hard for some women in the nineteenth century to defy the social standards that had held them in inferior positions to men for centuries. The important thing to notice is that a few characters do resist these social standards. Miss Temple, for example subtly rejects Mr. Brocklehurst's criticism of the students at Lowood; she responds to his rage at a curly-haired girl's hairstyle by telling him that the girl's hair curls naturally. (I believe that Miss Temple's defiance to Mr. Brocklehurst's cruelty, and her determination to protect the students from it, inspires Jane; it marks the first time that Jane feels loved and appreciated and it contributes to her development as a confident, intelligent, headstrong feminist hero.) The novel's realism, at least in this respect, makes it an important book to read to understand society during the nineteenth century.
"Jane Eyre" surely is a fantastic book, if you like that sort of thing. It had its ups and downs and at certain parts could be a great read and at other quite tedious. The romance? Lovely, well-written and incisive. It's a step away from the tradiional, especially for that era, and into a sweethearted lightness. The technical writing? Pretty good. There was foreshadowing, good underlying messages and generally a strong base that Bronte made. The book overall? A little boring and stretched out. Everything seemed to take forever to happen and long events were drawn out to almost a monotonous point. "Jane Eyre" is certainly worth a read once, and to refer to in later conversation, but I don't think I could stomach a reread.
I have to agree with the majority: Jane's conceit irked me. But, to break away from feminism in the book, I was equally interested in the appearance of religion throughout: it's certainly prevalent, but what is Bronte’s stance? Mr. Brocklehurst represents corruption in established religion, and Helen Burns, angelic devotion (exaggerated by Jane’s admiration). The Reed sisters are two negative extremes (fanaticism and ignorance) while the Rivers sisters present a comforting mix of devotion and intelligence. So where does Jane stand? She did flee Mr. Rochester due to her beliefs, but she also refused to accompany St. John on his holy mission. I think it’s her reaction to St. John that is most telling: the novel’s conclusion with his prayer and Jane’s endless admiration (despite his cold and often callous character) hold St. John up as an example of religious perfection, something Jane is not “strong” enough to attain. Instead, Bronte gives Jane her own strength in caring for Mr. Rochester. Religion is important, but no the end-all.
p.s. Did anyone else find it weird that Jane heard Rochester’s voice through the night? Does using that as a plot device contradict Christianity? or affirm the existence of a god?
After reading my classmates' comments on "Jane Eyre" I was surprised to discover that so many of them didn't like the novel and thought that it doesn't deserve the title of "great literature". Personally I thought that Bronte did an amazing job creating a feminist character and a deep and meaningful plot. The main reason that I liked the novel however, was Jane's character. She is a relatable and admirable character. I found her strength and independence refreshing for the time period that she lives in, and I was impressed by how sure of herself she is throughout the novel. In class we discussed that if a character goes on a journey that they usually find themselves or something important. In "Jane Eyre" Jane travels to five different places. Over the course of her journey Jane develops her personality and values, and ultimatly finds what makes her happy, Rochester.
After reading so many posts that scrutinized dear Jane, I think I need to come to her defense. Jane endured such misery throughout her life and yet, she still relentlessly searched for solace. I personally do not care if Jane was some great feminine hero because what connected me most to her character was the fact that she had flaws. Jane's emotional needs, physical inferiority, and rocky romances, made her human and all the more powerful. And despite how others may feel, the love story between Jane and Mr. Rochester was the strongest part of the novel. Their relationship spoke volumes about society at the time and embodied tremendous symbolism; most notably, when Mr. Rochester was "blinded by the light" after a collision with Bertha Mason and was finally only able to see Jane by means of his heart. Maybe it is because I love soap operas, but reading Jane's relationship blossom, made my summer reading much more enjoyable.
Jane Eyre is still a very baffling novel to me. Classic novels are supposed to have some revolutionary aspect to it. Jane's inner conflict is seemingly in every novel that I've read. Every protagonist seems to have a troubled love life or a struggle against some inner demon. Jane has both of these qualities. She has problems in her relationship with Mr. Rochester and cannot figure out what she is supposed to do with her life. Her feisty nature at the outset of the novel seemed intriguing but Bronte doesn't continue with this nonconformist characteristic. The novel was supposed to reveal the problems that women had in English society but I ended up reading a novel about a confused woman who can't stop thinking about employer. I still don't understand what Bronte's objective was in writing Jane Eyre. She should have written the novel using a 1920s "flapper" woman who appears strong instead of Jane, a scared and reclusive woman. Although Bronte's use of characters is a little off, the novel is still well-written. The love between Jane and Mr. Rochester is very palpable, as it should be. Bronte shows this through her use (almost excessive) of scenes between Jane and Mr. Rochester. The scenes shows the love but also show Jane's weakness as a woman when it should show her as a strong individual with her own ideas and purpose. Overall, Jane Eyre should be considered a well-written novel that is not as radical as it appears to be.
When I first started to read "Jane Eyre" I expected it to be like every other classic I have read-boring and wordy. In many ways my suspicions were right, however there were aspects about the novel that still left me guessing. After reading Laura's post I must agree with her. Bertha Mason's character is painfully overlooked. The main question I have about her character has nothing to do with how she became the crazy maniac she is but why Rochester married her? Bertha is just about Jane's opposite. She is rude, jealous, violent, and vengeful. She does not think about the consequences of her actions. While Jane thinks things over methodically, although she does show some jealously throghout the book concerning Rochester's other love interests, she does not deal with her dissapointment in the same crazy-minded way that Bertha does. I guess I just find it so interesting how Rochester could have loved two people who are so extremely different from each other.
After reading everyone's responses, I was actually surprised by how much they disliked the novel. Then again, I'm a huge fan of the romance novel. But, I think there's definitely more to Jane Eyre than a "sappy love story." As Ms. Seigel said, "Everything is political." It's obvious that Bronte intended on producing a commentary on society. Even though the context, in which the novel is set, does not mirror modern society, Jane's character is timeless. After all, what person does not have to go through the struggle of finding their place in the world? What makes her character so relatable is the fact that she wasn't born as the heroine that she became; she didn't march around the entire novel telling people off and determining her own life. Jane, like the rest of us, has to fight her way through obstacles. So, Jane Eyre, isn't some ridiculous soap opera, but rather a realistic coming-of-age novel that offers insight to the world of 19th century England.
"Jane Eyre" probably remains my favorite of the four novels that we were assigned to read this summer. I love the novel for the way Bronte characterizes Jane with such complexity. I learned in class on Friday that true heroines are not flawless; instead, true heroines are marked by some physical deformity. Such an concept was completely new to me, as I had always imagined heroines to be both physically and morally perfect. I continue to admire how Jane is not "perfect" in this sense. Plain, humble, and outwardly unattractive, Jane does not emerge the character that incites jealously in readers. However, despite her prior misfortunes, Jane is able to rise above all obstacles to achieve love and happiness,an achievement that truly shocks me. Brought up in a world of ridicule and disrespect, Jane ultimately flourishes. I feel that "Jane Eyre" deserves its "classic" status due to Bronte's powerful formation of Jane's complex character.
While I can't defend its entertainment value, I'd like to respond to Laura’s (more scholarly) point about Jane Eyre. Yes, the title character often does the exact right empowered, feministic thing at the exact right time, but I think any critical reader of Jane Eyre should consider the era during which it was written and what a bold social statement it must've been. It’s not entirely the suspension of disbelief, but it’s something like it. It was a lot for Brontë to have Jane challenge Victorian society’s ideas about femininity; making her a deeply flawed, contradicted character who did so probably would’ve been too much to ask. Keep in mind that Brontë faced similar struggles; under such hostile circumstances, it probably seemed to her like only a “superstar” could be that subversive.
Consider Native Son. It deals with early 20th century American racism, which we’ve been told was really vicious since elementary school. I doubt anyone in the history of AP Lit at Millburn High School read it and thought, “I wish Bigger were more tolerant and considerate of others. It seems like he just doesn’t get it until it’s too late.” While Jane Eyre may be more heavily exalted as a literary work than Native Son, I feel it’s just as important to consider it as a vehicle for spreading a message most people weren’t ready to hear and accept a few of its flaws accordingly.
I can understand a lot of the negative criticism of Jane Eyre from the people that have written above me because I think to truly appreciate Jane Eyre’s character you need to have experienced some of the situations she was in. Therefore, certain scenes that may have seemed a bit cliche to some, may have been extremely realistic to others
Bronte was really able to capture the intensity of jealousy, infatuation, love, and freedom, which helped to draw me into the story and feel connected to the characters. I especially love the spirit within Jane that remains intact from her childhood to maturity. However, I do have one major criticism. I despise how Mr. Rochester uses jealousy to make Jane love him; to me, that is not only manipulative, but also it makes Jane’s love for him less real. Also, Jane is only 19 years old, and Mr. Rochester is one of the only men she has ever met; I wonder, if she had been able to travel the world and experience more, would she have still chosen him? However, by the end of the novel, once Rochester has been stripped of his mighty masculine shell, and once Jane has gained independence, I do believe that they are able to actually love one another.
In response to Laura's and Sarah's's comments I am also confused about Bertha. She is described more as a monster than a human, and I cant help but accuse Mr. Rochester for completely ignoring her existence and locking her up. Maybe shes a symbol for the aggression that was hidden in the victorian society or maybe a parallel to Jane's being locked up in the red room... Im not sure
I can't say that I am surprised at the amount of criticism "Jane Eyre" has received here, but I must say that I don't agree with it. It was pretty lengthy and not exactly action-packed, but for me, that was the appeal. I felt like I really got to know Jane through those four hundred-some-odd pages. I actually began to care for her. I think Bronte did an excellent job of building her character. From her tough childhood all the way to her “happy ending,” Jane grows and evolves into a true heroine. Outspoken and intelligent, she starts as a young, rebellious dependent. She faces numerous challenges, continuing to show strength and perseverance throughout. She becomes a humble, generous, and independent young lady, and I can’t help but root for her success. By the end of the novel, Jane finds herself, her family, her true love, and finally, the happiness she deserves.
First, for whoever said Jane Eyre was not so likable because she is not like a real human being, and rather more the ideal female heroine, I strongly disagree(by the way, this is not at all a personal attack). I loved the book, and its protagonist, because of her flaws and everything she was able to overcome in one lifetime. While it is true that an ordinary woman may not have a life like Jane’s, it is a book of fiction. I think that she is a rare character, that when encountered can surprise readers with her ability to speak her mind, and constantly entertain them. Moreover, her character is very relatable, at least for many of the women that read the book. She is able to be independent and strong, while also flawed by her physical and emotional inferiority to many other women…Ms. Ingram. This, in my opinion, is what makes her like a real human being. While, I agree that the novel has flaws, I still feel that it is a classic piece of literature. Referring to “not just day tripping,” in this novel, Jane is on a constant journey to find herself, and more importantly, to find what makes her happy. I may be such an avid supporter of this novel because books like “The Age of Innocence,” and “House of Mirth,” are novels I consider both great reads, and classics, you tell me.
There is too much negative criticism concerning Jane Eyre's character. One aspect about Jane Eyre that I believe has been overlooked is Jane's resiliancy and strength. Jane suffers through many painful, humiliating, and degrading events that no ordinary woman can survive through. Jane survives a dark childhood in which her aunt and cousins abuse Jane. She them moves into Lowood school where she is accused of being a liar. The priniple, Mr. Brocklehurst, proceeds to embaress Jane. Furthermore, Jane loses her best friend, Helen Burns, to death (Jane is next to Helen when she dies). As an adult, Jane continues to suffer. She encounters extremely rude and cruel people. Worst of all, Jane's one chance at happiness is ruined and her marriage to Mr. Rochester is canceled after learning that Mr. Rochester already married. Yet, Jane live lifes throuhout the book with courage, hope, resiliancy. Although she seems to be trapped in countless hopeless situations, she still continues on with life. In my eyes, Jane is a tragic figure who encounters many cruel individuals and experiences many unfortuante sitautions.
I liked Jane Eyre, and I liked it for the same reason I liked the Simpson movie: it blew away my expectations. (Hard Times and Native Son lowered them) Jane Eyre was entertaining. The characters were all dynamic. Jane feels like this, then she feels like that. Mr. Rodchester reels her in, then distances her; you know there was this tension between them. It's honestly a page turner for me. Sure it's a soap opera, but life is a soap opera, man!
- That's why Jane Eyre is timeless, it's an interesting soap opera and you have all these liberal ideas going on (feminisim, love, merit). If I was some 19th century British gentleman, I would have been even more impressed (or offended) by little Jane. Hell, I might have read it a second time - this book would have blown away my 19th century mind!
At times, there were so many details in Jane Eyre that were just so long-winded and difficult to get through (which start on the second page of the novel—was it just me, or did everyone else have trouble getting through the description of Bewick’s History of British Birds?) Digressions aside, I really liked Jane’s character. Despite her hardships, she refuses to let others walk on her and treat her as an inferior, defying the societal norms regarding women during the Victorian period. I also admire Jane’s ability to forgive. At Mrs. Reed’s deathbed, Mrs. Reed confesses that she hid John Reed’s letter from Jane. Combined with Mrs. Reed’s ill treatment of Jane years earlier, the sympathy Jane shows Mrs. Reed reveals, quite simply, that Jane is a good person.
Responding to an earlier comment, I have also read “House of Mirth” and enjoyed it (in my completely unbiased, romance-novel-loving opinion). It’s interesting that you’re comparing Edith Wharton’s novels to Jane Eyre, as they all have female protagonists who are victimized in society. I think they are all considered classics because they reveal the plight of women during the Victorian period. Some, like Jane, are able to survive and find happiness; others, like Lily Bart, are not.
During the discussion in class on friday about the "big 20" i noticed alot of things about the novels this summer that previously had gone unnoticed. When i read "Jane Eyre" over the summer i neglected to take into consideration the time period in which the book was written and the political statement the book was trying to make. Number 12 said "Everything is political." This statement is extremely relevant to "Jane Eyre." The novel accuratly portrays the governess struggle. Jane was intelectual and sophisticated just as all governesses should be. But she also demonstrated an understanding that on the social level she was not an equal. Jane's hesitation to marry Rochester even prior to discovering Bertha shows that Jane understands where she stands in Englands social heirarchy. Bronte's portrayal of this political period makes her novel very sophisticated and gives it a deeper meaning.
Learning about the "big 20" list on Friday, it seemed like an interesting and useful way of making sense out of literary writing. But thinking about actually applying it to a book like Jane Eyre, I saw in it an element of futility. Charlote Bronté gives everything she writes about some sort of literary significance, from what the characters look like to what Jane eats for breakfast. While the big 20 seems like a good way to catigorize and recognize these symbols and images, making a list of some that are more particularly important seems irrelevant. Is a trait that the author makes a big deal about not important if it is not on the list? And if a book fails to put literary significance behind, say, a journey a character takes or a potential christ refrence, does that make it not literature? I think it would be better to say that anything an author takes time to write about could be important.
The book was two chapters two long. That is really all I walked way feeling. I didn't want to know everything that happens to all the main characters at the end. That part was mine, I was supposed to do whatever I wanted with the characters. They could all die, or all split up, but it would've been my ending, not forcefed to me. And the first paragraph of chapter nine, was really good. I don't know why, but something about that blew me away. Going to get the book is too far, and too much effort at this point, but I get the feeling that this blog is trying to get us to open up and be more informal, yet less shallow about our learning, so my laziness may get a pass here. And Ms. Siegel, I know this is at least three hours earlier than you thought I would respond, if you expected me to respond at all, so there!
In response to Myles, yes, you are entirely right- it is much earlier than I thought you would respond.
I want to respond too to Jesse's point. The "20" are not a steadfast list. I thought I made that entirely clear during class on Friday, as I was encouraging each of you to share what you notice in writing. Therefore, to force a text into these parameters is trite and does not do "justice" to use a cliche, to the work of any author- aptly put by Jesse.
I hope you all understand that the "20" are designed to be helpful little reminders- nothing more and nothing less.
My view of "Jane Eyre" vacillated throughout reading it. At the beginning, when Jane was being abused by the Reed's, I pitied her. Throughout the story, I admired her for her staunch feminism during a time when women had to strive to be noticed. Jane was unconventional, true of many literary heroes. She did not succumb to the conventional life that other women of her era did. She left Rochester because she was only getting half of what she wanted. She was loved, but she was not intellectually stimulated. I applauded her for leaving him. But when she found St. John, she realized her situation had reversed itself. She felt powerful, but did not have love. So, I was very disappointed when Jane decided to return. She succumbed to conventionalism. Even if Bronte described Rochester as a different man, blind, so equal to Jane, it is obvious that he couldn't have automatically provided Jane with what she lacked. People don't just change like that. Plus, Rochester never even knew why Jane left. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this would have occurred, rendering Jane Eyre a sub-par classic novel.
This conversation seems to have focused on Jane's character in the novel. Although Jane is supposed to be portrayed as a strong, independent character, I found her to be flat and dull. Aside from her impationed speeches as a child, Jane seems docile both in her words and actions. In the scene where Blanche and her mother are discussing the uselessness of governesses, instead of defending herself, Jane tries to disappear into the corner, where she can sneak out unseen. She also speaks in a colorless obedient tone to Mr. Rochester. Even when they are engaged she calls him "sir." I find it interesting that her heroine is drastically different from that of her sister, Emily's novel. The character of Catherine in Wuthering Heights is tempestuous, bold, and almost terrifying. Beside her Jane looks meek, docile, forgettable. When I think of the novel, Jane Eyre, I do not think "feminist." There is nothing contriversial about the character of Jane. Everything that she does is dictated by rational, common sense. Not once does she succumb to weakness, or temptation; her staunch morals prevent her from doing anything that would spark interest. She refuses to become Mr. Rochester's mistress and instead leaves him without warning, knowing that he would be in misery without her. If she had not met Mr. Rochester, I could see Jane being little more than a wizened school-marm. It is not Jane's character that propels the story, rather, it is what events and characters she stumbles upon. Hence the book should not be titled Jane Eyre, perhaps a more appropriate one would be "A Series of Misfortunate Events Part II."
excuse me-- "Unfortunate Events."
I don't feel that a character needs to consistantly demonstrate a characteristic throughout every scene in a novel in order to be characterized in that way. I mean to say that Jane Eyre doesn't need to act like a feminist in every situation in order to be characterized as a feminist. She displays feminism within the overarching narration of the book. She wants and, by the story's end, acheives equality with Rochester. This, in itself, I feel, is enough to qualify her character as a feminist. I also feel that the fact that she shows intelligence and independence of thought in an era where woman could not vote because they were commonly thought to not possess either of those qualities places her in the role of a feminist.
I'm surprised about how many negative comments there are about the novel. Personally, I loved "Jane Eyre" to my own surprise. I really enjoyed the character of Jane. Her determined, headstrong, no nonsense personality made her different from normal female Victorian characters. The way she stood up for herself and worked to get what she wanted and deserved made me root for her. I enjoyed learning about Jane's adventures and her quest to find love. Jane's defiant nature went against the ideas of how a woman should act during that time period, which made her more interesting to read about. I liked reading about the realtionship between Rochester and Jane because they were both such determined individuals. I enjoyed the scenes when Jane and Rochester would sit by the fire and talk. This showed how intelligent Jane was and displayed some of the novel's feministic qualities. However, what I disliked about the novel was the last chapter of the book was a little too corny for my taste. I didn't mind that Bronte told the reader what happens to each character, but I don't understand how Rochester magically got his sight back. I think things ended a little too "happily ever after".
I found the "Jane Eyre" to be rather hit-or-miss. My feelings are rather mixed.
While I found the core story and characterization to be superb, I found there was far too much unnecessary fluff at times. There's nothing wrong with expanding detail per se, since it provides the reader with unbridled, vivid imagery, but occasionally it was simply far too much. It adversely affected the reading experience, because I found myself desperately awaiting the next meaningful block of text.
To be honest, however, that was my main gripe with the novel. Sure, as others have said, Jane is terribly flawed, the themes are somewhat cliche, and this and that could be improved upon. But I can't help but feel like this is simply because this is from a vastly different time period, and the 'cliche' feeling might be moot since this story was created so long ago. I found Jane's story to be very realistic (however contrived as some may feel), since she is not just a flawless heroine to forever look up to. She follows her dreams, and her desires and does not allow the painfully oppressive world around her to drag her down. Forget the feminist ideas and other hidden meanings, Jane's perseverance through all of her strife is worthy of praise in itself.
Classic? I suppose it's worthy of the title. But flawless? Definitely not. It has it's pitfalls (oh the endless detail, and so on), and Jane isn't the most fantastic and perfect character. But she's still rather realistic, strong, and independent (in a lifelike manner of course), and deserves her due respect. The novel itself and the experience of reading it, on the other hand, isn't quite on par with the central story it is trying to tell.
The novel likely deserves to be deemed a classic over the others based solely on timeless themes and the like, yet I think the addition of what constituted the list of 20 items became overwhelming at points. As far as the evaluation of Jane’s character goes, to me, Jane seemed a walking contradiction. I didn’t find her at all to be the archetype of the strong-willed, autonomous female protagonist that Bronte had clearly intended for her to be. Not only did I find the character distant and shallow, I became skeptical about her earnest nature and what seemed to be her strong feminist ideals. Essentially, the novel ended with Jane making the conscious decision to concede her opportunity for basic freedom and feminine equality (albeit an opportunity given to her by St. John, with whom she, I guess you could say, didn’t share much passion). What’s more, she compromised her individuality as a woman altogether by returning to a man who, as far as she knew upon making the decision, would forever be superior to her on the socioeconomic hierarchy. It’s “sweet” that Jane finds passion to be of more importance than, hmm, what she had spent the entirety of the novel searching for? Does Bronte expect us to forget that she wasn’t aware of Rochester’s debilitation upon her return and to simply be satisfied with the “happy ending” in which husband and wife are on equal footing? Jane’s character loses all credibility at this point, along with any of the little respect I had left for her.
Post a Comment