Jane Eyre
discussion
Why didn't Mr Rochester defend Jane from Blanche Ingram's insults?
message 1:
by
TC
(last edited Sep 12, 2013 10:30AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Sep 11, 2013 04:50PM
In the drawing room after the dinner party, Blanche Ingram and her mom are insulting governesses in Jane's presence. Why do you think Mr. Rochester didn't speak up to defend Jane or at least make some positive comments about governesses? He must have known how awkward it must have been for Jane to listen to that conversation. At this point, he was already in love with her and he obviously despised Blanche.
reply
|
flag
Remember that the whole point of having the house party, and having the Ingram family over, is to test Jane. Does she really like Rochester, or can she be discouraged by snobby snarks? He knew the Ingrams would be rude to her, because they are probably mean to everybody who isn't richer or of higher rank than themselves. There was no good way for him to take her out for a test drive, the way men and women can do today. They could not go out and play laser tag, or spend the afternoon canoeing, or go to an office party. If he really wanted her to be part of his life, she has to be able to cope with it.
Brenda wrote: "Remember that the whole point of having the house party, and having the Ingram family over, is to test Jane. Does she really like Rochester, or can she be discouraged by snobby snarks? He knew the ..."I thought the point of the house party and having Jane in the drawing room was to(1)make her jealous seeing Blanche flirt with Rochester and (2)possibly, though it's not explained in the book, to impress Jane by allowing her to see Rochester socialize with others and see him in a different and positive light.
Testing Jane is an interesting theory though.
I think that Rochester had been burnt by his other dames, whom he apparently selected solely on their physical attractions. Not a good picker, our Edward! He clearly grasped that his previous methods were not getting him a result that he wanted, and changed his methodology.
He did not take any measures to be sure that she would enjoy it. She doesn't speak to him but once, and is dumped into the situation to sink or swim. Of course since she is an employee it would look odd if he treated her like a guest....
Brenda wrote: "Remember that the whole point of having the house party, and having the Ingram family over, is to test Jane. Does she really like Rochester, or can she be discouraged by snobby snarks? He knew the ..."I agree Brenda.He was constantly testing her character because he had been used before, for his money. Rochester himself despised the social circles that were closest to him, thus it makes sense why he did find Jane refreshing at without guile.
He did not care about things that were important to other people of the time such as appearance or etiquette ( to a point) therefore I don't think he was trying to "Show off" his circle of friends to her.That would have been out of character for him.
He was trying to make Jane feel jealous and trying to mask his true feelings for her so he could see how much he liked her
I agree with the readers, who said, that he was testing her. I think one of the reasons he fell in love with her, was her wits. He just wanted to enjoy her reactions, which for him would be a fresh breeze.
I think he actually wanted to marry Blanche when he invited her, he knew he was in love with Jane, but he also knew he was already married and his wife still lived, which means his "marriage" would have been a sham. The reason he did not defend governesses in general and Jane in particular was, IMHO, because that would have drawn undue attention to Jane, (one did not defend those beneath one to your peer's it was simply not done.)
I'm convinced that seeing her in that setting and seeing Blanche's treatment of her, combined with her leaving and thereby his loosing her, though for a short duration, showed him that no matter how lonely he was, he could not spend his life with anyone but Jane.
Yes, perhaps he had given up entirely on Marrying For Love and was once again going to stick his head in the noose and Marry To Please Others. To repeat again an action that was a total calamity the first time would not speak well for his intelligence -- how often do you have to keep on whacking your noggin against a stone wall? So I am glad he didn't do that.
Brenda wrote: "Yes, perhaps he had given up entirely on Marrying For Love and was once again going to stick his head in the noose and Marry To Please Others. To repeat again an action that was a total calamity th..."I don't think it was Marrying to please others, so much as not marrying the woman he loved because he truly loved her and by marrying Jane, he would be corrupting her, dragging her down.
Society in those days blamed the women far more than men, even when they were completely innocent of any wrong doing. Blanche was more his last desperate attempt to protect Jane from himself, and maybe to convince himself that he could be happy with another.
I always thought he brought the Ingrams to his home to distract himself from Jane. He left suddenly after the night of the fire and it was obvious he had feelings for her then. He realized he would hurt her and didn't want to. The house party was to keep him from Jane and yet in the end it didn't work because seeing the contrast only made him want her more.
Pet wrote: I think he actually wanted to marry Blanche when he invited herI thought of this also, but I don't think it's the case. Rochester knew Blanche was a gold digger. It wouldn't make sense for him to risk his reputation and commit bigamy with someone he doesn't care about. He put it all on the line for Jane because it was true love which he never experienced before.
I find it interesting that so many people seem to want to attribute noble motivations to Rochester's actions. I don't really think Rochester is a likable guy. Jane loves him, but that doesn't mean he treats her well, or even that he's a good match for her.Let's not forget, this is the guy who locked his first wife up because she is "insane," a situation which is abusive, and possibly tainted with racism and sexual repression. (http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/b... http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/b...)
Then, he tries to convince Jane, a woman who tries to be "good" according to the Christian standards of her time, to become his mistress, knowing that he's already married to another woman. Really, if Rochester locked up his first wife for liking sex, this proposition he makes to Jane is extremely horrifying, for one can see that if Jane likes sex... there could be problems. And if you don't think that Rochester locked up his first wife for liking sex, then he is still asking Jane to damn her eternal soul (Victorians - Christians - kind of a big deal) to have fun times with him, activities for which society would condemn her. Either way, the possibility is high that she would be locked up/secluded with him, without any other contacts/friends/etc., and, from a religious standpoint, she would be screwed in more ways than one.
I think Rochester is an abusive a**hole, and that's why he tortures Jane with the presence of people whom he doesn't particularly like himself.
Defending her in front of Blanche was out of the question. That would have drawn undue attention to her and would have been "shocking," the last thing Jane would have wanted.Rochester couldn't have married Blanche. He was just stringing her along for kicks. If he married Blanche, who had family, friends, and connections, his bigamy would have found out. Her family would have intervened and he would have been shunned completely by society, not to mention any legal repercussions.
Jane on the other hand was a friendless orphan. There was no one to intervene on her behalf. She would have then been completely at his mercy. Her reputation would have been ruined, a governess marrying her boss was scandalous. She would have lost her independence, her ability to take care of herself. No one would have hired her as a married woman, and certainly not if the bigamy was known. She would have had no option but to stay with him and he knew this.
I personally think Rochester was an opportunistic pig. He strings along one girl for years, knowing he would never marry her. Then he tries to trick a poor, friendless, innocent young girl into a sham "marriage." The fact is, she wasn't just a "moral" person. Her principles made her who she was. They were possibly what she valued most, aside from her independence. He knew that she would never willingly become his mistress. That's why he had to trick her. He knew it would completely ruin and crush her once she found out, and she was bound to find out, but he didn't care. He cared only about himself.
Readingmom wrote: "I find it interesting that so many people seem to want to attribute noble motivations to Rochester's actions. I don't really think Rochester is a likable guy. Jane loves him, but that doesn't mean ..."I couldn't agree more.
Readingmom wrote: "I don't really think Rochester is a likable guy. Jane loves him, but that doesn't mean he treats her well, or even that he's a good match for her."Rochester definitely had flaws and made mistakes, but he treated Jane well and that was why she fell in love with him. She acknowledged that he was kind to her but harsh to the other servants. And remember what she said before he proposed? At Thornfield, she was "not trampled on and petrified", and not "excluded from every glimpse of communion with what is bright and energetic and high." I understand the latter to mean that she felt flattered to be included in the house party, even if it was uncomfortable at times.
I disagree entirely. First of all this book is not just about characters living in the 1840's, it was written in the 1840's.
By those standards Rochester's keeping his wife in his home, having her cared for, and not sending her to some of the horrendous asylums of those times, was actually considered a good and nobel act.
By the same token, how he treated Jane, allowing her freedom in his home, talking to her as if she were an equal, listening to her as if she mattered, was astoundingly modern and completely un-heard of.
Also I might point out, that in those days if the master of the house wanted to "know" any of the servants, he could do what he wanted and no one batted an eyelid, and Jane was without any protection. That he actually wanted to marry her, and went as far as going through the motions is also quite astounding.
That being caught would have caused her to be shunned by society is true, but honestly she was already ostracized for the unbelievable crime of having to work for a living, so not a lot would have changed for her either way, while he on the other hand would have gone to prison for it. So the risk on that was dire for both of them.
I believe in reading works like these as the author intended, Bronte wrote this as a love story, as a wonderfully deep and rich story, in a time when both characters would have stood larger than life.
If we were to write Rochester's character in today's world, he would indeed be a pig of a man, but we didn't and he isn't.
Emma wrote: "Defending her in front of Blanche was out of the question. That would have drawn undue attention to her and would have been "shocking," the last thing Jane would have wanted.Rochester couldn't h..."
Some very good points. I hadn't even thought about the fact that Rochester couldn't have married Blanche, previously. Thank you for pointing that out.
Tara wrote: "Readingmom wrote: "I don't really think Rochester is a likable guy. Jane loves him, but that doesn't mean he treats her well, or even that he's a good match for her."Rochester definitely had flaw..."
Yet Rochester has been married before, and now has a wife he physically locked up, and is very physically restrictive to when she has an episode. His treatment of his first wife is violent and frightening, a habit that is only likely to repeat itself in any later relationships (but maybe won't after the novel ends since he becomes physically disabled).
& like I pointed out, Jane is in love with him, which clouds her judgment of him. Just because he wasn't immediately as mean to her as the people she had previously been living with does not mean he is a nice, or even decent, person. It just means he wasn't as immediately mean.
Pet wrote: "I disagree entirely. First of all this book is not just about characters living in the 1840's, it was written in the 1840's.
By those standards Rochester's keeping his wife in his home, having he..."
Actually, if you read the first link I posted, Rochester's treatment of his wife was not acceptable by the standards of his time. Bertha is unlikely to have been treated quite so poorly in an asylum. Society was beginning to progress in its understanding of mental illness.
Jane would have been shunned by certain people because she has to work, but as an orphan without any family, she was pretty unlikely to marry into the gentle class that you refer to, anyway. In the novel, Jane wants to be a good, Christian woman (which is why she so admires St. Rivers). If she were to become Rochester's mistress, she would be shunned by any of the pure people in whose society she wanted to be included. I didn't mean "society" as in "the right people." I was referring to "society" as in "most people." A man who wants you to be with him even though it means excluding yourself from any friends and/or family is abusive, whether Bronte realized it or not.
Idealize the relationship if you want to, but he's not a nice guy, even if he does deign to talk to a servant girl he bothers to seduce rather than tying her down and forcing himself onto her (which, let's face it, he doesn't need to do, because he's already got a woman locked in his attic).
Pet wrote: "That he actually wanted to marry her, and went as far as going through the motions is also quite astounding."Except that he wasn't actually marrying her. Their "marriage" would not have been valid under law or in Jane's view. He was turning her into an unwitting mistress, something he knew she didn't want. Just because he preferred to "marry" her instead of forcing himself upon her didn't make his actions any more noble or good. He was still manipulating her for his own selfish purpose. That is not the act of a person who loves another.
Not all men were abusive pigs back then. There were many good, happy marriages in which the partners treated each other with mutual respect. There were plenty of masters who treated their employees well. You can never convince me that locking a woman up in a dark, airless, windowless room away from any society or medical attention to be cared for by a drunk was kind or noble, no matter how "crazy" she was. He could have provided her a room with a window (barred, of course, if she really was crazy) with a qualified nurse/caregiver, where she could get light, exercise, and mental stimulation. Nor can you convince me that a man tricking an 18 year old girl into a fake marriage, because he knows that is the only way he can "have" her willingly, shows that he loved her.
We are not slaves to what the authors thought or felt when they wrote the story. We are free to think for ourselves. I personally feel that this is not even a romance, and to call it such is greatly underestimating Ms Bronte's genius. The book is named "Jane Eyre" not "Rochester," to me the real story is about Jane, her strength and her growth, not a love story. It's not easy to walk away from the man you love, but she had the strength of character and conviction to stand up for her independence and for what she believed to be right. She held to her principles no matter how cruelly those around her abused her, and I include Rochester in that. In the end Rochester learned from his mistakes and repented of them, and that is admirable, but that doesn't excuse how he behaved earlier.
Readingmom wrote: "Actually, if you read the first link I posted, Rochester's treatment of his wife was not acceptable by the standards of his time. Bertha is unlikely to have been treated quite so poorly in an asylum. Society was beginning to progress in its understanding of mental illness."Especially since Rochester was wealthy (part of that being what Bertha brought to the marriage) and could have gotten her the best care. The only reason to lock her up in an attic instead of getting her medical care was to hide his shame at her illness from society. If I remember correctly, he even considered killing Bertha.
Readingmom, this is a discussion on a fictional characters and one that has many diverse opinions, by many people. I joined it in good faith, and with the intent of airing my opinion and thoughts. I did not join it to be insulted. Telling me I am idealizing anything is uncalled for. How you choose to interpret this book is completely up to you, I merely ventured an opinion, I made absolutely no personal digs at you or tried to demean your opinion by personalizing your comments.
Any good debate has one rule, keep it impersonal, attack idea's not people.
Pet wrote: "Readingmom, this is a discussion on a fictional characters and one that has many diverse opinions, by many people. I joined it in good faith, and with the intent of airing my opinion and thoughts. ..."I apologize if you were offended. I didn't intend anything personal, I was just having an academic discussion. It is difficult for me to reconcile the abusive behavior I and others have cited with a person, albeit fictional, who is an appropriate romantic figure. I do think that when people read romance, a lot of times, idealism becomes involved, whether on the part of the author or the reader, or both. Yet being idealistic does not, to me, imply anything bad. Idealism can result in great things, whether works of art, successful businesses, etc.
Again, I apologize if you took offense at something that I truly did not mean as an insult, though I cannot apologize for thinking that idealism does often occur in the reading and interpretation of Jane Eyre and many other literary works.
I will also venture to say that I think sometimes, when reading words on electronic devices, there is a lot of room for interpretation with respect to tone.
Rochester is contrasting Jane with Blanche, and already has a pretty clear idea about who will come out the better character. It's a game that becomes serious to him as he sees and appreciates Jane's integrity during the scenes with Blanche Ingram. (This is partly an authorial device, though a brilliant and believable one.) Rochester is not admirable here, but I believe in Jane's sense of who is worth her regard and love; she would not love him if he did not have essential qualities she senses, and that she magnetizes with her own character and love. Rochester intuits this! He is faulty and messed-up, but basically worthy though it takes some well-deserved suffering to get him there. Does he really want to be a better person? We would have to read a sequel to know. He married very young and was duped; that was not fair. If Jane wanted a perfect person, she would have married St. John; she wants someone with her fire, which St. John lacked,and ultimately prefers to take a risk with the flawed Rochester. Let's not forget that the chemistry between her and Rochester is a compelling force, to someone passionate as Jane Eyre.
Remember that Bertha was actually a fairly dangerous person. Her fascination with burning things down really made her too dangerous to keep at home, even with 24-7 supervision, and in fact she does succeed in burning the house down in the end. There was no treatment for mental illness at that time -- nada, nothing. You were lucky if you were not (like Swift) displayed like an animal in the zoo once you had lost your marbles. By the standards of the time Bertha had excellent care right until she killed herself.
gertt wrote: "Rochester was a victim...while still a young man, his father and brother tricked him into marrying a woman that they knew would become mentally deranged, for their own financial gain, which prevent..."So then he tries to trick Jane into a false marriage, which would prevent her from ever having the normal and real marriage that she wanted. In a way that makes it worse, since he knew how painful that deception had been to him. What happened to him was sad and unfair, although in the end, it was his decision to marry her. He could have said no, or waited until he knew her better. He chose to marry someone he didn't know. It makes him pitiable, perhaps, but it doesn't excuse his behavior toward Jane.
It shows an interesting contrast. Jane never let go of her convictions and goodness, despite how others treated her. Rochester let his experiences make him hard and bitter. He gave in to his lustful feelings for Bertha, and it had disastrous results. Jane refused to give in to her feelings for Rochester, and in the end, she was rewarded.
Readingmom wrote: His treatment of his first wife is violent and frightening, a habit that is only likely to repeat itself in any later relationshipsBut your characterization of Rochester is based on source material outside of Bronte's writing. The articles you provided has errors and draw conjectures that aren't even in the book. I based my arguments on what's in the book, and I don't see any evidence of Rochester being violent or frightening towards Bertha. Before Jane fell in love him with, she recognized his flaws but characterized him as "a man of better tendencies, higher principles and purer tastes" and one with "excellent materials in him".
And as far as Rochester not being a match for Jane, I think Charlotte Bronte pretty much settled that debate by having Rochester call out to Jane telepathically across the moor, right when she was about to succumb to St. John's proposal.
Pet wrote: "I disagree entirely. First of all this book is not just about characters living in the 1840's, it was written in the 1840's.
By those standards Rochester's keeping his wife in his home, having he..."
I agree with you completely. You have to take the time period into account. They didn't know that much about mental illness back then & asylums have a horrifying history. Yes, he locked his wife in a room, but that was how mental illness was dealt with. At the time, people didn't know what else to do about it. The fact that he kept her and cared for her actually speaks a lot for his character.
I think there are multiple reasons he didn't defend Jane the night of the house party. For one, he was courting Blanche. To defend Jane from Blanche would have let Blanche know that he was harboring feelings for Jane, and he wasn't quite ready to break it off yet. Second, Jane is "the help" & therefore seen as inferior by Rochester's friends, who (like Rochester) are of a higher class. He had a reputation to uphold. To speak of the governess as an equal would have been unheard of and deeply frowned upon. Third, I think he wasn't ready to reveal his true feelings to Jane yet. He was still testing the waters. Maybe he invited her to the party because he wanted her to feel included, but he had to have known that she would be ostracized, so maybe it was a test. I don't know exactly.
As far as wanting to marry Jane, knowing his wife was locked upstairs...I think he just wanted to be happy, and he wanted Jane to be happy. He knew that marrying Jane would make her happy, and he wanted to move on with his life and be happy himself. Maybe he was hoping no one would find out about his wife upstairs. I don't know how he thought he would be able to get away with that, and I definitely think he should have been straight with Jane about her once things got serious, but I don't think he intentionally wanted to hurt anyone. I think he was a desperate man in a desperate and tricky situation, and I think he made some poor decisions. He was a bit eccentric, and he definitely had his flaws, but I don't think he was a bad person.
Astrid wrote: "Brenda wrote: "Remember that the whole point of having the house party, and having the Ingram family over, is to test Jane. Does she really like Rochester, or can she be discouraged by snobby snark..."I think that Rochester was, before he met Jane, something of a wrake. He was contemptuous of society in general, and participated more as a diversion than for any enjoyment.
Yes, I think he was testing Jane, but this was also very cruel of him because he must have known how shy she was and unused to this type of scene. Can't make someone acclimate by throwing them into this type of position. And the result was that she was embarrassed and felt totally out of place.
And if he could not defend her, he should not have invited her. He did not have to lower his social position by saying to the others that he had placed Jane in a position of trust, and he expected others to respect her.
I did not like him much through all this. I recognize that he was dealing with a great deal given his wife's madness and all, but initially just too dark a character.
And I am sorry but a man who is married, with a wife in residence (although mad) does not move forward to marry another woman. Not if he is what was accepted as a gentleman at that time.
gertt wrote: "Tara wrote: "And as far as Rochester not being a match for Jane, I think Charlotte Bronte pretty much settled that debate by having Rochester call out to Jane telepathically across the moor, right ..."
I agree. Jane and Rochester were already an excellent match because when Jane was a kid she was a hellion. She learned some things at school about character, but that attitude was still inside of her.
Jane and Edward Rochester have the same spirit.
I agree. Jane and Rochester were already an excellent match because when Jane was a kid she was a hellion. She learned some things at school about character, but that attitude was still inside of her.
Jane and Edward Rochester have the same spirit.
Emma wrote: "Defending her in front of Blanche was out of the question. That would have drawn undue attention to her and would have been "shocking," the last thing Jane would have wanted.
Rochester couldn't h..."
i agree about the asylums. People didn't know a lot about what goes on in asylums back in those days and asylums couldve been filled with abuse and neglect. For all they knew. Being sent to an asylum is cruel and dark in 1840
Rochester couldn't h..."
i agree about the asylums. People didn't know a lot about what goes on in asylums back in those days and asylums couldve been filled with abuse and neglect. For all they knew. Being sent to an asylum is cruel and dark in 1840
gertt wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I think that Rochester was, before he met Jane, something of a wrake. He was contemptuous of society in general, and participated more as a diversion than for any enjoyment...."Pers..."
Well, I agree that the term "gentleman" often had to do with social standing and not character. And aren't we all glad that it is no longer possible to lock up women just because they married the wrong man.
Today many men marry for financial gain, and have mistresses. And there is certainly a high level of abuse. So I guess still no gentleman by the standard of having morals and humanity!!!
I do see your viewpoint about the purpose of having Jane attend the party. But if anything I believe it was at a point where he was not convinced or perhaps willing to accept his regard for her and was being somewhat childish in his wish to make her jealous (while thinking he had other motives - sort of a story within a story).
He was one of those dark and brooding male characters!!!
Rochester was bitter and distrustful of people when Jane came into his life. He had been duped and used by his own family and Bertha's, exploited by Adele's mother, etc. He did not have a good opinion of most people. Jane was a breath of fresh air, a person of integrity who did not hide her feelings and opinions in order to seduce or even to please. I think Jane awakened needs Rochester had buried, and once she awakened those needs he was desperately in love with her -- a person in his life capable of love, who loved him.
gertt wrote: "Kathy wrote: "He was one of those dark and brooding male characters!!! ..."Yes he was...a hero we love to hate...but still try to justify his actions.
And I think you're right about the jealousy..."
Yes it is another of those stories in both literature and real life where sometimes things just come together; usually quite by surprise and accident.
Rochester had an opportunity to meet a very talented, quiet and kind woman; someone totally different from the people he had been associating with. And he truly enjoyed her company and appreciated her talents. Hard to say if he helped her more or she helped him more, but either way good story.
I think his social standing may have mattered or at least been taken for granted before he met Jane and got to know her, but after I doubt he cared as long as he could be with Jane.
Lucy wrote: "Readingmom wrote: "I find it interesting that so many people seem to want to attribute noble motivations to Rochester's actions. I don't really think Rochester is a likable guy. Jane loves him, but..."Okay - I'm not sure that I agree, but this is the most persuasive argument for Rochester not being the devil incarnate that I have heard/seen. I'll have to think this over a little bit (to ascertain whether or not I agree).
I like this statement, to help explain some of my problem with Bertha Mason: "As you probably noticed, everything we learn about Bertha in Jane Eyre we learn through Rochester as he’s telling the story about her to other people around him." (http://www.shmoop.com/jane-eyre/berth...)The thing is, if I locked you up in a cold room with nothing to do, allowing you little to no conversation - you might go insane, too. That's the thing: was Bertha insane when Rochester locked her up or did his locking her up drive her insane? You only have Rochester's word that it's the former.
With regards to the violence, I was mistaken. In chapter 26, Mr. Rochester physically overpowers his wife and ties her to a chair. One would imagine this is a violent struggle, though Jane is quick to assure us that her love does not strike, but only wrestles the woman...
Well at that exact moment she is trying to bite him in the throat, so some restraint seems to be called for.
I understand some people don't like Rochester and find his actions unforgivable and that's fine, but the characterization of him being violent towards Bertha and women in general is not the Rochester that Bronte created in the novel. Bronte made it a point to put in the novel that Rochester would "never strike a woman", and emphasized that he didn't strike Bertha or wrestle with her when she attacked him. As far as Berth's living conditions, her brother Mason didn't object to it. In fact he asked Rochester to continue to care for his sister "tenderly" and Rochester's response was, "I do my best, and have done it, and will do it". Bertha was large and strong, implying she was well fed. Carter knew about her, therefore she likely had access to medical care when needed. I understand Rochester haters believe she would be better off in an asylum, but that's a whole different debate.
Was Rochester manipulative, selfish, deceitful and had flaws? Absolutely. But without those flaws there would be no subsequent redemption, and he would belong in a Jane Austen novel and not Jane Eyre. ;)
Brenda wrote: "Well at that exact moment she is trying to bite him in the throat, so some restraint seems to be called for."Yes, I would have to agree.
I really don't think Rochester locked Bertha up just to be cruel, causing her to go insane. I believe that would be completely out of character for him, and I didn't see anything while I was reading that would even lead me to entertain such an idea.
Rochester wasn't evil. At least, I didn't see him that way. He wasn't perfect, and he made mistakes, but I think his intentions with Bertha and Jane were basically good. He was in love. He didn't want to lose Jane & he was stuck in an awkward predicament with Bertha. I think he just went about solving his problems all wrong. I agree that selfishness definitely played a role in his decision-making. I don't think that makes him evil, though. I think that makes him human.
I'd have to go back and re-read (for the gazillionth time) but I'm pretty sure that Bertha was already showing her insanity before they returned to England. So, by the time she was locked up in Thornfield, she was already insane.
What I don't understand is why Rochester didn't leave her in Jamaica, or wherever it was. He acknowledges that it was difficult to carry her on a ship to Britain. She is certainly not native to that climate. All her family is in the Indies. And surely it is more expensive to keep her in the attic at Thornfield, than in her family home, where labor must be cheaper. Why not hand over a boatload of money to the brother or something, and have them keep her there? He could visit her every now and then -- the way Rhett Butler was going to come back to Atlanta and visit Scarlett every now and then, to 'keep up the appearances' at the end of GONE WITH THE WIND.
Perhaps applying a practical mind to these things is not wise.
I think the family was happy to see her packed off. They were happy to lie to Rochester to get her married off. I don't really see them being willing to take care of her - she was her husband's problem. Despite that, I suspect that Mason, at least, partially regretted what he did to Rochester in lying to him before the marriage.
Yes, I have the sense that the Mason family pulled a real fast one over on the Rochester pere et fils. They disguised a clearly defective product and palmed her off onto an ignorant customer.
Tara wrote: "I understand some people don't like Rochester and find his actions unforgivable and that's fine, but the characterization of him being violent towards Bertha and women in general is not the Rochest..."Well, I am not sure asylums even today are places we would want our loved ones to stay in, but I can tell you I have read enough to know that the asylums of the Rochester and Jane times were more like cesspools. Being tied up was mild in comparison.
I am not saying that living in a small space rather than a mansion, and being left mostly alone would be welcome, but I don't think there is any debate, either from the book or the movie, that she was totally insane.
And since this was not real life there and there is no prequel, whether Rochester drove to insanity will never be known. Perhaps those who are Bronte experts and have read all her letters, notebooks and manuscripts (that are still available) may know.
And as a final note (all are thankful), I don't know about you, but I have noticed that some people I consider detestable and evil have the sweetest and kindest spouses. It may be that they are blinded by love, the person is totally different with the spouse, or simply that I have not a clue what the person is really like. But it happens quite a bit. (And those jerks should be darned grateful too.!!!)
That's like asking someone to defend what they believe in... As a believer in romance, I think jane is above defence, and Edward knows it. If you let the jealous waste their words, they have naught left but the truth: Jane is just fine in his eyes, and needs no defense.
I agree with those who take into account the times and manners of almost 200 years ago. Roches ters behavior in general fits in with the norms of his time an dhe didnot even attempt to rape his dependent as many Lords of the manor did. Jane was special for her times as many of the classical Heroenes are
I agree that the Masons duped a very young Rochester to get rid of their problem child, and that was very callous. (Jean Rhys has another and very interesting take on the story in Wide Sargasso Sea). But I like thinking about the original question in this thread. Maybe I already said this: as a man mistrustful of women, R was testing Blanche and Jane, but I think he already had a pretty good idea that Blanche would reveal the spiteful, petty character beneath her statuesque, lovely exterior and Jane would show unbreakable strength of character though she is small and plain. Jane is sensitive and people can wound her, but she heals and becomes stronger at her core. Rochester is disillusioned with surface beauty and charm (Bertha, Adele's mother, Adele).
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
