Jane Eyre
discussion
Unrealistic
He probably could still have put her in some institution, it would have been easier.No, he probably couldn't have flirted. You think he should have just lived alone in his house or stay abroad all the time if he wanted some (female) company?
Tytti wrote: "He probably could still have put her in some institution, it would have been easier.No, he probably couldn't have flirted. You think he should have just lived alone in his house or stay abroad al..."
If he had put her in some institution, then his secret would be discovered.
Or you think he should marry Jane first and then tell her the big secret later?
Or not, he could have just left her somewhere and no one would have known who she was. You still haven't said what he should have done, except to live his whole life without a companion.
Tytti wrote: "Or not, he could have just left her somewhere and no one would have known who she was. You still haven't said what he should have done, except to live his whole life without a companion."I have said he should have let others know who Bertha was, that was more important than a place to live, a person to take care of.
Sandy wrote: "I have said he should have let others know who Bertha was, that was more important than a place to live, a person to take care of."More important?! And why? She stabbed her own brother!
Tytti wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I have said he should have let others know who Bertha was, that was more important than a place to live, a person to take care of."More important?! And why? She stabbed her own brot..."
Why? Isn't that important, to Bertha, to Ingram and to Jane? She stabbed her own brother, and so her role should be concealed? Her brother still successfully stopped Rochester and Jane's marriage using the truth.
Well, no, not really. She is pretty much insane and has no friends and is unlikely to make them because she is insane and dangerous. It's none of Ingrams' business, and it's obvious why Rochester doesn't tell Jane. He made a mistake and I don't see why he would have to suffer from it for the rest of his life. What Jane didn't know, wouldn't have hurt her.
Tytti wrote: "Well, no, not really. She is pretty much insane and has no friends and is unlikely to make them because she is insane and dangerous. It's none of Ingrams' business, and it's obvious why Rochester d..."Unfortunately, he would have to suffer from it for the rest of his life as long as Bertha was alive. Jane wouldn't marry him as long as Bertha was alive.
Most people don't want to suffer for the rest of their lives and I can hardly blame them. So I understand why he didn't tell anyone and he wasn't actually hurting anyone, either. And considering that (IIRC) Jane decided to return to him before knowing Bertha was dead, I guess she didn't care that much anymore, either.
Tytti wrote: "Most people don't want to suffer for the rest of their lives and I can hardly blame them. So I understand why he didn't tell anyone and he wasn't actually hurting anyone, either. And considering th..."Jane returned because her letters got no response. She forgave him for not telling her the truth in advance, but she still couldn't/wouldn't marry him if Bertha hadn't died. As a lady, she would surely care if she was marrying a married man.
You don't need to be married to live together.
Tytti wrote: "You don't need to be married to live together."Then that's another story, but I don't think Jane would live with him like that.
Well she seems to pray some sign from God to know that He wants her to marry St John, instead she hears him crying for her. After that she is grateful of the sign and feels much better when she makes the decision to contact him. And the way she thinks about him makes it pretty clear in my opinion. Why should she be unhsppy for the rest of her life, too? You probably couldn't even spell everything out in those times.
Tytti wrote: "Well she seems to pray some sign from God to know that He wants her to marry St John, instead she hears him crying for her. After that she is grateful of the sign and feels much better when she mak..."Nobody SHOULD be unhappy, but there are many who are unlucky. Rochester and Jane were happy eventually because the author made Bertha dead, otherwise, Jane would be unhappy in rest of her life, living with Rochester would make her the most unhappy woman.
Sandy wrote: "Jane would be unhappy in rest of her life, living with Rochester would make her the most unhappy woman."I see nothing that would suggest that. She had made her decision and thanked God for giving her a sign that she should contact him. She knew that she would be unhappy in a loveless marriage (with anyone) because she knew how love felt. Of course it was convenient that Bertha was dead but her existence didn't figure in her thoughts at all. She was happy with him and unhappy without him, so why she wouldn't choose to be with him, one way or another?
My sincerest apologies to everyone concerning my thoughts on "Jane Eyre". I've admitted I understood Jane and liked Jane very much up to a point and then didn't understand the ending. When Jane runs off with nothing and then almost starves/freezes to death I didn't get it, I thought she was smarter. So for me Jane suddenly became a different person. Anyway, again, I digress. I meant to offend no one. I do not understand, as it's very apparent, women's lives in 19th century England. I'll cease comments on this book. Again, sincerest apologies.
sublimosa wrote: "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..."
Sublimosa, sincerest apologies. I'm talking about a fictional character in a fictional novel. I'll shut up now.
NO, no!! Greg, don't shut up! As I said, it probably wasn't what you meant and while I might disagree with you on some points, I don't disagree on all and whoever said we were to all agree? As I said, Rochester is somewhat of a jerk, I was furious with Jane for leaving without taking what was due her (out of stubborn pride no less) so she could take care of herself...I'm not mortally offended by anything you've written and I find that many of these comments have made me see things I didn't see before (lol and yes the irony of me saying "I see"... !!), made me delve more into the book and after many readings, still get more out of it. Please don't stop contributing and for goodness sake, just because you are a man doesn't make you ineligible for the conversation. IN fact, it makes the conversation incomplete without some male perception (imperfect as it innate is :P ).
Now, if you've decided to cease desist because you think this conversation is inane and pointless, well... that probably just means you have better things to do with your time
Okay, thanks. As a guy, I will put myself in Rochester's place. I would think it totally awesome to have someone smart and strong like Jane have my back, be it in any kind of relationship. I'd really LOVE to have a conversation with Bronte and would say: tell me about the various endings you entertained while writing "Jane Eyre." And then I would meet with some great Hollywood director and say, "PLEASE please do Wuthering Heights right for once."
sublimosa wrote: "NO, no!! Greg, don't shut up! As I said, it probably wasn't what you meant and while I might disagree with you on some points, I don't disagree on all and whoever said we were to all agree? As I sa..."sublimosa, reading and talking about books are two of my favorite things. I'm glad we can discuss openly. I think it's important to read a little of everything. My fav book from this period is probably "Tess of the D'urbervilles" or maybe "Sense and Sensibility." I've read both several times, maybe I should try "Jane Eyre" again soon.
Greg wrote: "As a guy, I will put myself in Rochester's place."I wonder is this common... As a woman I usually have no problem putting myself in a male character's place, at least when it has been well written (the same goes to other characters, as well). But then again I have had to get used to finding favourite characters among male ones, simple because there have been no interesting female characters. That is why I have no trouble understanding Rochester because I would have probably behaved the same way. Of course I have also always been reading books written by both men and women, which, I guess, again is something not all men do.
(It's also one of the reasons why I don't understand that current YA hype. Why is it considered so important than teenagers are reading books about teenagers so they can "relate"? I have been reading books about adults since I was a kid, though as a kid I did read some about teenagers, too. I guess doing that I learned to relate to different kinds of people.)
How did we go from giggling at too convenient coincidences in a novel, to chanting the praises of Saint Rochester, who was a very good guy because he ... hum.... had the human decency not to throw a little girl to the streets? No, that's not the one... Ah yes, lock up his wife because she was inconvenient for him, for reasons that weren't her fault.Bertha didn't die because she was a "fire bug" (what a horrible thing to say about a mentally ill person, what is wrong with you? aren't you the queen of relatability, able to put yourself in the place of everyone since you first opened your eyes to the world?). She died because a stubborn rich guy kept her there as his dirty little secret, instead of sending her to the asylum.
Before the time described in this novel, the mentally ill were either cared for at home (and "cared for" is most likely locked up Rochester style), left to wander like Shakespeare's Lear or Ophelia, or treated like prisoners in private “madhouses,” where they were sometimes shackled to the wall. Thanks to the efforts of reformers like William Tuke in England and Phillipe Pinel in France (which happened middle to end 1700's), attitudes began to shift by the turn of the 19th century. Rather than being treated as criminals, the mentally ill began to be treated as, well, ill. Mental institutions became large brick compounds, with serene gardens that the patients cared for as part of their therapy.
Sure, not all of them, but wasn't the guy rich? Couldn't he afford the best? Oh, but his dirty little secret would get out... was he expected to stay alone for the rest of his life? Hum... YES. He married by his own choice. If he was fool enough to be fooled into it, well his bad! Bertha was -Watsonianly speaking- a human being, not a bug or a thing to hide.
And, going back to the too convenient coincidences, she just happened to die and clear the way for Jane. That one is more forced than Jane meeting her cousins by chance.
Tytti wrote: "I see nothing that would suggest that. She had made her decision and thanked God for giving her a sign that she should contact him. She knew that she would be unhappy in a loveless marriage (with anyone) because she knew how love felt. Of course it was convenient that Bertha was dead but her existence didn't figure in her thoughts at all. She was happy with him and unhappy without him, so why she wouldn't choose to be with him, one way or another?"Live with a married man in the name of love?
I'm pretty sure Jane wouldn't select to be his mistress, and I believe most of readers will agree with me. :)
I do agree with you Sandy on that point. Mind you, I would've said "to hell with society" and run off to the islands with him, but there are numerous passages that show it is not likely she would have given in. She was definitely tempted and we can never know what she would've done if Bertha had still been alive. I think she might have tried to see him to encourage him to lead a better life, but I don't think she would've lived with him.I've been looking at passages and something no one has addressed is why Bertha returns to the attic on her own on those occasions when Grace passes out or however she escapes. Yes, she is a stranger in a foreign land but I'm not sure that covers it.
Laura wrote: "And, going back to the too convenient coincidences, she just happened to die and clear the way for Jane. That one is more forced than Jane meeting her cousins by chance. "
Ah, absolutely.
This is one of the reasons I don't quite like Jane Eyre, too many questions on my mind, such as, how dared Rochester hold a big party with Bertha living in the attic, why didn't Rochester send his daughter Adele to a school but needed a governess, what a coicidence that Jane's uncle John Eyre had acquaintance with Bertha's brother etc.
Greg, I know I get more out of JE the more I read it and the more I read these discussions. I've only read P&P by JA and only once. I did pick up S&S right after it but put it down shortly; just too much JA when I wasn't enamoured with P&P. I will put it back on my pile soon along with Tess.
sublimosa wrote: "I've been looking at passages and something no one has addressed is why Bertha returns to the attic on her own on those occasions when Grace passes out or however she escapes. Yes, she is a stranger in a foreign land but I'm not sure that covers it. "I reckon Bertha was sort of afraid of a person, that was Grace. And she got no where to go.
sublimosa wrote: "Greg, I know I get more out of JE the more I read it and the more I read these discussions. I've only read P&P by JA and only once. I did pick up S&S right after it but put it down shortly; just to..."I love JA and her PP, although Brontë said JA couldn't be a great writer. Brontë liked to make jokes like she did in this book. :)
You have to agree that calling a mentally ill person (who had clear issues beyond pyromania) a "fire bug" is not being strictly descriptive. And she didn't die because of it, she died because she didn't get the proper care she needed. It didn't "work out well", an innocent sick woman died.
What is very male about Rochester is his sense of entitlement. Perhaps only 21st century eyes can see this. OK, so he rolled snake eyes in the marriage game, and can't ever get a divorce. He feels sufficiently ill-done-by that he tours the fleshpots of Europe, picking up mistresses. Nor does he feel any real scruple in hitting upon an employee. The fact that all men of that period were doing exactly the same thing is not quite an excuse.
Laura wrote: "Bertha didn't die because she was a "fire bug" (what a horrible thing to say about a mentally ill person, what is wrong with you? aren't you the queen of relatability"Not that it matters to you but I didn't call her a "firebug" but that's what she was, a pyromaniac. She had to be locked up, no matter where she was.
I still can't understand how sending her to some asylum would have been better, they wouldn't have known how to treat her anyway and sometimes one was lucky if they even survived those "treatments". The same with the girl, probably no one wants to go to a boarding school away from her home where there are people that care about her, at least at that age.
If her own family didn't care about her enough to take care of her themselves, you can't except a stranger to have much feelings for her, either, especially when he was tricked into the marriage. People and their feelings don't always follow the rules, even in the Victorian era.
sublimosa wrote: "I do agree with you Sandy on that point. Mind you, I would've said "to hell with society" and run off to the islands with him, but there are numerous passages that show it is not likely she would h..."I looked at the part where she decides to contact and find him and it seems that she thinks there is some higher power guiding her. I don't think she would have left him for the second time.
Mary, the fact that we still read and enjoy the book doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that it's perfect, unless your only criterion for quality is being very old. Even liking this book doesn't mean it has to be perfect. I don't see why you should be so offended that someone finds the coincidence too much of a stretch. Besides, if the conversation drifted, that was not my doing!Tytti, fair enough, you weren't the one who called her a firebug, but you're certainly making up for it now, just in case anyone could think you're able to feel any sympathy for a mentally ill woman. I know everyone has the classic image of mental asylums, but if you did a little research on it, you'd know that yes, Bertha would have been better off there, than risking setting a house on fire.
From a Watsonian point of virew, Bertha's death is on Rochester, and from a Doylist one it was Bronte's ex machina to free the way for Jane. I did like the book, but that doesn't mean I totally have to worship every word of it.
Tytti said: "... you can't except a stranger to have much feelings for her..."I'm not saying he should have loved her. Where did I say such a thing? I get it, you like the guy, but he's not perfect, and keeping the crazy firebug locked up where nobody can see her was not the right thing to do.
When people make mistakes, they don't get to just sweep them under the rug. He should have dealt with the consequences of his mistakes.
Well people who commit arsons are called "firebugs" even in the media and usually they are not sane people, it sort of goes with the territory. And those days people were treated mainly at their own home, unless families wanted to get rid of them. Not to mention the fact that she was also dangerous to others, so she couldn't have lived with the other patients. As I said, there was no real treatment for that kind of mental disease and for example even Prince John was kept out of the public eye 50 years later. The Kennedies had their daughter "treated" with a lobotomy even later than that. Also I see no reason to feel any sympathy towards a fictional character, I doubt even Charlotte Brontë would mind.Rochester is also a fictional character, so I see no reason to particularly "like" him, either, but considering the society didn't give him any possibilities to "fix" the situation, I understand his choices. I don't think people should have to suffer from a simple mistake all their lives. If anything I would blame the law for his (possible mis)treatment of Bertha.
Tytti wrote: "I don't think people should have to suffer from a simple mistake all their lives."Then why should Bertha have to suffer all her life, for no reason? :)
Sandy wrote: "Then why should Bertha have to suffer all her life, for no reason?"How was she suffering? She was insane, there is no way she could have lived a normal life. That's why she had to be guarded and locked up for the rest of her life.
Tytti wrote: "How was she suffering? She was insane, there is no way she could have lived a normal life. That's why she had to b..."Sorry, I wasn't arguing why she had to be locked up, I meant being insane itself was a suffer, and many had to suffer for the rest of their lives.
Sandy wrote: "I meant being insane itself was a suffer, and many had to suffer for the rest of their lives."But there is nothing anyone can do about it and also no one can be blamed for that. On the other hand Rochester was tricked into marriage and he can't get a divorce, either.
Tytti wrote: "But there is nothing anyone can do about it and also no one can be blamed for that. On the other hand Rochester was tricked into marriage and he can't get a divorce, either. "That was quite what I wanted to express: life is just unfair, if Bertha hadn't died, Rochester would have to suffer for the rest of his life; just like life is unfair that Bertha was born mentally ill.
Rochester was tricked into a miserable marriage and he was again trying to trick Jane into an illegal marriage...
He should know clearly how bad it is not honestly telling the person you are marrying everything about yourself.
The difference is that they COULD have been happy, their "suffering" was man made. He had already kept the secret for years and what she didn't know can't hurt her. She probably would have had a better life with him, married or not, than as a governess. I would say that it was the best solution in those circumstances.
Tytti wrote: "Greg wrote: "As a guy, I will put myself in Rochester's place."I wonder is this common... As a woman I usually have no problem putting myself in a male character's place, at least when it has bee..."
Tytti, I also have been reading adult books since I was a kid (my parents let me read anything) and the "YA" term is a mystery to me. "All the Light We Cannot See" to me is a perfect book for young adults, but certainly wasn't marketed as such like "Hunger Games." And I like to read a little of everything, so I have no problems with male/female POVs, no problem with any genre.
Sandy wrote: "sublimosa wrote: "Greg, I know I get more out of JE the more I read it and the more I read these discussions. I've only read P&P by JA and only once. I did pick up S&S right after it but put it dow..."Sandy, to me, Jane Austen novels are best read slowly, the humor is often so subtle it's easy to miss. Arguing Austen vs. Bronte, it's Austen for me.
Greg wrote: ""All the Light We Cannot See" to me is a perfect book for young adults, but certainly wasn't marketed as such like "Hunger Games.""Actually my perspective is opposite, I guess... I don't see why any book should be marketed for "young adults" unless it's written/targeted to them and "only" to them. It just gives me an impression that the book is simple and easy to read and probably wouldn't be appreciated that much by adults who are over 25 or 30 years old. Because there is no age limit for "adult" books, only the reader's own maturity might have an effect, a 15-year-old understands more than someone five years younger. Jane Eyre is also a coming-of-age story of sorts and the protagonist is relatively young, I think under 20 years old in the end, but it is clearly written for an adult/general audience, not just for teenagers.
Tytti wrote: "Greg wrote: ""All the Light We Cannot See" to me is a perfect book for young adults, but certainly wasn't marketed as such like "Hunger Games.""Actually my perspective is opposite, I guess... I d..."
Great point Tytti!
Tytti wrote: "The difference is that they COULD have been happy, their "suffering" was man made. He had already kept the secret for years and what she didn't know can't hurt her. She probably would have had a be..."Please don't forget: Rochester's plan was to tell Jane everything AFTER the marriage. Jane would eventually know everything and get hurt sooner or later. Not like what you have said she couldn't get hurt, no!
As regard to man-made, Rochester was making suffering to Jane using the same trick somebody else had made to him. That's really unforgivable, although Jane forgave him, which made Greg ourtraged. ;)
Such an interesting conversation. I always prefer books where people can have very different and heated opinions. I've read Jane Eyre twice, the second time at university under a wonderful professor. There is a lot to uncover in this novel. But I still find that the coincidences make me roll my eyes. Lots of improbable events, but that's all part of it.
I also agree with Greg that Rochester is a despicable person (my word, not his), and I'm a woman. I know many find him romantic, but I really don't. Give me Mr Darcy every time.
For those who want more of what we've been talking about, try to find a copy of the essay "Can Jane Eyre Be Happy" by literary scholar John Sutherland. His theory is that Rochester would have murdered Jane within 10 years. It's an interesting a well-reasoned argument. Probably not popular with Rochester's fans though.
J wrote: "For those who want more of what we've been talking about, try to find a copy of the essay "Can Jane Eyre Be Happy" by literary scholar John Sutherland. His theory is that Rochester would have murdered Jane within 10 years. It's an interesting a well-reasoned argument. Probably not popular with Rochester's fans though."Wow, thanks J for sharing this.
J wrote: "For those who want more of what we've been talking about, try to find a copy of the essay "Can Jane Eyre Be Happy" by literary scholar John Sutherland. His theory is that Rochester would have murdered Jane within 10 years. It's an interesting a well-reasoned argument. Probably not popular with Rochester's fans though."That sounds very interesting. I don't hate Rochester, but I always like a good "what-if" scenario. Thanks for the tip!
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)
Actually he had enough money, so a place for her to live and a woman to take care of her were no big deal.
if he hadn't concealed his relationship with Bertha, could he still flirt with Miss Ingram or other girls?