Beverly’s comment > Likes and Comments

Thanks for reminding me of Norah Lofts. Victoria Holt was a favorite of mine during my teen years.

I’m really glad that you like Jane and Mr. Rochester so much. They are surely two of my favorite fictional characters. I have to admit that despite what you’re saying about Catherine and Heathcliff being true, I think WH has its positives also. So for a while I wasn’t sure which novel was better but for some time now I can, without a doubt, say “Jane Eyre”. Some people complain about it being “a standard novel” and yet I haven’t meant anything like it. I guess you CAN say it’s a cliché if you look at it in a superficial way. Surely there are other stories about poor, tortured girls and the rich, charismatic, flawed guys being redeemed by their love, but those are usually fluff. JE is deep, exiting and stylish. They also say Jane is “insipid” because of her perfection and Heathcliff is “way more interesting” as the anti-hero. But he feels to me really plain. He isn’t all white, he is all black. Which is the same thing in terms of complexity, only turned the other way around. I see nothing all that deep in him or Catherine. They were just a couple of people who trough the whole novel did precisely nothing but whine and take revenge on everyone, including on each other. They never took any steps forwards, never felt remorse or desire for development. They were absolutely spineless. No redeeming qualities, no depth, nothing. The only depth they have is in terms of intensity (which is great, but “Jane Eyre” is intense enough too) . And because they are reminders of the consequences of ill treatment. Jane might not be all that complicated, but she’s confident, intelligent and mature, knows what she wants and as you say, takes action for herself. Not every character who doesn’t have a dark side is plain and boring. Written well, those characters might also be interesting. It only goes to show how great was Charlotte Bronte.