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:
82nd book for The Classics Club Project
80th book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
Interesting thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI read it a long time ago and enjoyed it well enough. I hope to re-read it sometime and see how I feel about it now.
That's what interesting about classic works, it would unfold different thoughts and ideas everytime we re-read it (especially if we re-read them when we are adult).
Deletespoiler - Referencing your last paragraph: Jane has been through a sort of pilgrimage in the novel, facing temptation along the way, meeting "guides" and "obstacles" who test her. She ends up rich, independent, & able to care for the man who began the story with all the control. She has switched places with Rochester & (unlike Rochester) has maintained her moral integrity throughout. I don't think Bronte was suggesting women should have power; I think she was simply writing a story that put power into the hands of a woman, to watch it test the woman's character. Victorian women were often not able to be tested by the world's impact upon them. They were domestic either by choice or circumstances. Though the circumference of Jane's adventure is rather insignificant, perhaps, she does manage to go out into the world and see how it effects her character. She is able to declare herself relatively independent at eighteen, though she must work for a living. She meets a kind, gentle Christian (Miss Temple), a horrible "christian (the guy who runs the school -- I forget his name), and an unemotional Christian focused on accomplishment over heart (St. John). These are tests, I think. She is not easily swayed -- maintains her self-reliance throughout, forms her own conclusions, follows her own barometer even when she is tested. She reminds me of Fanny Price (Mansfield Park.)
ReplyDeleteGood point, Marianne!
DeleteAnd that horrible christian, as you said--I think his name is Brocklehurst or something--is indeed horrible and very un-christian! -_-
Yes, terrible!
DeleteOh, meant to say - when he is blinded, I don't think this is meant to suggest feminism is about women overpowering men. Rather, in that era, it suggests that his blindness, lack of money, and lesser confidence afforded her the first opportunity to be equal with him. Which implies more (I think) about the lack of power in women than any belief that women SHOULD overpower men. I think it spotlights the subtle suggestion that a Victorian women was herself blind, destitute and of faltering confidence. Once Rochester falls to the same level, Jane is able to approach him as an equal.
ReplyDeleteSorry! THE ABOVE SHOULD READ SPOILER!!
DeleteLOL... I don't think anybody who haven't read the book would care to read our comments :). Anyway, I actually had the idea about women empowering men from several book studies on the internet. There are several talks about feminism, and they tend to think that Jane consents to marry Rochester only after she is rich and Rochester is crippled. I don't feel it's the case. I think you're right, the problem lays at how Victorian society looks at women.
DeleteI know. & I always forget to say it's a spoiler until after! :) Oh, I see. Maybe I misunderstood your comment. I do think she consents to marry him only after he's crippled, but I think we have two different interpretations about why that is. I don't think she's trying to overpower him; rather, I think she's trying not to be overpowered. But yes, I think the Victorian factor makes all the difference in how the ending might be viewed. The same ending in a 2014 novel would have a different emphasis, maybe. (I don't mean to critique your viewpoint. I hope I don't come off that way. I adore Gone with the Wind, & you don't, & I respect that - lol.) :-) I had read the final questions in your posts as questions about how a feminist might view the work. Being a feminist I supposed I might offer a viewpoint. That's all I meant by commenting. Cheers!) :-)
DeleteI don't know whether I am what others call feminist, but if I was to write the book, I won't make Rochester crippled. I think it's enough that: 1) The 1st Mrs. Rochester has died. 2) Jane is now financially independent. These 2 reasons should be more than enough for Jane to marry Rochester. Making him crippled feels (for me at least) like Charlotte wants to make Jane more superior, like (rich+healthy) vs (rich + crippled). Haha...maybe I'm NOT a feminist anyway :D
DeleteAbout our different viewpoints, it's OK.... it's what makes our blogs more alive with disucssions, isn't it? ;)
I kind of thought that the focus wasn't supposed to be on Rochester and Jane, but on Jane herself. She could have married him and (before the appearance of Bertha's brother) no one would have been the wiser, but her self-respect was too important. Her marriage may not have affected any outward appearance but she knew that because it was morally wrong, the fact that she knew the truth would eat at her soul. She shows the same wisdom with St. John. Brontë somehow keeps her humble and empathetic to the reader without making her moralistically repellent or romantically saccharine. For me, it was all about Jane ....... she sets the standards and she is in power all through the novel no matter what her outward circumstances, because of her inner standards and self-knowledge. I think feminists can forget that the show of outward power does not necessarily mean that the person, sect, etc. actually has the power. Our self-identity is something that no one can take away without our consent. It is always our choice.
DeleteWhat a wonderful conversation, you two! I wish there were more comments like these on blog reviews. They further help to explore a book and draw out subtleties and meaning. Just excellent! :-)
Agree... it's always wonderful to have these kinds of discussion. Bronte herself might not even thought about these things when she wrote it. :) That's what makes it classics; that people keep discussing it centuries after its publication.
Delete