Nataliya’s review of Jane Eyre > Likes and Comments
1158 likes · Like
I've discovered my opinion changes depending on whether I was a child or adult, and if I'm wearing my reader or (amateur ) critic's hat, when reading books. I hated this book as a child, liked it as an adult. I didn't like her mannered responses when I was little. I wanted HER to burn the house down at age 12! ( I was very mannered as a child, a teacher's pet.)
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I've discovered my opinion changes depending on whether I was a child or adult, and if I'm wearing my reader or (amateur ) critic's hat, when reading books. I hated this book as a child, liked it a..."
As a kid, I was bothered by what I perceived as Jane's weakness and spinelessness. Now I can't help but see her maturity and courage. So far I'm really enjoying this story. Teenage me did not know best, it appears.
Oh, how I love this book! I never tried to read it as a teenager, which is probably good. I don't know if I was ready for it. I adore Jane now, but as a teenager I might not have been able to appreciate her strength for what it is.
Will this be getting the infamous Nataliya treatment? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, even if it's just a brief review.
Oh, it is in the process of getting the 'Nataliya treatment' - but it will be overwhelmingly positive, quite unlike what I thought it would be. It's just that I have spent up to 17 hours a day working lately - kinda dampens my reviewing productivity.
Nataliya wrote: "Oh, it is in the process of getting the 'Nataliya treatment' -..."
What happens when experiencing your reviews is more satisying that reading the books? It's like Cliff's Note with pizzazz. If only more books came with illustrations--they seem dull in comparison. Hopefully soon they will have little video clips, sort of like the newspapers in Harry Potter, a multisensory experience!
Well, Michael, I think that book publishers uniformly assume that most book-loving adults have moved on past the phase where they like seeing pictures in their sizeable tomes. I. on the other hand, am still stuck in childhood in this way (maybe because when I was a kid I prided myself on reading books with no pictures in them, and now I overcompensate!)
I know I've read this book, because I distinctly remember also having to read Wide Sargasso Sea and having to compare them based upon their differing POVs, and while I can sort of remember WSS, I just can NOT remember much about *this* book... I think I have an ebook version of it, I'll have to re-read it some day...
Algernon wrote: "So, you can read now The Eyre Affair while the original story is still fresh"
I've read mixed reactions about that book. Is it actually any good?
Katy wrote: "I know I've read this book, because I distinctly remember also having to read Wide Sargasso Sea and having to compare them based upon their differing POVs, and while I can sort of remember WSS, I j..."
You can also read it online through Goodreads - just follow the 'read it' button under the picture of the book cover.
Yes, I saw that; but I decided to download the .epub from Project Gutenburg.org, so when i get a chance, I'll probably read it that way.
The Eyre Affair is a little silly in places, but it also has a lot of word games and literary puns. I found it a fast and enjoyable ride, even if some of the finer points of references to Jane Eyre may have been lost on me. Like , you I read this when I was too young (13 or 14) and haven't gone back to it since.
"Reader, I married him" may be one of the most famous phrases from this book (actually, the most famous, come to think of it) - but it is her refusal to marry him in the first place that allows her to keep her integrity and remain true to self, and continue developing into the amazing person she becomes. Jane has too much self-worth to have Rochester until he redeems himself in her eyes, until he repents. That's the point, not the marriage part.
AMEN. So nice to see this emphasized!
Nataliya wrote: "Algernon wrote: "So, you can read now The Eyre Affair while the original story is still fresh"
I've read mixed reactions about that book. Is it actually any good?"
Ohh dear. I really kind of hated it. Everyone else loves it, tho. It's not actually that Gothic, or really that related to Bronte's book, even.
You really kicked your 13 year-old self's ass! Good for you, Nataliya. Jane is one of the strongest female characters I've ever come across in literature. I completely love this book.
I am so glad you re-read Jane Eyre, Nataliya - and that you have written a review that underscores just how strong Jane is. This is definitely a novel that requires some life experience on the part of the reader to fully appreciate Jane's decisions along the way.
(view spoiler)
So glad you gave this one another chance - it's one of my favorite books of all time. I've read it a bunch of times and I feel like I get something different from it each time. FYI, I really loved the film adaptation with Tobey Stephenson and Ruth Wilson. They are both interesting looking, but I wouldn't call either one of them pretty.
Nataliya thanks for this nice analysis of Jane Eyre. It's one of my favourite books as well. Catie, that film adaptation with Tobey Stephenson and Ruth Wilson is one I haven't seen - I'll definitely check it out. There's a site that compare these - The Enthusiast's Guide to Jane Eyre Adaptations (well there's probably a lot of sites that do this): http://eyreguide.awardspace.co.uk/com...
Catie wrote: "FYI, I really loved the film adaptation with Tobey Stephenson and Ruth Wilson. They are both interesting looking, but I wouldn't call either one of them pretty."
That was a TV miniseries, right? I haven't seen that one, but the recent Cary Fukunaga one I liked a lot. In fact, I'm a fan of that director—he did Sin Nombre in 2008 which was one of my favorite movies from that year.
Good lord, I may have to reread the book, since I think at the time I read it I also was a little too caught up on the lovey-dovey, "JANE DAMMIT WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD WHY WON'T YOU MARRY HIM?!" aspect of the story....
Monica! wrote: "Good lord, I may have to reread the book, since I think at the time I read it I also was a little too caught up on the lovey-dovey, "JANE DAMMIT WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD WHY WON'T YOU MARRY HIM?!"..."
I think it's easy to focus just on that part, given the modern day morals that we have. I'm so glad I gave this book another chance and was able to see past that initial impression of Jane's cowardice!
Catie wrote: "So glad you gave this one another chance - it's one of my favorite books of all time. I've read it a bunch of times and I feel like I get something different from it each time. FYI, I really love..."
I haven't seen this adaptation (and now I'm very much going to!) But from the picture that you posted I find Mr. Rochester quite interesting-looking, if not outright attractive.
In the Fukunaga, it's Michael Fassbender, who—amazingly—keeps his pants on the whole time.
Jason wrote: "In the Fukunaga, it's Michael Fassbender, who—amazingly—keeps his pants on the whole time.
"
That's only thanks to Jane's ironclad morals ;) There was no way around it!
Nataliya wrote: "That's only thanks to Jane's ironclad morals ;) There was no way around it!"
Oh, no doubt!
I guess I really need to watch the new adaptation! Enthusiast's Guide - that's brilliant!
Catie wrote: "I guess I really need to watch the new adaptation! Enthusiast's Guide - that's brilliant!"
I liked the new one. It was not 100% faithful to the book as I realize now, but it worked really well as a movie. I loved how Jane was portrayed in it!
I'm watching the 2006 series now - and it is good (except for Adele - what did they do to that adorable child from the book???)
I know when I was in high school I had very little appreciation for books. I need to go back and give another try to those that I tossed aside back then.
I also like a strong protagonist which is why I really enjoyed this book as opposed to a novel like Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Tess is a ding-a-ling by comparison, having her will bent by every guy she meets.
I don't think Tess is a ding-a-ling. I just think Hardy likes to give his characters hell. Jane has a tough life, no doubt, but she is definitely afforded the luxury of not being put through the same set of hoops that Tess has to deal with.
Lovely review, Nataliya. Reading this as an adult, I was moved by Jane's choice in a way I doubt I could have been as a teenager. I would have been hung up on her walking away from love and would have completely missed that chose her own integrity over the opinion of anybody else, even Mr. Rochester's.
Sesana wrote: "Lovely review, Nataliya. Reading this as an adult, I was moved by Jane's choice in a way I doubt I could have been as a teenager. I would have been hung up on her walking away from love and would h..."
Thanks, Sesana! This is exactly why I'm really glad I read it again as an adult. It's easy as a teenager to let the love story overshadow everything.
Surprised how much I enjoyed the book,Nataliya.My sister reads all this stuff.
I adore Jane. Lovely review, Nataliya.
Wendy Darling wrote: "I adore Jane. Lovely review, Nataliya."
Thanks, Wendy! Jane has quickly become one of my favorite literary characters. That little 'meek' girl is actually a bastion of strength!
Michael wrote: "Cute review."
Thanks, Michael.
Nataliya wrote: "Well, Michael, I think that book publishers uniformly assume that most book-loving adults have moved on past the phase where they like seeing pictures in their sizeable tomes. I. on the other hand,..."
I like books with pictures too.
Well said! I enjoyed your review very much! It was exactly what I felt like after I read the book, and exactly why I loved this book and Jane so soo much. Of course I was ecstatic that they did end up together, but it was made better knowing that she stuck to her principles throughout (no matter how much it broke her own heart) and only went to him AFTER he REDEEMED himself. In my eyes, that was what made their love great, the fact that they went through so much to be with each other, instead of (as you mentioned with Austen) merely finding someone rich with lots of land.
Jane wrote: "Well said! I enjoyed your review very much! It was exactly what I felt like after I read the book, and exactly why I loved this book and Jane so soo much. Of course I was ecstatic that they did end..."
Thanks, Jane! I fully agree with what you said about your namesake.
Absolutely brilliant review! You pointed out so many of the elements of the story that I've always cherished, and which also drive me crazy because other people never notice them!
Katharine wrote: "Absolutely brilliant review! You pointed out so many of the elements of the story that I've always cherished, and which also drive me crazy because other people never notice them!"
Thanks, Katharine!
strong, yes. Independent, yes. But lightyears ahead of its time? Not quite.
She is still very much part of the English class system, has a patronizing view on peasants for instance, is fairly bigoted as she is convinced of the superiority of English civilization and still too religiously obedient to be 'light years ahead of her time'.
Read Moby Dick and you will find a much more liberal, free spirit, believing in the equality of men. THAT book struck me as even ahead of THIS time.
Stefan wrote: "strong, yes. Independent, yes. But lightyears ahead of its time? Not quite.
She is still very much part of the English class system, has a patronizing view on peasants for instance, is fairly bigo..."
Stefan, I will disagree. Yes, Jane is still a child of her time, with the feeling of class superiority and racism. I will not touch on her religious obedience as so many people now allow religion to completely guide them in their lives, and if not religion then another comparably strong conviction or belief. My impression of character of Jane being ahead of her time stems from her fierce sense of self-worth and striving for independence. She insists on supporting herself with her work, even when having quite enviable from social standpoint marriage prospects. She refuses to be dependent on her rich suitor. She maintains her feistiness and independence when other women would be expected to surrender everything, to be meek and weak (yes, Jane considers herself meek and weak but she's the furthest thing from that!) She is amazingly self-reliant, does not shy away from working for living - and in the position that was not necessarily appropriate for a more or less noble lady, and would have fared well in this world if she did not have a rich man to marry - something that is admirable in women of her time period. Actually, her religious obedience to me highlighted her iron will to adhere to her moral principles, regardless of the nature of origin of these principles. Given her upbringing, I would be amazed if she did not have the views mentioned. She may not be the embodiment of progress how we view it 150+ years later, but she was light years ahead of her time as far as portrayal of women goes in the literature of that time period.
As for Moby-Dick, I'm halfway through my re-read of it now. Actually, it does have quite a few qualities that you notice in Jane Eyre. Ishmael (when he's still recognizable as narrator - as later narrator seems to have little to do with the simple American sailor from the beginning of the story) is quite racist (even though he makes an excellent effort at getting over that), seems to frequently hold Western civilization and Christianity superior to others (even though he advocates tolerance - but my impression was that this tolerance stemmed from good-natured feeling of superiority). I never got the impression of equality from Moby Dick - more of tolerance than anything else. I don't see it as more ahead of its time than Jane Eyre - just very different, dealing with men who could afford to have ideas and actions that can be viewed now as more progressive. You and I appear to view these books from a different perspective - and I find it fascinating how the perspective affects the perception of the book and its ideas.
Nataliya wrote: "As for Moby-Dick...it does have quite a few qualities that you notice in Jane Eyre"
I think you should write a cryptid dramedy called, Jane Dick.
Thanks Nataliya for your long and clear answer.
I don't expect either one of us to change his opinion about these books, and that's not the point anyway.
I guess my trouble with Jane Eyre stems from the fact that it's overly romantic and twists and turns to come up with a very convenient happy ending.
I think the difference of tone in the books (in my opinion of course) comes from the fact that Moby Dick was written in America, when it was still a wild and free, young country where everybody started afresh. Charlotte Brontë wrote her book in England, where the difference in social classes were still very much in vigor.
Stefan wrote: " think the difference of tone in the books (in my opinion of course) comes from the fact that Moby Dick was written in America, when it was still a wild and free, young country where everybody started afresh. Charlotte Brontë wrote her book in England, where the difference in social classes were still very much in vigor."
Well, you are right - to a point. America did not have the rigidity of social strata that 19th century England had, and it was proud about it. But wild and free is a romanticized notion of American society at that time. Instead of rigid social classes of British nobility there was a stark racial division leading to very clear-cut stratification. Pequod seemed to me to be a rather hierarchical place to be, with very strict roles held by the "American" ship officers, and subordinate roles held by the non-white harpooners, and the influence of those in power seemed absolute - Ahab's word seemed to be gospel, didn't it? The classes were different but they're still very much present.
"I guess my trouble with Jane Eyre stems from the fact that it's overly romantic and twists and turns to come up with a very convenient happy ending."
Well, Jane Eyre is clearly a romance novel, unlike Moby Dick, and therefore is destined to have a happy ending by the genre conventions. It was just its divergence from traditional "female" books and female stereotypes that made it stand out for me.
I can't say I ever expected to get into debate about either Jane Eyre (...boring) or Moby Dick (awful, ... and boring) but I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest that Moby Dick demonstrates American classism because Ahab's word is gospel. The absolute sovereignty of a ship's captain still pretty much exists - for good reason. All ships are hierarchical structures. Moby Dick demonstrates American classism because the "lesser" races could not possibly become officers (which incidentally, is still pretty true of commercial shipping around the world).
I agree with the point made about Jane Eyre being about an independant woman and not about a romance, but I was very disappointed at the end when Jane went back to Rochester. He had not redeemed himself, he had simply lost his wife and his sight. Jane married him despite the fact that his morals were no different than they were when he was privileged. This is evident because Rochester still didn't care for his ward, so we can see he still did not have an especially lovely disposition.
Julia wrote: "I agree with the point made about Jane Eyre being about an independant woman and not about a romance, but I was very disappointed at the end when Jane went back to Rochester. He had not redeemed hi..."
Well, here's what I think. Mr. Rochester may have not redeemed himself in the way we'd like to see, but what seems important to Jane is that he has suffered and has been humbled by his suffering (from what I understand, suffering reading to redemption is a big theme in Christianity, and Jane is a passionate believer). He was brought down from his pedestal by his suffering, and it seems that to Jane that was enough of a cleansing of his soul to forgive him. His wife dying also made him not an adulterer, not a sinner, allowing Jane to marry him/legally love him, which she refused to do while he was still married. It's not about him changing his morals - it's about paying for his transgressions in suffering that redeems him in Jane's eyes. I never expected him to suddenly develop a lovely sunny personality - that would have been a cheap trick, a Bronte's rendition of Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol'. I also enjoyed the role reversal that comes in the end - Jane, an independent and relatively successful woman almost does him a favor by marrying him (she definitely does not need him to support her - she's fine on her own), while previously he was fulfilling the generous benefactor role, marrying a young governess who was essentially a nobody.
As for Rochester and Adele - while I so not condone Rochester's coldness towards a girl who may or may not have been his child (and he believes she isn't), he still did more that any of the men of his time would have by taking her in and assuming responsibility for her, providing her with a respectable home and education. Jane received less kindness than that from her known blood relatives.
back to top
message 1:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(new)
Aug 20, 2012 12:22PM
I've discovered my opinion changes depending on whether I was a child or adult, and if I'm wearing my reader or (amateur ) critic's hat, when reading books. I hated this book as a child, liked it as an adult. I didn't like her mannered responses when I was little. I wanted HER to burn the house down at age 12! ( I was very mannered as a child, a teacher's pet.)
reply
|
flag
*
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I've discovered my opinion changes depending on whether I was a child or adult, and if I'm wearing my reader or (amateur ) critic's hat, when reading books. I hated this book as a child, liked it a..."As a kid, I was bothered by what I perceived as Jane's weakness and spinelessness. Now I can't help but see her maturity and courage. So far I'm really enjoying this story. Teenage me did not know best, it appears.
Oh, how I love this book! I never tried to read it as a teenager, which is probably good. I don't know if I was ready for it. I adore Jane now, but as a teenager I might not have been able to appreciate her strength for what it is.
Will this be getting the infamous Nataliya treatment? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, even if it's just a brief review.
Oh, it is in the process of getting the 'Nataliya treatment' - but it will be overwhelmingly positive, quite unlike what I thought it would be. It's just that I have spent up to 17 hours a day working lately - kinda dampens my reviewing productivity.
Nataliya wrote: "Oh, it is in the process of getting the 'Nataliya treatment' -..."What happens when experiencing your reviews is more satisying that reading the books? It's like Cliff's Note with pizzazz. If only more books came with illustrations--they seem dull in comparison. Hopefully soon they will have little video clips, sort of like the newspapers in Harry Potter, a multisensory experience!
Well, Michael, I think that book publishers uniformly assume that most book-loving adults have moved on past the phase where they like seeing pictures in their sizeable tomes. I. on the other hand, am still stuck in childhood in this way (maybe because when I was a kid I prided myself on reading books with no pictures in them, and now I overcompensate!)
I know I've read this book, because I distinctly remember also having to read Wide Sargasso Sea and having to compare them based upon their differing POVs, and while I can sort of remember WSS, I just can NOT remember much about *this* book... I think I have an ebook version of it, I'll have to re-read it some day...
Algernon wrote: "So, you can read now The Eyre Affair while the original story is still fresh"I've read mixed reactions about that book. Is it actually any good?
Katy wrote: "I know I've read this book, because I distinctly remember also having to read Wide Sargasso Sea and having to compare them based upon their differing POVs, and while I can sort of remember WSS, I j..."
You can also read it online through Goodreads - just follow the 'read it' button under the picture of the book cover.
Yes, I saw that; but I decided to download the .epub from Project Gutenburg.org, so when i get a chance, I'll probably read it that way.
The Eyre Affair is a little silly in places, but it also has a lot of word games and literary puns. I found it a fast and enjoyable ride, even if some of the finer points of references to Jane Eyre may have been lost on me. Like , you I read this when I was too young (13 or 14) and haven't gone back to it since.
"Reader, I married him" may be one of the most famous phrases from this book (actually, the most famous, come to think of it) - but it is her refusal to marry him in the first place that allows her to keep her integrity and remain true to self, and continue developing into the amazing person she becomes. Jane has too much self-worth to have Rochester until he redeems himself in her eyes, until he repents. That's the point, not the marriage part.AMEN. So nice to see this emphasized!
Nataliya wrote: "Algernon wrote: "So, you can read now The Eyre Affair while the original story is still fresh"I've read mixed reactions about that book. Is it actually any good?"
Ohh dear. I really kind of hated it. Everyone else loves it, tho. It's not actually that Gothic, or really that related to Bronte's book, even.
You really kicked your 13 year-old self's ass! Good for you, Nataliya. Jane is one of the strongest female characters I've ever come across in literature. I completely love this book.
I am so glad you re-read Jane Eyre, Nataliya - and that you have written a review that underscores just how strong Jane is. This is definitely a novel that requires some life experience on the part of the reader to fully appreciate Jane's decisions along the way.(view spoiler)
So glad you gave this one another chance - it's one of my favorite books of all time. I've read it a bunch of times and I feel like I get something different from it each time. FYI, I really loved the film adaptation with Tobey Stephenson and Ruth Wilson. They are both interesting looking, but I wouldn't call either one of them pretty.
Nataliya thanks for this nice analysis of Jane Eyre. It's one of my favourite books as well. Catie, that film adaptation with Tobey Stephenson and Ruth Wilson is one I haven't seen - I'll definitely check it out. There's a site that compare these - The Enthusiast's Guide to Jane Eyre Adaptations (well there's probably a lot of sites that do this): http://eyreguide.awardspace.co.uk/com...
Catie wrote: "FYI, I really loved the film adaptation with Tobey Stephenson and Ruth Wilson. They are both interesting looking, but I wouldn't call either one of them pretty."That was a TV miniseries, right? I haven't seen that one, but the recent Cary Fukunaga one I liked a lot. In fact, I'm a fan of that director—he did Sin Nombre in 2008 which was one of my favorite movies from that year.
Good lord, I may have to reread the book, since I think at the time I read it I also was a little too caught up on the lovey-dovey, "JANE DAMMIT WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD WHY WON'T YOU MARRY HIM?!" aspect of the story....
Monica! wrote: "Good lord, I may have to reread the book, since I think at the time I read it I also was a little too caught up on the lovey-dovey, "JANE DAMMIT WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD WHY WON'T YOU MARRY HIM?!"..."I think it's easy to focus just on that part, given the modern day morals that we have. I'm so glad I gave this book another chance and was able to see past that initial impression of Jane's cowardice!
Catie wrote: "So glad you gave this one another chance - it's one of my favorite books of all time. I've read it a bunch of times and I feel like I get something different from it each time. FYI, I really love..."I haven't seen this adaptation (and now I'm very much going to!) But from the picture that you posted I find Mr. Rochester quite interesting-looking, if not outright attractive.
In the Fukunaga, it's Michael Fassbender, who—amazingly—keeps his pants on the whole time.
Jason wrote: "In the Fukunaga, it's Michael Fassbender, who—amazingly—keeps his pants on the whole time."
That's only thanks to Jane's ironclad morals ;) There was no way around it!
Nataliya wrote: "That's only thanks to Jane's ironclad morals ;) There was no way around it!"Oh, no doubt!
I guess I really need to watch the new adaptation! Enthusiast's Guide - that's brilliant!
Catie wrote: "I guess I really need to watch the new adaptation! Enthusiast's Guide - that's brilliant!"I liked the new one. It was not 100% faithful to the book as I realize now, but it worked really well as a movie. I loved how Jane was portrayed in it!
I'm watching the 2006 series now - and it is good (except for Adele - what did they do to that adorable child from the book???)
I know when I was in high school I had very little appreciation for books. I need to go back and give another try to those that I tossed aside back then.I also like a strong protagonist which is why I really enjoyed this book as opposed to a novel like Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Tess is a ding-a-ling by comparison, having her will bent by every guy she meets.
I don't think Tess is a ding-a-ling. I just think Hardy likes to give his characters hell. Jane has a tough life, no doubt, but she is definitely afforded the luxury of not being put through the same set of hoops that Tess has to deal with.
Lovely review, Nataliya. Reading this as an adult, I was moved by Jane's choice in a way I doubt I could have been as a teenager. I would have been hung up on her walking away from love and would have completely missed that chose her own integrity over the opinion of anybody else, even Mr. Rochester's.
Sesana wrote: "Lovely review, Nataliya. Reading this as an adult, I was moved by Jane's choice in a way I doubt I could have been as a teenager. I would have been hung up on her walking away from love and would h..."Thanks, Sesana! This is exactly why I'm really glad I read it again as an adult. It's easy as a teenager to let the love story overshadow everything.
Surprised how much I enjoyed the book,Nataliya.My sister reads all this stuff.
I adore Jane. Lovely review, Nataliya.
Wendy Darling wrote: "I adore Jane. Lovely review, Nataliya."Thanks, Wendy! Jane has quickly become one of my favorite literary characters. That little 'meek' girl is actually a bastion of strength!
Michael wrote: "Cute review."Thanks, Michael.
Nataliya wrote: "Well, Michael, I think that book publishers uniformly assume that most book-loving adults have moved on past the phase where they like seeing pictures in their sizeable tomes. I. on the other hand,..."I like books with pictures too.
Well said! I enjoyed your review very much! It was exactly what I felt like after I read the book, and exactly why I loved this book and Jane so soo much. Of course I was ecstatic that they did end up together, but it was made better knowing that she stuck to her principles throughout (no matter how much it broke her own heart) and only went to him AFTER he REDEEMED himself. In my eyes, that was what made their love great, the fact that they went through so much to be with each other, instead of (as you mentioned with Austen) merely finding someone rich with lots of land.
Jane wrote: "Well said! I enjoyed your review very much! It was exactly what I felt like after I read the book, and exactly why I loved this book and Jane so soo much. Of course I was ecstatic that they did end..."Thanks, Jane! I fully agree with what you said about your namesake.
Absolutely brilliant review! You pointed out so many of the elements of the story that I've always cherished, and which also drive me crazy because other people never notice them!
Katharine wrote: "Absolutely brilliant review! You pointed out so many of the elements of the story that I've always cherished, and which also drive me crazy because other people never notice them!"Thanks, Katharine!
strong, yes. Independent, yes. But lightyears ahead of its time? Not quite. She is still very much part of the English class system, has a patronizing view on peasants for instance, is fairly bigoted as she is convinced of the superiority of English civilization and still too religiously obedient to be 'light years ahead of her time'.
Read Moby Dick and you will find a much more liberal, free spirit, believing in the equality of men. THAT book struck me as even ahead of THIS time.
Stefan wrote: "strong, yes. Independent, yes. But lightyears ahead of its time? Not quite. She is still very much part of the English class system, has a patronizing view on peasants for instance, is fairly bigo..."
Stefan, I will disagree. Yes, Jane is still a child of her time, with the feeling of class superiority and racism. I will not touch on her religious obedience as so many people now allow religion to completely guide them in their lives, and if not religion then another comparably strong conviction or belief. My impression of character of Jane being ahead of her time stems from her fierce sense of self-worth and striving for independence. She insists on supporting herself with her work, even when having quite enviable from social standpoint marriage prospects. She refuses to be dependent on her rich suitor. She maintains her feistiness and independence when other women would be expected to surrender everything, to be meek and weak (yes, Jane considers herself meek and weak but she's the furthest thing from that!) She is amazingly self-reliant, does not shy away from working for living - and in the position that was not necessarily appropriate for a more or less noble lady, and would have fared well in this world if she did not have a rich man to marry - something that is admirable in women of her time period. Actually, her religious obedience to me highlighted her iron will to adhere to her moral principles, regardless of the nature of origin of these principles. Given her upbringing, I would be amazed if she did not have the views mentioned. She may not be the embodiment of progress how we view it 150+ years later, but she was light years ahead of her time as far as portrayal of women goes in the literature of that time period.
As for Moby-Dick, I'm halfway through my re-read of it now. Actually, it does have quite a few qualities that you notice in Jane Eyre. Ishmael (when he's still recognizable as narrator - as later narrator seems to have little to do with the simple American sailor from the beginning of the story) is quite racist (even though he makes an excellent effort at getting over that), seems to frequently hold Western civilization and Christianity superior to others (even though he advocates tolerance - but my impression was that this tolerance stemmed from good-natured feeling of superiority). I never got the impression of equality from Moby Dick - more of tolerance than anything else. I don't see it as more ahead of its time than Jane Eyre - just very different, dealing with men who could afford to have ideas and actions that can be viewed now as more progressive. You and I appear to view these books from a different perspective - and I find it fascinating how the perspective affects the perception of the book and its ideas.
Nataliya wrote: "As for Moby-Dick...it does have quite a few qualities that you notice in Jane Eyre"I think you should write a cryptid dramedy called, Jane Dick.
Thanks Nataliya for your long and clear answer.I don't expect either one of us to change his opinion about these books, and that's not the point anyway.
I guess my trouble with Jane Eyre stems from the fact that it's overly romantic and twists and turns to come up with a very convenient happy ending.
I think the difference of tone in the books (in my opinion of course) comes from the fact that Moby Dick was written in America, when it was still a wild and free, young country where everybody started afresh. Charlotte Brontë wrote her book in England, where the difference in social classes were still very much in vigor.
Stefan wrote: " think the difference of tone in the books (in my opinion of course) comes from the fact that Moby Dick was written in America, when it was still a wild and free, young country where everybody started afresh. Charlotte Brontë wrote her book in England, where the difference in social classes were still very much in vigor."Well, you are right - to a point. America did not have the rigidity of social strata that 19th century England had, and it was proud about it. But wild and free is a romanticized notion of American society at that time. Instead of rigid social classes of British nobility there was a stark racial division leading to very clear-cut stratification. Pequod seemed to me to be a rather hierarchical place to be, with very strict roles held by the "American" ship officers, and subordinate roles held by the non-white harpooners, and the influence of those in power seemed absolute - Ahab's word seemed to be gospel, didn't it? The classes were different but they're still very much present.
"I guess my trouble with Jane Eyre stems from the fact that it's overly romantic and twists and turns to come up with a very convenient happy ending."
Well, Jane Eyre is clearly a romance novel, unlike Moby Dick, and therefore is destined to have a happy ending by the genre conventions. It was just its divergence from traditional "female" books and female stereotypes that made it stand out for me.
I can't say I ever expected to get into debate about either Jane Eyre (...boring) or Moby Dick (awful, ... and boring) but I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest that Moby Dick demonstrates American classism because Ahab's word is gospel. The absolute sovereignty of a ship's captain still pretty much exists - for good reason. All ships are hierarchical structures. Moby Dick demonstrates American classism because the "lesser" races could not possibly become officers (which incidentally, is still pretty true of commercial shipping around the world).
I agree with the point made about Jane Eyre being about an independant woman and not about a romance, but I was very disappointed at the end when Jane went back to Rochester. He had not redeemed himself, he had simply lost his wife and his sight. Jane married him despite the fact that his morals were no different than they were when he was privileged. This is evident because Rochester still didn't care for his ward, so we can see he still did not have an especially lovely disposition.
Julia wrote: "I agree with the point made about Jane Eyre being about an independant woman and not about a romance, but I was very disappointed at the end when Jane went back to Rochester. He had not redeemed hi..."Well, here's what I think. Mr. Rochester may have not redeemed himself in the way we'd like to see, but what seems important to Jane is that he has suffered and has been humbled by his suffering (from what I understand, suffering reading to redemption is a big theme in Christianity, and Jane is a passionate believer). He was brought down from his pedestal by his suffering, and it seems that to Jane that was enough of a cleansing of his soul to forgive him. His wife dying also made him not an adulterer, not a sinner, allowing Jane to marry him/legally love him, which she refused to do while he was still married. It's not about him changing his morals - it's about paying for his transgressions in suffering that redeems him in Jane's eyes. I never expected him to suddenly develop a lovely sunny personality - that would have been a cheap trick, a Bronte's rendition of Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol'. I also enjoyed the role reversal that comes in the end - Jane, an independent and relatively successful woman almost does him a favor by marrying him (she definitely does not need him to support her - she's fine on her own), while previously he was fulfilling the generous benefactor role, marrying a young governess who was essentially a nobody.
As for Rochester and Adele - while I so not condone Rochester's coldness towards a girl who may or may not have been his child (and he believes she isn't), he still did more that any of the men of his time would have by taking her in and assuming responsibility for her, providing her with a respectable home and education. Jane received less kindness than that from her known blood relatives.
