Why didn't Mr Rochester defend Jane from Blanche Ingram's insults?

[Brenda]

Rochester already had a lousy track record for picking women. And he knew it -- he says so, to Jane. So he was making a conscious effort to get better at it. That it was kind of a dorky and irritating way, yeah -- but at least he knew he was getting nowhere with the previous methods.

[Tesia]

Rochester's a weirdo! That's why! He intentionally manipulated and took advantage of Jane. He was a cad, and that was the point. That's why Jane had to leave him. She had to find it in herself to believe that she was worth more than what he had to offer. And in the end, she becomes the stronger person and is able to be his hero.

[Kallie]

Tesia wrote: "Rochester's a weirdo! That's why! He intentionally manipulated and took advantage of Jane. He was a cad, and that was the point. That's why Jane had to leave him. She had to find it in herself to b..."

But why would Jane, with her strong sense of ethics, love Rochester if that were the sum of his character? She could have married St. John, who many would say had more integrity; why, instead, would she reject him and eventually return to Rochester?

[Tesia]

I'm not saying that was the sum of his character. I think there was more to him. Just like there's more to every arrogant self-loathing jerk. He's a flawed guy. Just like everybody.

[Sandy]

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 ..."

Agree with Readingmom. :)
Sorry, didn't notice this thread before.

[Kallie]

Mary wrote: "I don't think I'd like a relationship that starts with tests. It turned out very well and they were meant to be but who wants to be tested?"

I've read this book at least three times. Rochester is a very flawed character embittered about being duped, and milked for what he can provide rather than loved. But I've always seen this house party as a test of Blanche's character more than Jane's.

[Sandy]

Kallie wrote: "But I've always seen this house party as a test of Blanche's character more than Jane's. "

Wow, this is likely!

[Kallie]

Mary wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Mary wrote: "I don't think I'd like a relationship that starts with tests. It turned out very well and they were meant to be but who wants to be tested?"

I've read this book at leas..."

R was messed up, no doubt about it. He'd been duped and pursued for his money; that was his history with women. I like the Jean Rhys interpretation of the story too. From her and Bertha's point-of-view the Victorian world was horrible for women. But R didn't create that world and though he was a privileged member of it he took little pleasure in his privilege (unlike Brocklehurst and Jane's guardian, the real villains of the story).

[Stacey]

I love this thread. And I love Jane Eyre a lot because you keep pondering the actions of the characters for ages after you put the book down.
I can't bring myself to see Rochester as a monster, but his actions are incredibly selfish.
I have wondered what would have happened to Jane if she had "married" Rochester and then his bigamy had been discovered. The consequences would have been worse for her than for him.
I personally saw the house party as a part of Brontë playing mind games with the reader, she shows affection from Rochester and then coldness and then affection again. I felt like that a lot with her novel Villette too, she withholds information and wrong foots you all the way through. She's just an amazing writer!

[Kallie]

Stacey wrote: "I love this thread. And I love Jane Eyre a lot because you keep pondering the actions of the characters for ages after you put the book down.
I can't bring myself to see Rochester as a monster, but..."

I hadn't thought about it that way -- Bronte playing mind games with the reader. Probably because JE is the only novel of hers that I've read. Sheds a slightly different light, thanks.

[Laura]

About raising Adèle "out of the goodness of his heart", well I understand that in the Victorian society and lacking DNA proof that she was his child, he had no legal obligation, but... what he did was more likely just being minimally decent, considering he knew that she could be his child.

I just found this thread and I was just going to come answer something in the direction of "because he's a dick, of course..." and then I saw your passionate defense of his character, even beyond this incident between Blanche and Jane.

Nobody who has literally a hidden wife confined as his dirty little secret and lies to everyone and their sister about it can be called "100% good hearted and honest". He was trying to [obviously under false pretenses] marry *someone* (Jane, Blanche, no matter!) in spite of this; thus, that would have been an invalid marriage, attempting against her "virtue" (which was important to HER and society, regardless how we or he may feel about it) because of his own selfish wishes.

Yeah... I don't exactly hate Mr. Rochester, but it's important to acknowledge when "your fave is problematic", to put it in millennial fandom language, instead of justifying his being a dick because "oh but love!"

[Kallie]

Jane and Rochester had chemistry. Women were not supposed to have any sense of sexuality let alone choose a partner based on those feelings, and it's not as though any of them had many choices. Whatever his failings Rochester wanted Jane, and as a partner rather than an ornament or subservient wife. According to Lyndall Gordon's bio, Charlotte Bronte was a passionate woman who, though brilliant, was thwarted in her desires. She married, but her husband was far from being her intellectual match and had conventional ideas about what Charlotte's role(s) should be.

[Francesca]

I believe Mr. Rochester was trying to make Jane jealous and to see what her reactions would be in that setting. I don't think he was trying to humiliate her or make her hurt even though that may have been the outcome. He wanted to see if Jane was wife material in his own way, whether that was is acceptable or not is a different question.

[Ekaterina]

I am sure he did that to test Jane, as many of other users posted above. In fact, there is an episode in the book, when he tells her he behaved as an "intellectual epicure" exploring Jane's character to make sure it is indeed as unusual and precious as he hoped it was. Obviously, making her jealous was the ultimate part of this test, because, as the poet says, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", and Rochester wanted to see how Jane would react to the news of his intended marriage to Blanche, whether she would immediately lose all interest and respect she had for him or not, once she had to let go of any hopes of a relationship with him. And when he found out she did not change, it was, likely, the final proof she was the one.

[Grace]

I think Rochester’s biggest flaws and mistakes in the novel in his relationship with Jane all go back to his cowardice, which leads to some very unhealthy and damaging, though unintentionally so, toxic pathological interpersonal relationship tactics of controlling, coercive, deceptive, manipulative, and at worst, intimidating and threatening behaviors in his relationship with her.

This is one of those instances of unconsciously toxic, though well-intended (from his perspective) behaviors on Rochester’s part in the novel. He faked a proposal to Blanche Ingram, rather than just approaching Jane honestly and openly with his feelings outright because he is an emotional coward with no real sense of self-worth who feels unworthy of Jane’s love and feels irrationally terrified of the prospect of her potential rejection and losing her to the point where he’s like “I can’t even consider her rejection a possible option because I love her, I can take care of her better than anyone else since she has no one else in the world, and I have a right to happiness, don’t I? But if I’m honest with her, and/or if I just give her a complete choice of her own without the use of any control, manipulation, or pressuring of her feelings for me, I’m terrified she’ll just leave me, reject me, and realize she hates me sooner or later.”

Rochester’s emotional cowardice is the same reason why he pretends to send Jane off to Ireland to provoke her to admit her feelings for him before his first proposal to her when she’s still under his employ, attempts to dupe her into a bigamous union, and then attempts to persuade her to stay with him afterwards as his “wife” (really, his mistress, but in his self-delusions, she was his wife in his mind because he considers his marriage to Bertha a sham, which I can understand, but that doesn’t excuse lying to Jane, attempting to dupe her into bigamy, or trying to persuade her to stay with some unhealthy coercive tactics) with an empty threat of violence, a little harassment, intimidation, and some guilt tripping.

I love Mr. Rochester’s character, I and in spite of his many flaws, I ended up shipping him and Jane together because she loved him, he loved her, and ultimately I could see that he wanted to be a better man. Does that mean I would ever date or marry someone like Mr. Rochester in real life? LOL, no way! I’d run for the hills, and never return. However, within the context of the novel, I think they learned from their mistakes, ultimately suited each other, and brought out the best in each other. I’m glad he finally started getting his shit together, started learning to take full responsibility for his mistakes without pointing any finger at anyone else, and made a committed effort to unlearn all that toxic self-destructive controlling behavior by loving Jane healthily, honestly, respectfully, and selflessly at the end of the novel after she came back on her own terms.

Are people really still under the illusion in the 21st century that all people with abusive tendencies in relationships are inherently evil monsters who go out of their way to consciously and intentionally hurt other people in their lives because they have no genuine capacity for compassion, empathy, love, guilt, remorse, sympathy, and possible self-reformation? That’s simply not always true. It’s MORE DIFFICULT for people with ASPD, BPD, and/or NPD to recognize the negative impact of their own harmful behaviors and tactics in relationships with others and to commit to changing for the better, but that DOESN’T MEAN it’s IMPOSSIBLE, nor does it mean they necessarily hurt others to be evil.

Obviously, that does not mean that if you become

Was Mr. Rochester somewhat abusive of Jane throughout their initial relationship with his deceptions, manipulations, guilt tripping, harassment, and threats towards her? Absolutely. Do I think he meant any of it consciously or intentionally to hurt her, to make her feel trapped, or to make her feel worthless to him? Absolutely not. Does that in any way excuse his problematic behaviors towards Jane, invalidate her emotional trauma, or mean that she was obligated to stay with him, forgive him, or take him back? Absolutely not.

I was cheering for her when she left him after she found out he attempted to marry her bigamously and attempted to persuade her to stay as his “wife” because he wasn’t respecting her at that point, and it’s not worth staying in a relationship with someone who doesn’t respect you, even if they love you and have convinced themselves that they only mean well in their self-deluded denial of reality’s problems, which they are too insecure to face head on because they can’t easily escape them or control them. I think Rochester knew all along deep down too that he couldn’t be happy with Jane and she couldn’t be happy with him if he was living in denial of his problems, and using deception, intimidation, manipulation, and/or guilt-tripping to persuade her to stay in chapter 27 because he can’t bring himself to ultimately physically harm her or force her to be with him, even if he’s dropping an empty threat, intimidating, and sort of guilt tripping her to try to convince her to stay with him futilely and failing to do so, which is why he says that whole line of “if you would come of yourself, and nestle against my heart” at the end of the same scene, which is why I’m glad he finally started gaining clarity on his own problematic behavior, stopped pointing fingers, and seriously committed to putting all that toxic behavior behind him at the end.

None of that means that Jane was obligated to forgive Rochester or take him back on her own terms. Even if he believed he had good intentions at the time and never consciously or intentionally meant any serious harm, Rochester made victim a Jane of his own toxicity because he was being an entitled and delusional coward trying to outrun his personal insecurities and problems by pretending they didn’t exist and relying on Jane to save him, rather than himself. He hurt the woman he loved dearly, and for the rest of his life neither he or Jane are going to forget the fact that he did. However, I don’t see it as a bad thing that signifies naïveté, weakness, or stupidity on Jane’s part for her to ultimately take Rochester back at the end, even if she’s not obligated to forgive him or take him back, because he’s clearly learned from his mistakes and he’s seriously committed to never hurting her again by attempting to take away her right to choose or have a say. In real life, change for the better wouldn’t happen so easily or conveniently through the power of true love, religion, and semi-permanently/permanently traumatizing life-altering circumstances, but since it’s a Gothic romance novel with supernatural elements, I’ll take it for a happy ending, even if it doesn’t make any sense. For the traditionally dark, dangerous, problematic, self-destructive, and/or mentally/emotionally unstable Byronic Hero, Edward Rochester is definitely on the lighter end of the spectrum. He’s still not someone who I would recommend dating or marrying in real life either, but he’s still healthier and saner in comparison to Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s creature, Heathcliff, the Phantom/Erik, the Count, Edward Cullen, etc.

[Kallie]

Grace wrote: "I think Rochester’s biggest flaws and mistakes in the novel in his relationship with Jane all go back to his cowardice, which leads to some very unhealthy and damaging, though unintentionally so, t..."

I think Charlotte Bronte would be surprised to read all these reductive attributions to Rochester's character. Not that they don't exist, or that Jane could not have sensed them, but she saw more in him obviously, and they felt more for and from each other. Jane is much too strong a character to pity-love anyone.

[Grace]

Kallie wrote: "Grace wrote: "I think Rochester’s biggest flaws and mistakes in the novel in his relationship with Jane all go back to his cowardice, which leads to some very unhealthy and damaging, though uninten..."

Yeah, I’m not saying that Rochester’s a healthy or ideal love interest, even by Victorian day standards, who I would aspire to date or marry myself in real life, nor would I encourage anyone else I know to do the same. However, some of the problematic things he does aside from attempting to dupe her into bigamy, which could be interpreted as emotional abuse and/or sexual harassment of a woman under his employ from our from our modern day standards in which unmarried women are allowed to not be innocent, pure, and untouched virgins in society without condemnation, and women no longer viewed by society as second class citizens to men who are “wrong” to submit to domineering men who continually pressure them into marriage and/or sex under their employ with, while the man might be frowned upon as a “cad” in that Victorian time period for luring them in that direction with coercion and threats, but ultimately got away with it in the eyes of the law.

The attempted bigamy was illegal for either men or women to commit, even back in the era of Jane Eyre, but I don’t think Rochester’s attempted coercions and pressuring of Jane to stay with him as his “wife” back then after the aborted first marriage would have been considered emotional abuse or sexual harassment that someone could press charges or be reported to authorities for back in that day in age. I’m pretty sure that Rochester’s threat of violence in chapter 27 was an empty one, thankfully, Jane ultimately knew that, but I could see from a modern day perspective why that kiss in the Thornfield garden/tree before the proposal, one empty threat of violence, guilt tripping her to try to persuade her to stay as his “wife” after the aborted first wedding could/would be considered sexual coercion/harassment if Jane Eyre took place in the modern day 20th/21st century era, especially after the whole #Me2 era (btw, Rochester’s no saint, but he’s still pretty tame and respectful in his treatment of Jane when compared to real life predators like Harvey Weinstein, R Kelly, or Bill O’Riley, or other fictional Byronic Heroic characters with abusive and/or predatory traits, such as Heathcliff, Count Vronsky, the Phantom/Erik, Tyrion Lannister, Don Juan, but I can see where the comparisons). But within the historical context of Jane Eyre, I can see why a lot of men back then would see no problem with being cads with women because, while it was still frowned upon in that society as improper, especially for married men, it really wasn’t something that came with inescapable dire legal consequences for them either. Nor was abusive behavior, especially unconscious emotional abuse, recognized as such.

So yeah, while Rochester was no saint who I’d want to date or marry in real life, even for his time, I still do sympathize with a lot of aspects of his character in the sense that he’s clearly a very broken, delusional, and misguided man with traits of NPD, manic depression, and histrionic disorder with good deep down inside who keeps self-sabotaging by pretending his problems with an insane woman he made the mistake of marrying without really getting to know because he has little to no control over his own life, and it would never be easy to overcome those issues without at least somewhat losing your way as an atypical mentally ill person or someone with a personality disorder back in that day in age before proper treatments of psychotherapy and/or anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, and mood stabilizers existed.

I think a lot of people miss the emotionally complex, morally gray, sympathetic, and potentially redemptive aspects of Rochester’s personality by just reading it as “Why is Jane in love with this controlling, deceitful, manipulative, and somewhat mentally/emotionally unstable jackass who she deserves so much better than?” I think that readers who view Jane’s relationship as “romanticized abuse/rape culture that Jane enables in Rochester” miss the entire point of how she never gives into his controlling or overbearing behavior, refuses to let him cow her or romanticize her as his MPDG, constantly calls him out on his shit, leaves him for almost successfully attempting to dupe her into a bigamous union without her consent, refuses to give into his pleas and pressures to run away with him to France as his “wife” when he’s already legally married to Bertha because then she knows that she would probably become just like all of his mistresses, and miss the point about how Rochester literally and figuratively pays for his sins by losing a hand, his eyesight (though this isn’t completely permenant), his estate, and can’t be with Jane again until she’s elevated, he’s humbled, and he’s learned to accept full responsibility for his sins. I think readers who read Jane’s romance with Rochester as “Why does Jane love this entitled, delusional, deceptive, and manipulative asshole who treats her poorly” miss the recurrent themes of contrition and forgiveness throughout the novel that Jane grants those who hurt her in the past at every opportunity in the second half of the novel, including those who were far worse to her than Rochester like her Aunt Reed who intentionally hurt Jane just because she hated her, and expressed no desire for contrition, genuine remorse, or reconciliation from her.
I think many readers miss the whole point of Rochester’s obviously problematic behavior and deceptions in his relationship with Jane is not to present it as this perfectly ideal and healthy romance to aspire to in real life, but a conflict for a proto-feminist fictional female protagonist character to overcome in the dark side of a patriarchal society in that timeframe by fighting against it and conquering it to make sure she can have a say in the relationship on her own terms, rather than just reading it as “Why is Jane in love with this asshole who she deserves better than?” I think people who just read Jane Eyre as “Why is Jane in love with this asshole who she deserves better than?”’are ignoring the fact that even loving relationships between two people can sometimes be dark, and unhealthy on some level.
I think people are forgetting just how inherently problematic the issues of societal classism, misogyny, racism, and toxic masculinity were ingrained into society back in Western society and even enabled by its laws before the mid-late 20th century. While Jane and Rochester are rebels of conventional Victorian English society in some ways, they are still not immune to many of the attitudes and problems it creates and enables.

Jane, Rochester, and many other fictional characters from classic literature and other historical fiction novels all have their faults that are addressed within the historical contexts of their novels. I don’t try to whitewash their flaws or pretend they are all perfect saints who I’d necessarily want to hang out with in real life, but I do always try to empathize and sympathize with them, see the morally gray area of them, see the potentially redemptive aspects of their characterizations, and judge them from the contexts of the novels in which they are written.

[Grace]

Sunsette wrote: "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 Ber..."

I think he’s a great morally ambiguous/gray fictional Byronic Hero. He’s definitely not an INTENTIONALLY abusive spawn of Satan with no capacity for genuine love, empathy, remorse, or redemption like Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. However, like many other Byronic Heroes and antiheroes, Rochester is/was a mild-moderate manic depressive with mild-moderate NPD traits. He was controlling. entitled, somewhat manipulative, kind of selfish, and at worst, somewhat of a bully to others, even Jane, the one he loved most, like Jane, because he was too deeply insecure and cowardly to be totally honest, fair, and emotionally vulnerable with her. We have to acknowledge that he DID kind of emotionally/mentally abuse Jane by being controlling, deceptive, and manipulative with her because he was an unduly entitled coward who got too wrapped up in his own angst and injustices, and struggled with empathy and self-reflection when he was given too much power that he took shortcuts with. He DIDN’T hurt Jane INTENTIONALLY by using those problematic tactics, though which is why Jane ultimately forgave him and took him back, though a lack of malicious intent on his part DOESN’T mean that Jane was obligated to forgive Rochester or take him back either.

I’m pointing this all out because I love Jane x Rochester, both as individual characters who I feel for, and an ultimate endgame couple. Explaining WHY someone behaves problematically, forgiving them, taking them back, and/or trying to find genuine humanity in their hearts is NOT the same thing as abuse apology. That’s just called having compassion, empathy, intuition, open-mindedness, realism, and understanding for gray areas in humanity enough to realize that not everyone who hurts others in a relationship consciously mistreats them to deliberately be evil or hurt others for shits and giggles.

Abuse apology would have been Charlotte Brontë having Jane blindly romanticizing Rochester and normalizing his problematic mistreatment of her in the narrative, rather than having her consistently call him out for his shit and leaving him for attempting to deceive her into a bigamous union without her consent and lead her astray. Abuse apology would have been having Jane apologize to Rochester for leaving him when he attempted to coerce her to stay as his “wife” and leave the country with him to get away with committing bigamy right after he attempted to dupe her into a bigamous union with him.

Abuse apology would have been Rochester being allowed to get away with hurting Jane, no matter how unintentionally, by attempting to control and deceive her, after she left him, rather than him having to lose his sight (semi-permanently), hand, and estate to atone for his sins. Abuse apology would have been Jane coming back to a Rochester who still wasn’t willing to fully acknowledge that he ruined their relationship by attempting to dupe Jane into a bigamous union with him and attempting to coerce her to stay with him as his “wife” afterwards in the “violence of his despair.”

Honestly, I do believe him when he says that he never would have directly or physically forced Jane to be his mistress, I think Jane ultimately does too. Thankfully, Rochester, as much of a hot toxic mess he was, still seemed to have enough empathy, sympathy, sanity, self-awareness, and self-control within himself to realize that physically abusing Jane and/or raping her, would only make her hate him and destroy any affection she had for him. However, Rochester did still attempt to coerce her to stay by dropping an empty, but still inexcusable and seemingly intimidating, threat of violence, guilt tripping her, trying to convince her to run away from England to Italy with him to get married bigamously without the law following them, and holding her in an iron grip and shake her once a little before letting her go, so I could see why Jane questioned his sanity in that moment and the resolve of her own strength of will under the pressure he put on her.

Jane seems to sense deep down that he would never physically harm her or directly force her to be with him, but he was attempting to lead her into temptation and make bigamy and a romantic/sexual relationship with him seem more acceptable to her at that point when not only was she was not entitled to give it to him, but bigamy is illegal. That is a form of emotional grooming, which is unacceptable behavior.

I really, really, really hate it when abuse gets romanticized in a relationship in fiction, but that’s NOT what Charlotte Brontë does with Edward Rochester from Jane’s POV in Jane Eyre either just because Rochester is written to be a sympathetic and potentially redemptive Byronic Hero who overcomes his own toxicity and gets a happy ending with Jane. Making a toxic character sympathetic, morally ambiguous, and potentially redemptive is NOT the same thing as excusing or romanticizing their problematic behaviors and tactics in interpersonal relationships. It’s making them human and relatable. Believe it or not, but not all people abusive tendencies in relationships, especially those who engage in emotional/mental abuse, are inherently evil monsters who deliberately and intentionally go out of their way to destroy relationships with others for shits and giggles. Many of them struggle with feeling empathy for others and extreme low self-worth due to untreated personality disorders and/or mental illnesses, being spoiled, and/or past learned abusive behaviors from childhood parents and guardians that they carried on into adulthood without fully realizing the negative impact they have on others.

It’s not because he necessarily deserves it from an objective standpoint, though Rochester did ultimately atone for his sins, and learn from his mistakes when she took him back. Even more than that, the main point was that Jane chose to forgive Rochester and take him back on her own terms at the end in spite of all the oppression she faced from others in her life, including Rochester himself, though he never meant any harm and did genuinely love her. She was ultimately awarded with Rochester’s atonement after so often failing in her lifelong fight against oppression in her life by triumphing over an oppressive/formerly oppressive force in her life by inspiring him, a man who was somewhat of a rake, who loved her, to change through the powers of true love, stubborn self-respect and morality, and a refusal to be submissive. Jane Eyre is NOT abuse apology just because there are genuinely beautiful aspects of their relationship that ultimately outweigh and overcome the ugly ones by the end.

There can be genuinely beautiful and loving aspects amidst relationships that also have abusive and/or toxic ones. In fact, there often are. Many times the ugly aspects are too intense for the victim to forgive, nor are they obligated to, and the abuser can’t change for the better as easily as they do in fiction through extraordinary life-altering circumstances and true love, but it’s not impossible.

While real life change is more difficult than fictional change for people/characters who struggle with abusive tendencies due to personality disorders, and/or untreated mental illnesses, it’s not impossible. Abusers can genuinely love their victims, feel guilty about hurting them when they see the damage they’ve done to others when they face negative consequences for hurting others in relationships, and learn to stop blaming others for their own bad choices, even if they thought they meant well at the time and didn’t consciously intend to harm anyone, and they make a genuine effort to change for the Obviously, the physical, emotional, mental, and/or sexual health, well-being, and feelings of the VICTIM in an abusive relationship is ALWAYS the most VALID and important thing to consider when deciding whether it feels worth it to them to give their past/former abuser in a relationship forgiveness and/or a second chance to do things right and get back together. The victim is NEVER OBLIGATED to forgive and/or take back someone who abused them in a past relationship, but it DOES NOT signal weakness, it DOES NOT necessarily signal naïveté on your part if you forgive and take back the person who abused you in a past relationship if you know when to get out if things get too intense for you to handle again, and/or the past abuser fully commits to learning to take full responsibility for their bad choices and learn from their mistakes.

Just thought I’d point all this out as someone who feels deeply for Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre, but also won’t condone his problematic behaviors and tactics in regards to Jane either. He’s not a saint, far from it, he’s a hot mess who did and/or said several toxic and hurtful things to her because he was a bitter, entitled, deeply insecure, and selfish coward who was too wrapped up in his own angst and past injustices. I can’t deny that he was my first fictional literary crush, and I still have a soft spot for Rochester ten years later after first reading Jane Eyre. However, I’d much rather date or
marry a man like Gilbert Blythe in real life who was mostly sweet and not really very problematic at all, rather than a controlling and manipulative jerk with a heart of gold deep down who was essentially another variation of the Beast who got redeemed via true love from his Beauty’s, Jane’s, positive influence after failing to almost successfully dupe her into a bigamous union and attempting to coerce to run away with him to Italy in the Mediterranean to try to get married bigamously there as his “wife” again right afterwards, even if he meant well and never meant any harm because I think I’d be way too pissed off to forgive that so easily in real life. I’ve grown up and learned over the years that the Beauty and the Beast trope wouldn’t generally translate well or healthily to to real life, but I sure can’t stop being a fucking sucker who tears up and gets all sappy when I see “love redeems” romances. I usually get so bored whenever fictional writers try to tell realistic love stories about healthy couples with little to no internal conflict or character flaws. The one exception of a somewhat normal and realistic fictional romantic relationship that I’ve read or seen about is genuinely interesting and Anne x Gilbert from AOGG by LM Montgomery, and, of course, that was also partly because even they were both somewhat problematic and flawed characters with an unhealthy relationship before they got married.

As for Rochester’s treatment of Bertha, it genuinely annoys me now because many of these literary critics are obviously biased and butthurt contemporary feminazis who are deliberately trying to make up nonexistent reasons to hate on Rochester just because they utterly hate everything about the character, no matter what he does/did or said in Jane Eyre, good or bad, and don’t want to acknowledge that any good exists in the context, even though it obviously does. There is nothing to suggest within the context of Jane Eyre that Rochester was ever physically or sexually violent in his treatment of Bertha. You can argue that he was somewhat neglectful of Bertha in his poor choice of caretaker. There’s evidence that he was somewhat emotionally/mentally abusive of Jane with his controlling, deceitful, and overbearing attitude, though not intentionally, which he atones for. However, as far as canon is concerned in Jane Eyre, Bertha was more of the aggressor than the victim in her relationship with Rochester. No one’s pure evil. She’s a victim of her own insanity, bad choices, and a poorly educated Regency English society that didn't understand how to treat mental illness properly.