Jane Eyre: Final Review

After Wuthering Heights about three years ago, this year I finally got a chance to read another Brontë’s. Charlotte’s Jane Eyre was definitely more enjoyable than Emily’s WH, but I think WH was more intriguing than JE. From the books, we could recognize the different personalities of both sisters; Emily is more passionate, while Charlotte is much reserved. As Jane Eyre has been taken as Charlotte’s autobiographical novel, we can assume Jane’s voice is Charlotte’s own voice.

Jane Eyre is an orphan who is adopted by her uncle, Mr. Reed. After he died, Mrs. Reed dislikes her, and with her children, treats Jane with hostility of being so sensible for a child her age. Jane is quite relieved when she goes to a charity school of Lowood Institute. But there she is also tortured by the poor accommodation. She endures it however, and even becomes a teacher for several years, before finally leaves it forever when she gets a job as governess in Thorfield hall.

Thornfield Hall belongs to an eccentric landlord, Mr. Rochester—Jane’s pupil is his ward. Mr. Rochester lived alone in his big house with the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, and his ward, Adele. Even if you haven’t read this book, you would guess that soon the master and the governess would fall in love to each other. When there is a love story, there must be an obstacle to their relationship. Firstly, their age difference and their social status; but love is more sensible than social laws.

But then, it is revealed that Mr. Rochester is actually still married to his lunatic wife, whom he has secretly been hiding on the house’ attic. This fact gives the couple an immense blow. Mr. Rochester might think that he is eligible to marry another woman, as his present wife is practically lifeless. But to a sensible girl like Jane Eyre, who is a reverend’s daughter and has been educated in strict Christian morality, to become a married man’s mistress is not possible. So she runs away from Thornfield Hall, from happiness, and from her dear Mr. Rochester, to avoid degradation and humiliation. Is that the end of the story? Of course not, Charlotte then takes us to follow Jane’s new life. Whether she will or will not meet Mr. Rochester again, is a question you must keep in your mind while reading on this book to the end. I won’t give you any spoiler, if you have not read it. :)

To me, Jane Eyre is rather dull, especially when Mr. Rochester was absent, or have not yet appeared (in the first part). It is perhaps typical of Victorian women’s character of narration: emotionless and submissive. Or maybe it’s Charlotte’s own personality which was reflected to this story. Either way, I remembered that I have almost thought to put this book down, when Mr. Rochester appeared. Then, this book was not so colorless as before. He is so vigorous and full of energy, that the pace of second part suddenly felt much faster than before. Jane Eyre too, seems to become more alive everytime she converse with Rochester. Their dialogues are always witty, and are actually the best part of the book!

In Jane Eyre, I sensed the struggle of balancing the freedom (for happiness) and the principle (of conscience). In marriage, unlike most Victorian women, Jane seeks love, because marriage without love can’t guarantee her happiness. That’s why she refused St. John Rivers’ proposal, despite of the honor and security he can provide. If Jane could not marry Rochester, and won’t marry other men whom she doesn’t love, what would she get? Yes, she is now a quite rich woman, but I think not that rich that she can support her entire life without having to work. For a woman in that era, I believe this is a difficult choice. But Jane takes it confidently. Maybe this is what the readers see as early feminism: the courage to be herself; to follow her own principle, and not to bow down to the customs.

[spoiler alert] Actually, the feminism theory could be justified if the story ends up there. However, when Charlotte made Rochester fell completely (physically as well as mentally), to open a way of bringing a happy ending to this love story, then I began questioning whether Charlotte saw feminism as woman overpowering man. Is that what she really thought? Of course we would never know, and we would be wondering over and over again, what this novel is really about. Maybe….this is, after all, just about the power of love and a struggle of a woman….

Three and a half stars for Jane Eyre.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read Penguin Red Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

2^nd book for Twelve Months of Classic Literature:2014 (Victorian Lit)

82^nd book for The Classics Club Project

80^th book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

Jane Eyre: Logic and Rhetoric-Stage of Reading

What does Jane Eyre want? What is standing in her way? And what strategy does she pursue to overcome this block?

Jane wants to live happily with Mr. Rochester, but she also wants to be independent. Unfortunately, Mr. Rochester has been married, and living with him would degrade her, and in the end make her dependent. She sacrifices her happiness by eluding her master, thus gains honor and independence.

Who is telling you this story?

Jane tells her story from first point of view, and she often confused me while telling the readers what others were asking her, while using her point of view. And because Jane is a reserved and typical of Victorian women, this story becomes rather flat. I wished Charlotte Brontë wrote it in third POV and let us delving into Mr. Rochester’s mind and feelings more often. :D

Beginning and ending

The story begins with passivity and stagnation. “There was no possibility of taking a walk that day.” Although it does not sum up the whole story, there is an impression of dependency in that opening line. I don’t know whether Charlotte Brontë meant to do that (I believe she did not), but Jane Eyre’s early life is really hinder her from freedom.

The ending is the resolution. I believe whatever would happen in her marriage, Jane has reached her independence.

Do you sympathize with the characters? Which one, and why?

This might be strange, but I sympathized more with Mr. Rochester than with Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre is a woman with strong character. I knew from the beginning, she would be able to take care of herself. Mr. Rochester is far more vulnerable. He seems to be so strong and powerful when Providence took him in her embrace, but when unfortunates and sorrows came one by one to his life, he became lifeless. Actually, it is Mr. Rochester who is dependent. He needs someone to support him to live; he needs his seemingly-fragile Jane Eyre more than Jane needs him. I kept thinking, what would become of Mr. Rochester if her lunatic wife didn’t die soon? He would be desolate and degraded to the lowest level!

Did the writer’s times affect her?

Yes, very. Had Charlotte Brontë written this in more modern times, Jane Eyre would have revealed her passion and vigor more often, and the reader could have related more with her.

Is there an argument in this book? Do you agree?

People consider Jane Eyre as a feminist novel. I am not a feminist, as I always believe that men and women are created differently. There is no such absolute equality, because they have their own strength and weakness. I think when Jane leaves Thornfield, it is because she wants to keep away from temptation which would then degrade her to sin. Had Mr. Rochester been flawless, she would have pleasantly accepted the marriage. It is not because Mr. Rochester is blind and crippled, and because she is now a rich woman, that Jane finally consents to marry him. The obstacle, in my opinion, has only been Mr. Rochester’s marriage status. I think it is more about morality than feminism.

~~~~~~~~~~