Jane Eyre
discussion
If you've read both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights - Rochester or Heathcliff?
message 201:
by
Darren
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 29, 2013 03:47PM
Heathcliff is an abusive Satan in Paradise Lost figure. Rochester is certainly more endearing, but the former remains one of the most enduring literary heap of contradictions ever penned, in my opinion.
reply
|
flag
none I would rather pick Mr Darcy
I much prefer Mr Rochester to Heathcliff. Mr Rochester wasn't perfect, but at least had some common decency, whereas it was difficult to see even the smallest shred of decency in Heathcliff.
If you like bad boys, Heathcliff.If you want a real man, Rochester. Period.
Heathcliff is definitely an interesting creature to comprehend. I don't know if I can recall another character who is billed by many as a protagonist having so few redeeming features, if any at all.
Rochester has since been portrayed as a suppressing anti-feminist figure who locks women in attics, hasn't he?
Absolutely Heathcliff!
Darren wrote: "Rochester has since been portrayed as a suppressing anti-feminist figure who locks women in attics, hasn't he?"No.
☯Emily wrote: "Darren wrote: "Rochester has since been portrayed as a suppressing anti-feminist figure who locks women in attics, hasn't he?"No."
Yes. Read The Mad Woman in the Attic...
What has that got to do with the book, Jane Eyre? That is what this discussion is about.
Rochester hardly locked every woman in the attic. Only the mad one who tried to kill people. And considering he could have just sent her to a lunatic asylum (and those places were NOT great back then) he actually treated her quite well.
The book discusses Jane Eyre and the portrayal of characters such as Rochester and Heathcliff. Hence I mentioned it. It's just an interpretation (literary criticism); I'm not saying he literally locked every woman in the attic! As the book is a feminist reading of Jane Eyre I think it's perfectly viable to discuss here.
Neither one; Rochester is a selfish man who would have ruined Jane for the satisfaction of 'fresh pleasure'. Thank God she was a strong-minded girl with enough strength and self-respect to leave him in spite of her love for him. She returned only when he had been properly humbled and was free to marry. I never could see what she saw in him, but love isn't sensible. I don't know how many of you have read Jean Rhys' novel "The Wide Sargasso Sea". It is told from the point of view of Bertha Mason, Rochester's first wife. Rochester was a second son and needed to marry an heiress so he could maintain the lifestyle to which he was accustomed.It could be argued that he drove her mad.I loved Wuthering Heights and when I was a teenager was madly in love with Heathcliff; he is mysterious and exotic because he is an apparent orphan of an unknown background, and there is sympathy for his mistreatment after the death of the Earnshaw patriarch. As a teenager, I thought it would have been heaven to be loved as Heathcliff loved Catherine. Upon mature re-reading I have come to see him as an obsessed stalker and abuser. His treatment of his own son and Catherine's daughter is brutal and unconscionable. He is really a hateful and vengeful monster. Alice Hoffman in her novel "Here on Earth" re-imagines a modern take on the story and how it might have gone for Catherine if the Heathcliff-inspired protagonist had won her. It's not pretty.
Rochester no doubt :)
Jane returned before she knew what had happened to Mr Rochester, when she was mysteriously 'summoned' by his voice, so I don't think you can say that she only returned when he had been properly humbled, as she didn't know about that. And as I read it, she stayed because she still loved him and now he was free and she wanted to look after him, not because she felt he had been suitably punished for his actions.Mr Rochester tells Jane in the book that it was his father and brother who arranged his marriage to Bertha because they wanted him to have his own fortune, rather than split the Rochester wealth between the two sons. He also says that Bertha's father pushed the union, because they wanted to see their daughter well married before any madness asserted itself. It's clear from what he said that he didn't know much about her and was so young he didn't think to look for anything strange in what was happening. Certainly, Mr Rochester's attempts to care for his mad wife seem generally caring (by the standards of the day, anyway) so I find it unlikely that his reasons for entering the marriage with Bertha were motivated by greed. And since madness was already in Bertha's family, I don't think Mr Rochester can be held responsible for its appearance.
Lynne wrote: "Jane returned before she knew what had happened to Mr Rochester, when she was mysteriously 'summoned' by his voice, so I don't think you can say that she only returned when he had been properly hum..."Fully agree with you Lynne..you have hit the nail on the head :)
Heathcliff is romantic but unfortunately in a destructive way. Any woman would love to be loved by a man who'd be willing to move mountains for her (Okay not literally). But yeah, he is the epitome of obsessive love. And what is love if not an obsession!
Rochester, hands down!
Rochester, without a doubt. Heathcliff was abusive and manipulative. He deliberately set out to hurt people, especially the second generation. Rochester, on the other hand, didn't do anything of the sort. Yes, he locked his wife in the attic, but if you take into consideration the treatment of mentally ill patients at the time, it was a reasonable, even merciful, decision. He didn't intend to hurt her, but protect her.
Heathcliff loved Catherine with a purity that rose above all else. Her weakness, her shallowness, her lack of faith in love and her unwillingness to pursue what her heart knew to be true made her a pitiful character I loathed.But Heathcliff, he was bound by a soul so honest and focused and determined. Catherine's fatal flaws did not weaken his resolve. Rejection did not allow him to quit his life's purpose of earning her love.
His heart was stronger than all of the events that took place around him. His loyalty to the love he knew to be true, withstood the torture he was forced to endure. Talk about walking through the fire for the one you love. He did that without encouragement, without reward. What truer show of character is standing by your conviction through solitude? Yet his love remained even as his life was overwrought with despair.
"That strong grief which springs naturally from a generous heart, though it be tough as tempered steel."
This is a man I would entrust my soul to.
And ultmately, Heathcliff is justified in all he endured.
"Together, they would brave Satan and all his legions."
This line is true because of Heathcliff. He would not have destroyed her life had he won her heart. He would have cherished her and treated her as his queen. Being seen together once again in the moor following his death attests to this. They belonged together.
Donna wrote: "Heathcliff loved Catherine with a purity that rose above all else. Her weakness, her shallowness, her lack of faith in love and her unwillingness to pursue what her heart knew to be true made her a..."His love was so pure that he tortured Catherine's daughter and tried to destroy her. Give me impure love any day.
MR.Rochester..I just love how love transform him:from a man who said mean things at the beginning to a man who remained in love even when Jane left him..
Rochester, hands down. I married my husband because his name is Edward. Just kidding! Jane Eyre is one of my all time favorites!!
No contest... Rochester
Heathcliff's love for Catherine was certainly second to none in intensity, but the way he worked through his sense of loss when he did not win her was nothing short of cruel and abusive.
Hmm I think Rochester would win just because he is presented in the book in such a manner that you just can't help but fall inlove with him. He's so close to being a gentleman yet he is a drop of crazy, just enough to make for a perfect guy. Also he sounds like looking quite handsome and well... Heathcliff did have a dark sphere surrounding him which is appealing aswell but Rochester has the ghostly castle and the crazy wife and just about anything to make it perfect.
Sapte wrote: "Hmm I think Rochester would win just because he is presented in the book in such a manner that you just can't help but fall inlove with him. He's so close to being a gentleman yet he is a drop of c..."Actually, Charlotte Bronte goes out of her way to tell us that neither Jane Eyre nor Rochester is especially good-looking. (Of course, they're played by incredibly beautiful people in the movies - that's the way movies are.)
As a novel character Heathcliff is of course more attractive and compelling. He is wild and so unpredictable. If we imagine he is a real one, however, Mr. Rochester is more reliable and condoling. We could trust him more.
I like the character of Heathcliff much more. And people who comment should be aware that this is not a moral comparison. And it is not a comparison of beauty or looks either. It's a question of characterisation as far as I'm concerned.
Most people, when commenting on something like this, will take a variety of different elements into consideration. Certainly, even when it's a question of characterisation, personal taste will be applied to the decision, as some styles will appeal to certain people more than others.
Rochester, all the way. I despised Heathcliff.
Lynne wrote: "Most people, when commenting on something like this, will take a variety of different elements into consideration. Certainly, even when it's a question of characterisation, personal taste will be a..."Yeah, I didn't rule out the significance of personal taste. But a look at some of the comments will prove that people don't have a very artistic view. The character of Satan in Paradise Lost is certainly more immoral than Heathcliff as he leads a cosmic rebellion against God, but Satan is one of the most wonderful characters in world literature forever. Some people compare Rochester and Heathcliff as if they're comparing two men who have proposed to their daughter. I'm sure if Rochester's and Heathcliff's salaries had been mentioned in the books people would refer to them too.
But I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone's opinions must be based on those kinds of assessments. In fact, brilliant characterisations can make otherwise horrible characters memorable and loved, as you have pointed out yourself. I think this is the reason Heathcliff is revered so much. However, I believe it is also one of the reasons Mr Rochester is also revered. After all, a man who tries to trap the woman he loves into a bigamist marriage, regardless of his reasons for doing so, is not what I'd call the epitome of moral fibre, and that's certainly what critics thought of him when the book was first released. So I think elements of characterisation also apply to him. Is he the more appealing morally? I think so, but he is also a very well drawn character, and I think that one of the things that attract people to him.
Amin wrote: "I like the character of Heathcliff much more. And people who comment should be aware that this is not a moral comparison. And it is not a comparison of beauty or looks either. It's a question of ch..."Agreed. Heathcliff is the nonpareil for me when it comes to Bronte characters.
Lynne wrote: "But I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone's opinions must be based on those kinds of assessments. In fact, brilliant characterisations can make otherwise horrible characters memorable and..."I didn't judge the characterization of Rochester at all. He is brilliant as well. I just like Heathcliff more. Indeed Rochester is very well drawn.
This is a fun question. Too fun. (I am busy this AM and instead of tending to business I have been drawn in here!) I have loved both books since high school (30 years ago) but I have to admit that as soon as I read this question, the great screen versions of Heathcliff and Rochester leapt to mind and what a pair of great performances in the classic film versions of both movies (Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff in 1939 and Orson Welles as Rochester in 1944). As a character, Heathcliff is the more complex, and for that reason, I think more interesting. (I am seeing Olivier in my mind now and hearing him breathe Cathy's name with such passion). As a model of virtue, tormented virtue but virtue nonetheless, it's Rochester. I think Rochester would have been better company for the long-haul as well, but the point of Heathcliff and Cathy was the chemical instability and vexedness of their romance. It could not have been peaceful in life, but only in death. Jane and Rochester were made, having passed through the fires, for domestic tranquility.
Ah, what can I say? I love Wuthering Heights even if I don't really like ANY of the characters. You can kill me now xD I always thought that Heathcliff and Catherine deserves each others since they're both cruel in their own way. On the other hand, I've been obsessed by Jane Eyre so much I'm really not objective...Rochester wasn't honest with Jane but I still love him: he isn't completely a fair man, but neither a bad one, he's passionate but not destructive, sarcastic but not cruel. He is smart and, why not mention it?, even rich. And he's well-read, something a human being should always be u__uAnd, ok, I admit it: some people may not like him, but I think Fassbender was PERFECT as Rochester in the late adaptation of the book. Think I'm gonna see it again tonight u__u
Rochester!!! for ever!!! I love him :D Wuthering Heights and its hero are really gothic, the gloomy images, the hero's cruel behaviour... it's very hard for me to love the darkness of this novel...
Rochester of course! I could not relate to Heathcliff (or Catherine for that matter).
Lynne wrote: "Jane returned before she knew what had happened to Mr Rochester, when she was mysteriously 'summoned' by his voice, so I don't think you can say that she only returned when he had been properly hum..."Jane was in her own way, religious and very moral. I am sure that she responded out of love to Rochester's summons, but would have left again if Bertha had still been his wife.Jane returned with her own fortune and therefore, some power.
Among Rochester's other character flaws was his overweening arrogance, and consider that no matter how she is presented, Rochester also played games with Blanche Ingram, and would have probably married her, (and she, too would have been ruined,in the mindset of the day when it was discovered that he was legally married) if Jane had not come along. Now those two would have deserved each other; Blanche was also overweeningly arrogant, and as Rochester had been with Bertha, a fortune hunter. I never understood what Rochester was attracted to in Blanche except her beauty and value as arm candy, and the fact that he wanted a woman who could be a wife, but still, the man had no conscience in his dealings with women. His little ruses to discover Blanche's disappointment at the size of his fortune and Jane's feeling toward him before definitively cutting Blanche loose was totally unscrupulous.
Jane's Old Testament religiosity undoubtedly saw him as chastened, although she could take no joy in his punishment. I also think Rochester would never have called out to Jane unless he had actually hit bottom.
Everything we know about Bertha in this story comes from Rochester. Of course, like most married or formerly married men who are trying to attract another woman, he painted her in the worst possible light. I've always thought that any woman who falls in love with a married man is a fool, and any woman who thinks about marrying a divorced man should have a talk with the prior wife before making a decision.Rochester is a cad, and Jane is not worldly enough to realize it. The only men who had ever shown her attention were a jaded older man without a conscience and a religious zealot. Too bad she didn't have the opportunity to find a normal guy; she would have been saved a lot of hardship.
Although I would never fall in love with a monster like Heathcliff, I can feel more sympathy for him. He was mistreated and alone except for Cathy from early youth. He was shaped by his cruel treatment and disappointed obsessive love for the only person who had ever shown him kindness, but who, in the end married for fortune and social status.
I guess I'm not much of a romantic. Reforming gothic heroes is not my cup of tea.
I did enjoy the books and have enjoyed reading about the woman who wrote them, who seem in some ways to have based their heroes on their brother, Branwell Bronte, and in Charlotte Bronte's case on a professor named (I think) M. Heger who befriended her when she studied abroad. He, too, was married; it did not end well for Charlotte.
Erin wrote: "Sapte wrote: "Hmm I think Rochester would win just because he is presented in the book in such a manner that you just can't help but fall inlove with him. He's so close to being a gentleman yet he ..."The best depiction I have seen of Rochester in a movie was the one (1970-TV movie) with George C. Scott in the role. He was not handsome, (and was specified as not being handsome in the book), unlike some of the other actors who have interpreted the role. He was also the right age to make his world-weariness credible. Susanna York in the role of Jane was too pretty. The best Jane for me was Zelah Clarke in the 1983 miniseries, small in stature and depicted as plain. She is very authentic in the role. Timothy Dalton as Rochester (he has also played Heathcliff) was so good-looking that he could have made me fall in love with a character I do not like:-)
☯Emily wrote: "What has that got to do with the book, Jane Eyre? That is what this discussion is about."☯Emily wrote: "What has that got to do with the book, Jane Eyre? That is what this discussion is about."
Darren wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Darren wrote: "Rochester has since been portrayed as a suppressing anti-feminist figure who locks women in attics, hasn't he?"
No."
Yes. Read The Mad Woman in the Attic..."
Sometimes when one reads a good book and wants to remain in the world of that book for awhile and learn more, he or she might turn to literary criticism, or to reading about the author's life and the influences that shaped his or her writing. In that sense any book that touches on the subject of either Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre or their authors is relevant to the discussion.
rochester. because you can understand his actions, but heathcliff is enigmatic.you cannot really call him a straight evil,given his history, though he does act like a devil to cathy junior, isabella, linton, edgar, hindley. so very much passionate a character he is, that he goes to an absurd height of revenge. anyway rochester is getting my vote because he is much more sensible than heathcliff. heathcliff is good for wild speculations and rochester is for more humble imagination and analysis.
Rochester also played games with Blanche Ingram, and would have probably married her, (and she, too would have been ruined,in the mindset of the day when it was discovered that he was legally married) if Jane had not come along. There is no evidence in the book that Rochester would have married Blanche if Jane hadn't come along. He had been alone for years. He had his fortune, and if he wanted a woman in his bed he could take a mistress, as he had before. Blanche was only used to make Jane jealous. Yes, he was unscrupulous in doing that, but Blanche's personality is pretty clear on the page. She has no interest in Rochester without money. In fact, Mr Rochester states that coldness from both Blanche and her mother was evident the next time he appeared before them, so I don't think she would have wasted much time in pining over him. She probably congratulated herself on her lucky escape, more so when she undoubtedly heard that Mr Rochester had been married all that time.
Perhaps Mr Rochester did paint Bertha badly. It's difficult to tell since, as far as I'm aware, Charlotte did not write anything to confirm what the true state of affairs was between them, if it differed from this account. I don't think subtlety was her strong point, though, so I'd be surprised if that account differed from what Mr Rochester confessed. Also, he'd been brutally honest with Jane about his mistresses. There's every reason to believe that he only kept knowledge of Bertha from Jane in order to secure her hand. I don't see any evidence from the book to suggest that what he said about her wasn't true. Perhaps he might have lied to try and still get Jane to marry him, but I think he believes she's going to do that anyway (it's almost as an afterthought he starts to talk about what happened). He probably thinks sight of her madness and evidence of his love will be enough.
I don't know what's in The Wide Sargasso Sea, as I haven't read it, but it's probably unwise to take too many of its assertions about Mr Rochester seriously (I'm assuming it's hard on him??) as it was written over 100 years after Jane Eyre. While it may present an interesting viewpoint, it cannot be considered canon, as I don't think there were any details about Bertha for Jean Rhys to use in crafting the book. So, while I'm sure it's interesting, to take it as an influence when discerning what Charlotte Bronte intended when she developed Mr Rochester's character is probably not a good idea.
The only men who had ever shown her attention were a jaded older man without a conscience and a religious zealot.
I'm not sure who the jaded older man you're referring to is. I'm guessing the religious zealot is St John, but she hadn't even met him at this point in the book, so his behaviour can have had no effect on her falling in love with Rochester. And Jane seems happy in the end with the man of her choice. In those days, it wasn't unusual for loveless marriages to abound in every class. As Charlotte Lucas said in Pride and Prejudice, "Happiness in marriage is a matter of chance". We have more chances to find love now, so I think Jane would have been happy to have been one of the few who did.
While I realise Heathcliff had a sad early life, at least Rochester, by the end of the story, seems to be trying to rise above some of his difficulties. Yes, he has Jane back, but he doesn't have his strength anymore. And even before Jane came back, although he appears morose, he does not seem to be taking his ill fortune out on anyone, as Heathcliff did. Instead, he has tried to put Adele in a good school and has cared for Mrs Fairfax. This makes me thinks he has more goodness of heart than Heathcliff ever exhibited. He never once tried to rise above his circumstances and think of anyone other than, ultimately, himself, as I'm sure even Cathy would have been a little annoyed to see him treating her own daughter with such contempt.
I'm not sure Rochester or Heathcliff were based on Branwell. He didn't have the same strength of spirit as either of them. The origins of Rochester are generally thought to come from Charlotte's stories of Angria (which she wrote with Branwell as a child) and her character, the Duke of Zamorna, although she is also thought to have been influenced by M. Heger as well. When Charlotte originally created the duke, he was undeniably handsome, but although Mr Rochester has a lot of similarities in character to Zamorna, Jane thinks he is ugly (which is what Charlotte thought about M. Heger). I think some of M. Heger's character may have influenced her as well, as Mr Rochester falls in love with Jane, and the Duke of Zamorna was far more predatory. I don't know about Heathcliff, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had a similar origin in Emily's own imaginary land of Gondal that she created with Anne.
Lynne wrote: "Rochester also played games with Blanche Ingram, and would have probably married her, (and she, too would have been ruined,in the mindset of the day when it was discovered that he was legally marri..."Moreover Rochester lost his eyesight while trying to save Bertha from the fire..risked his life trying to save his mad wife while still being is love with Jane Eyre....all in all he had great strength of character.
Yes, it does show that. Why not just say that he couldn't get to her? Why risk his life to go further into Thornfield Hall just to save her? No one would have blamed him for not doing that when it was on fire, especially since she set it alight. He had absolutely no motivation to save her, other than common decency and perhaps some sense of responsibility as her husband.
Dhiraj wrote: "Lynne wrote: "Rochester also played games with Blanche Ingram, and would have probably married her, (and she, too would have been ruined,in the mindset of the day when it was discovered that he was..."The jaded older man I am talking about is Rochester. And I am saying that the only two men Jane had known in her life (by the end of the book)were the two extremes; the jaded older man (Rochester) and the zealot (St. John Rivers).
By the time Bertha set the fire, Rochester had a lot to feel guilty about. He had lost the girl he had intended to ruin for his own satisfaction by making a bigamist of himself. He probably did a lot of soul-searching after Jane left, and may have found himself blameworthy for Bertha's situation. It could be that possibility that gave Jean Rhys her inspiration for "The Wide Sargasso Sea". I think all of Rochester's latter actions were caused by his having lost Jane, and later, his grand house, his eyesight and a hand. He was no longer whole and no longer arrogant. His pride was humbled.
It depends on which Bronte scholar you read who inspired Charlotte's and Emily's male protagonists. It is not as though they had many males in their lives to observe. Their unhappy brother Branwell, who was one of the few males they were able to observe up close is almost certainly one of their inspirations. Emily, who was more isolated than Charlotte, who had M. Heger as yet another model of masculinity, had even less experience of the male gender.Yes, I am aware of the imaginary worlds on which they also drew for their later writings.
The Wide Sargasso Sea is a classic in its own right and again, if you like a story, sometimes it's good to consider some of the main characters from another viewpoint.
You could say Rochester was redeemed by his sufferings, but if he hadn't had the series of catastrophes, he would have remained just as selfish as Heathcliff, even if not as hateful.His treatment of all of the females in his life is dimissive and not at all kind (in the case of Adele and Mrs. Fairfax; recall some of his remarks to and regarding them), and dishonest in the case of Blanche and Jane. He was no better than Blanche; he was looking for a wife/bedwarmer, but was not in love with Blanche anymore than she with him. She was looking at his fortune. I believe he had paid court to Blanche before Jane's advent into his life, and it's likely that wanting a wife, he would have married her absent Jane's arrival. He fell in love with Jane and needed to release Blanche. He was deceptive to both of them to accomplish his purpose, and not eligible to marry either. I'm sorry, but Rochester's finer qualities are lost on me. Neither Heathcliff nor Rochester would be my romantic ideal. Better no one than either of them.
Heathcliff without a doubt. "Wuthering Heights" is the best book ever written in the English language, its rough, earthy, elemental just like Heathcliff.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Wide Sargasso Sea (other topics)Wuthering Heights (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
