Jane Eyre
discussion
Unrealistic
Although I imagine what you are trying to say and I agree, that's some coincidence, I got lost here: "Although as we know, St. John wasn't John Eyre, meeting St. John was just meeting John Eyre". It's probably my English (not native), but I don't understand here.
i think she meant that meeting St. John was the same as if she had met John Eyre because of the connections between those 2 characters
Ah! Well, yes. The book I'm currently reading just presented me with four unbelievable coincidences in a row, entangling deeper and deeper one into the next. I forgive it because I love the book I'm reading and also because it's supposed to be a parody or a satire, but I had the same feeling of "you just have to be kidding me!" or "well, that's just too convenient!", haha.
yep - I can only suspend so much disbelief even in fiction...lol!I just saw a post for a help me find this book - where this woman is miraculously a bone marrow match for her bf's niece/nephew - something like that - and I just wanted to do lie...those odds are sooo astronomical
Remember that coincidence was a favorite tool of Victorian novelists. (If you read LES MISERABLES you could easily get the idea that there are only about a hundred people in France, all running into each other at crucial plot moments.)We operate in a wider world, with our Facebook and news feeds, and so our idea of the population is larger.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "P.S. sometimes unrealistic things happen in real life. Sometimes we run into odd coincidences in the real world. Otherwise the word "coincidence" wouldn't exist LOL!"If you believe in coincidence . . . ;-)
Definitely, lol. There have been sequences in my life that I know, if I ever used them in a story, would have to be dialed back to be believable.I've learned that there are — at least in my life — no coincidences. It's all connected somehow. It's just not always immediately apparent.
Yes, you can bet that all those Victorian readers were not complaining about the convenient coincidences. They were nodding their heads and saying, "It was the hand of Providence, that led the unfortunate Miss Eyre to shelter at the door of her own cousin! Heaven is mighty to save!"
@Brenda: Perfect!I live in the Bible Belt. They still say that here.
Well, after several chapters of Don Quijote, you would think that there is only one road and one single road tavern in the whole Spain, where there are but 10 families in total. But like I said, it's some kind of parody, so I guess Cervantes exaggerated on purpose.
Oh, and as to the OP. Yes, the chime of 'St. John Rivers' with 'John Reed' is a little unfortunate. It is a kindness for authors to help their poor readers along by having all the names well separated and distinguished. It is unwise to have four people with names beginning with the letter M, for example, or sets of people with the same initials. Russian novels are famously difficult this way; that's why there are character lists at the front of Tolstoy's books. Good writers become very picky indeed about names and naming, which can be difficult in real life when relatives start naming their kids. ("You can't name your daughter Diana! You already have a son named Charles, it'll sound ridiculous!")
I'm an Orthodox Jew, and we also believe in Providence, but in real life, it happens in such subtle ways, we don't always see it. Novels are different, and yes, often unrealistic.
Jane Eyre
is still one of my all-time favorites, though.
Laura wrote: "Well, after several chapters of Don Quijote, you would think that there is only one road and one single road tavern in the whole Spain, where there are but 10 families in total. But like I said, it..."For Don Quixote, there was only one Road.
But I do believe that all Roads lead to where we're going — even if we miss a few turns. Detours just take longer, but sometimes you see things you would have missed, that hold lessons, so were those missed turns truly detours?
Dee wrote: "i think she meant that meeting St. John was the same as if she had met John Eyre because of the connections between those 2 characters"Thanks Dee, yes, I meant that.
Imagining if Jane Eyre had met John Eyre instead of St. John, what would the readers think? Would they think how unbelievable?
Meeting St. John is a little truer, but makes not much difference, because John Eyre was St. John's uncle.
Brenda wrote: "Remember that coincidence was a favorite tool of Victorian novelists. (If you read LES MISERABLES you could easily get the idea that there are only about a hundred people in France, all running int..."I know, but it cannot be too unleastic.
Pride and prejudice for example, Mr Darcy came back home one day earlier so he met Lizzy at Pemberly. It is a coincidence, and it happens, so we can accept that.
gertt wrote: "It's a fictional novel....it doesn't have to be believable, it just has to be interesting and enjoyed. Which Jane Eyre was."
Of course, it doesn't have to be.
However, being believable is a higher standard, which would make the novel more interesting and enjoyable.
Kressel wrote: "I'm an Orthodox Jew, and we also believe in Providence, but in real life, it happens in such subtle ways, we don't always see it. Novels are different, and yes, often unrealistic. [book:Jane Eyre|1..."Question: what is real? and what is unreal(istic)?
When the sea opened for us a path to pass through that was real and when it closed on the Egyptians that was real to.
Look at what I.B. Singer writes: "I believed that God is a novelist who writes what He pleases, and the whole world has to read Him, trying to find out what He means."
Meshugah, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994
Okay, Amos, fair enough.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "gertt wrote: "It's a fictional novel....it doesn't have to be believable, it just has to be interesting and enjoyed. Which Jane Eyre was."
Exactly!"
Yeah who said fiction has to be realistic? And I really don't see your problem with it anyway. I want my fiction to be kept seperate from reality thats the whole point.
Hannah wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "gertt wrote: "It's a fictional novel....it doesn't have to be believable, it just has to be interesting and enjoyed. Which Jane Eyre was."
Exactly!"
Yeah who said fiction h..."
No, I didn't. :)
It's a question of "has to" or "better to".
Fiction is not reality, but is BASED on reality.
The town I live in is full of strange coincidences. It's actually pretty freaky sometimes. Like when my ex boyfriends mother died and the wake was at his cousin's house (who I didn't know he had till the funeral). His cousin was my sister's best friend. Point being, when I see them in books, it doesn't surprise me. Also Jane Eyre has nothing on Tess of the D'erbovilles.
Thanks all for the replies, we are here to discuss not to argue or fight anyway. :)Interestingly, there are these two kinds of fiction: Realistic fiction and Non-realistic fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction
Does Jane Eyre belong to Realistic fiction or Non-realistic fiction? Or maybe Semi-fiction to be more exact. :p
gertt wrote: "The whole story of Jane Eyre was based on coincidence. It was Non-Realistic Fiction."Then that makes great sense. Thanks for sharing. :)
Is Jane Eyre running into St John unrealistic? Yes, it certainly was, as was the event just before it when she was stranded in the moors for like 6 minutes and immediately almost dies. But it's a Victorian novel, and that's part of the package, so I'm okay with it. You want a book with even more coincidences, try Oliver Twist. Sheesh. Still a classic though.
I see your Oliver Twist and raise you a Don Quixote. That road inn, it cracks me up! :D
J wrote: "Is Jane Eyre running into St John unrealistic? Yes, it certainly was, as was the event just before it when she was stranded in the moors for like 6 minutes and immediately almost dies. But it's a V..."Thanks Gertt and J. Will definitely try Oliver Twist. :)
I don't deny Jane Eyre is a classic, I'm just kind of picky. Another coincidence is that John Eyre knew Mr. Mason and he got the intelligence of Jane's marriage in such a short time (so successfully stopped it later on).
But I guess I'd better stop being picky and enjoy the novel. :)
Thanks again.
The characters are not living in 2014. Institutions were for those who could not afford to care for their families. Or didn't want the responsibility, young Jane Eyre for example. And pride has a place in their considerations. Coincidences happen every day. And people often react impulsively to any number of situations. So much of fiction today is rife with coincidence that is overlooked entirely. But coincidence is often necessary as a vehicle to carry the novel forward
I loved it!!!
Ann wrote: "But coincidence is often necessary as a vehicle to carry the novel forward..."Good point!
While this coincidence isn't necessary IMHO. The only purpose of this coincidence was to show Jane shared her wealth with her cousins, which looked crappy to me.
John Eyre wasn't a surprise to us as he was mentioned from time to time. Jane's cousins appeared all of a sudden.
It was very easy for John Eyre to find Jane after he successfully stopped Jane's marriage, no need the link between the John Eyre and St. John any more.
St. John and his sisters could be just strangers who saved Jane. Jane could share her wealth with them simply because they saved her, they meant more than cousins.
Bessi, Helen and Miss Temple were nice to Jane, they were not relatives of Jane, it's not neccesary.
I believe miracles like Mr. Rochester regained his sight after he happily lived with Jane, but not this coinsidence.
gertt wrote: "John Eyre stopped Jane's marriage? I thought Bertha's brother did. "Well, both of them, John Eyre knew Bertha's brother, Mr. Mason. :)
=====
We all withdrew. Mr. Rochester stayed a moment behind
us, to give some further order to Grace Poole. The solicitor
addressed me as he descended the stair.
“You, madam,” said he, “are cleared from all blame: your
uncle will be glad to hear it—if, indeed, he should be still
living—when Mr. Mason returns to Madeira.”
“My uncle! What of him? Do you know him?”
“Mr. Mason does. Mr. Eyre has been the Funchal correspondent
of his house for some years. When your uncle received
your letter intimating the contemplated union between
yourself and Mr. Rochester, Mr. Mason, who was staying at
Madeira to recruit his health, on his way back to Jamaica,
happened to be with him. Mr. Eyre mentioned the intelligence;
for he knew that my client here was acquainted with a
gentleman of the name of Rochester. Mr. Mason, astonished
and distressed as you may suppose, revealed the real state of
matters. Your uncle, I am sorry to say, is now on a sick bed;
from which, considering the nature of his disease—decline—
and the stage it has reached, it is unlikely he will ever rise. He
could not then hasten to England himself, to extricate you
from the snare into which you had fallen, but he implored
Mr. Mason to lose no time in taking steps to prevent the false
marriage. He referred him to me for assistance. I used all despatch,
and am thankful I was not too late: as you, doubtless,
must be also. Were I not morally certain that your uncle will
be dead ere you reach Madeira, I would advise you to accompany
Mr. Mason back; but as it is, I think you had better
remain in England till you can hear further, either from or of
Mr. Eyre. Have we anything else to stay for?” he inquired of
Mr. Mason.
While I've never thought much on it before-I was always far too outraged that dear Jane refused the slightest practicality of taking anything of value with her (I do believe she forgot something in the coach??) --I mean, he still owed her wages for crying out loud, wages she earned!--pondering it as I read over the entries in the thread it seems to me that it wasn't supposed to be just coincidence that she stumbled upon her relatives any more than it was coincidence that she heard Rochester call out to her as she was on the brink of making her decision on whether to wed Saint John. The whole thread of this story is that Jane doesn't allow herself to be led or cowed by those around her and by staying true to herself and her beliefs, she finds her reward.BTW, something to keep in mind re: St John Rivers and John Eyre is that St John would've been pronounced Sinjin in those times and even somewhat today depending on your location.
sublimosa wrote: "While I've never thought much on it before-I was always far too outraged that dear Jane refused the slightest practicality of taking anything of value with her (I do believe she forgot something in..."I was outraged that Jane wound up, after all, with Rochester cause surely she can't love him. Now, I see! She went back to torture him for the rest of his life! I love it!
Sandy wrote: "When I first saw the name "St. John" in the book, I had thought it was "John Eyre", and I thought "whoa", it was too unreal for Jane to meet John Eyre after she left Thornfield and wandered in the ..."The book is relatively religious, and so the point of her wandering around aimlessly and popping in to a religious official's home and being helped by such a person is almost a reward from God for staying with Heaven and refusing to live in sin. That crossroad that she came to after fleeing Rochester, it's called Whitecross. Notice that? White cross, white the color of purity and goodness, and cross the symbol of the Christian faith. John was just a ridiculously common name back then, as it still is today, and there were lots of Edward's, William's, and Jonathon's. But that coincidence doesn't make me upset or confused because it's symbolically backed up by the fact that she is on a personal and religious journey at this stage in her life and going with that, she is being rewarded by God with a warm house and food and caring people for choosing well.
Greg wrote: "sublimosa wrote: "While I've never thought much on it before-I was always far too outraged that dear Jane refused the slightest practicality of taking anything of value with her (I do believe she f..."No. Absolutely not. Jane went back to him because her heart told her she still wanted him and she knew that with this newfound status and money she could finally be his true equal. She was already his equal before intellectually and physically (considering they were both plain in features) but now she could finally be his true equal even in their status together so that she didn't feel that weight over her head that he brought more to their union than she had to give. So no. And if you were trolling, I apologize but that was just a strange thing to say in my opinion.
Jacquelyn wrote: "Sandy wrote: "When I first saw the name "St. John" in the book, I had thought it was "John Eyre", and I thought "whoa", it was too unreal for Jane to meet John Eyre after she left Thornfield and wa..."Whitecross, good point, Jacquelyn. Maybe Jane was rewarded by God.
The name John, and the warm house food caring people etc didn't upset me. It was, the relationship between Jane and the 3 caring people. From the book, we knew Jane had an uncle, nothing else from her father's side, but these 3 people, Jane's cousins, like appeared from no where. It's was so hard to have a family to accept the dying Jane, it's was almost impossible to meet the long lost unknown cousins.
Jacquelyn wrote: "Greg wrote: "sublimosa wrote: "While I've never thought much on it before-I was always far too outraged that dear Jane refused the slightest practicality of taking anything of value with her (I do ..."Jacqueline, no, not trolling. I absolutely, honestly, don't understand how a strong, smart, rich woman like Jane would go back to Rochester, who treated her so badly. But this is a guy's point of view. I so appreciate Jane and how far she went, her strength, but from a guy's point of view, at least mine, Rochester was a jerk. I know lot's of Rochesters, jerks, and I'd advise women to run fast, the other way. I just don't see what most women see in Rochester, but there is a very good reason for that: I'm a guy. I know most people love this book, and love the ending. I really enjoy Austen's comic sensibility, her take on relationships seems right on target. But for me, Bronte created this great, smart character and then had her give in to society's expectations of women in the 1800s.
Granted it's been years since I read the book so I don't remember specifics but I don't remember Rochester being a jerk (except maybe that whole thing about that other woman, Miss something but people are not perfect). Maybe Rochester knew that he was a difficult man to live with so he wanted to test Jane if she could really take it and still love him. Personally I don't like to be treated like a delicate flower, I want to be challenged. That is usually the problem with St John and the like. They treat women condescendingly because they don't think they are strong enough and then they don't like it if they show some spirit. It reminds be of the relationship between Scarlett and Rhett.
Well, he had a wife already to start with, and I'd say that makes him a real jerk, right off the bat. And I've taken care of a loved one, it's tough work. So as I see it, Jane simply threw away her life to be a slave to a jerk who doesn't deserve her. But I admit, my view is a man's perspective, and I completely don't get submission type relationships. (Yep, exactly, the whole 50 Shades is beyond my comprehension.)
Mary wrote: "Greg wrote: "Jacquelyn wrote: "Greg wrote: "sublimosa wrote: "While I've never thought much on it before-I was always far too outraged that dear Jane refused the slightest practicality of taking an..."Mary, I do like to discuss varying points of view. I have been convinced to change my one star rating of this book to three!
Mary wrote: "BUT Rochester was conned into the marriage and was never told that Bertha was insane."Exactly. And Rochester did take care of her the best he could, he could have gotten rid of her somehow, he also took care of the girl, so he was a pretty good guy for the most part. So I am not really seeing how Jane was in any way submissive in the relationship.
Greg wrote: "Jacquelyn wrote: "Greg wrote: "sublimosa wrote: "While I've never thought much on it before-I was always far too outraged that dear Jane refused the slightest practicality of taking anything of val..."I agree with you, I'm a woman.
Tytti wrote: "Exactly. And Rochester did take care of her the best he could, he could have gotten rid of her s..."Did he? By having locked her wife for more than 10 years like an animal? He himself played around, did he go upstairs occasionally to see her?
As Mary said, he could have placed her in a lunatic asylum. And she had to be locked up because she was dangerous to others and herself. What else was there to do?
Greg wrote: " Well, he had a wife already to start with, and I'd say that makes him a real jerk, right off the bat. And I've taken care of a loved one, it's tough work.So as I see it, Jane simply threw away her life to be a slave to a jerk who doesn't deserve her. But I admit, my view is a man's perspective, and I completely
don't get submission type relationships. (Yep, exactly, the whole 50 Shades is beyond my comprehension.)
Common ground! OK, so full disclosure here-I am blind. Also, I acknowledge that Jane says she can't take care of Adele after her marriage to Rochester because she has to devote her time to helping him. That being said, I take umbrage at the idea that she is throwing her livfe away to take care of him, being a slave to him because of his disabilities. Which is probably not what you meant but even if you did the part that you are ignoring is that she looooooved him and his difficulties made little difference to her. Now, the jerk part-I won't try to disabuse you of that notion as it is your prerogative and not without some basis although I see him as so much more than his pinching and manipulations. Ugh, if you had ever read any Harlequin Romances, you would find Rochester a gem among gravel! Mind you, I haven't read one in about 20 years but most of them struck me as more like Heathcliff than Rochester. After I read WH for the first time (not too many years ago) I was stunned to realize that many of the Harlequin Romance heroes seemed to be modeled on Heathcliff and the heroines tended to be orphans and friendless like Jane Eyre yet without her gumption and self determination.
Tytti wrote: "As Mary said, he could have placed her in a lunatic asylum. And she had to be locked up because she was dangerous to others and herself. What else was there to do?"Like I have said, to go upstairs occasionally to see her since you said "he did take care of her the best he could", could he? What she needed wasn't a cage or a tough woman outside the cage. Do you think she had no feelings? Why Bertha tore Jane's veil in half after she had seen Jane's wedding dress?
You have to remember this takes place in the 1840s or so. There was no career options for women above the laboring class except teaching (either in a school or as a governess), nursing, or marriage. Zero! Women could not go to college, become lawyers or doctors, work in an office, own property, hold copyrights, or get a divorce. (You could always become a prostitute, but we're going to put this aside since you can always, in any era, become a prostitute. You could become one right now, just set up a Craigslist account.)Jane in fact works through most of the options open to her -- teaching, governessing, even nursing old Mrs. Reed. Unquestionably the best gig is marriage. And she had a chance for a loveless union with a dude who simply wanted her to work. Sensibly, she rejects this and marries the guy she loves. That he is visually impaired (remember, he does get better) and maimed is not a big obstacle. He has the money to compensate for the disabilities.
Oh, and don't think it was that long ago. Laws giving women rights are quite recent -- they can be dialed back any old day. (My mother, when she became pregnant with me, lost her job on the spot. You could fire a woman for pregnancy, fifty years ago.) Vote, ladies. Vote. We have no romantical author on our side, ensuring that we marry a handsome rich guy. We have to hang onto our gains like grim death, or they're gone.
I haven't read it either, although I've heard enough and also read this fantastic article by Dave Barry book...http://time.com/3030375/dave-barry-50...
Sandy wrote: "Like I have said, to go upstairs occasionally to see her since you said "he did take care of her the best he could", could he? What she needed wasn't a cage or a tough woman outside the cage. Do you think she had no feelings? Why Bertha tore Jane's veil in half after she had seen Jane's wedding dress?"She had someone to take care of her and how do you know that he didn't visit sometimes. What could he have done, they hardly knew each other. Even her own family had pretty much abandoned her, didn't she attack her own brother or something? And she tore it because she was insane. Even today dangerous people are put into mental hospitals and mental nurses sometimes need to be tough.
Tytti wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Like I have said, to go upstairs occasionally to see her since you said "he did take care of her the best he could", could he? What she needed wasn't a cage or a tough woman outside t..."I know he didn't, because he asked Grace Poole something like "how is your work", Grace Poole said good, then he was satisfied. Couldn't he check it himself?
Her own family abandoned her, doesn't mean what Rochester did was good enough. He had been hiding the fact that she was his wife.
She tore it not simply because she was insane, Rochester himself said the wedding dress aroused something deep inside her.
So, what could he have done that Grace Poole couldn't? He trusted her and she had lived there years before the story even begin. Maybe he had noticed that nothing good came out of it. What difference does it make if he had been hiding her? She was insane and could never live a normal life. And you think tearing things apart and lighting fires is normal behaviour? It's always so easy to judge but what else he could have done? He gave her a place to live and someone who was taking care of her.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Jane Eyre (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Jane Eyre (other topics)Jane Eyre (other topics)
Although as we know, St. John wasn't John Eyre, meeting St. John was just meeting John Eyre, I think the possibility of it was far too small to happen, no matter it was a coinsidence or what. I don't buy it.