The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Jane Eyre
Brontë Sisters Collection
>
Jane Eyre 2011: Week 1 - Volume the First: Part 1 - Chapters I-V
MadgeUK wrote: "Because of the high mortality rates Victorian were obsessed with death. Here are some of their customs and superstitions about it:-http://friendsofoakgrovecemetery.org/...-..."
wow, the info on this page is fascinating! i'm afraid i've been attracting all kinds of bad luck and future deaths. ;)
Georgie wrote: "I always read it as though they were conspiring against Jane - that they delighted in being cruel to her but perhaps they thought they were doing the right thing by "correcting" her. It doesn't s..."I try to put myself on the shoes of the times, when religion was central to life, when salvation of a child's soul was quite seriously considered far more important than their material welfare. We can discuss (probably next week when we see more of him) whether or not Brocklehurst is sincerely concerned with the spiritual welfare of Jane, but if he is, and if he truly believes that if she is not a good girl she will burn in the fires of Hell forever, and it is up to him to save her from that fate any way he can, that would explain and perhaps justify much.
Christopher wrote: "I'm with Georgie on this issue. I think Mrs R. and Mr Brocklehurst were very mean-spirited to the little girl. It was, in my opinion, much more the notion of two adults threatening and intimidati..."Are you speaking with your 2011 hat on, or your 1810 hat on? If the former, I completely agree with you. If the latter, well . . .
"I try to put myself on the shoes of the times, when religion was central to life, when salvation of a child's soul was quite seriously considered far more important than their material welfare. We can discuss (probably next week when we see more of him) whether or not Brocklehurst is sincerely concerned with the spiritual welfare of Jane, but if he is, and if he truly believes that if she is not a good girl she will burn in the fires of Hell forever, and it is up to him to save her from that fate any way he can, that would explain and perhaps justify much."You make a good point, Everyman! I think that's a great point of conversation. I have to admit that I've always reacted to these hellfire conversations in the beginning of Jane Eyre with laughter and derision. Having been raised in the American Evagelical church and the weird little bubble that it can be, I sort of had a gut reaction of empathizing with Jane. I can't help laughing and wanting to cheer her on when she answers about how to avoid the fiery pit, that she "must keep in good health and not die". It's always been one of my all-time favorite scenes in English literature.
To your point, heck, maybe her various caretakers were more concerned with her soul than her physical and even emotional comfort. I never considered that possibility before.
Sometimes people have good intentions, but they don't realize the damage they may be causing to a person. Thankfully, here in California anyways, many people in the church are realizing more and more that we should be concerned with people emotionally and physically as well, not just "salvation".
Religious zealotry and cruelty often seem to accompany each other.
I found some comments about the early reviews which may be of interest:"Jane Eyre was reviewed in some of Britain's leading newspapers and literary journals. Most early reviewers were enthusiastic. The Edinburgh Review pronounced it "a book of singular fascination." The critic for the London Times newspaper called it "a remarkable production" and noted that the story "stand[s] boldly out from the mass." The Westminster Review noted that the book's characters were astonishingly lifelike (However, a reviewer in Spectator took the opposite view, saying that the characters did not behave like people in real life.) Fraser's Magazine gave a resounding endorsement and helped to spur sales by encouraging readers to "lose not a day in sending for it."
Contrary to this general praise, a handful of reviewers professed to be shocked by the passions expressed in the novel. A writer in the Christian Remembrancer regarded the book as an attack on Christianity and an example of "moral Jacobinism." Elizabeth Rigby (Lady Eastlake) denounced it in her unsigned notice in the Quarterly Review, calling it "pre-eminently an anti-Christian composition" and an attack on the the English class system. Perhaps unconsciously echoing Mrs. Reed, she condemned the title character as "the personification of an unregenerate and undisciplined spirit." The identity of Jane Eyre's author was still unknown, but Rigby commented that if it was a woman, she "had forfeited the society of her sex." However, unknown to Bronte and to the public, the book received the ultimate Victorian seal of approval: Queen Victoria privately referred to Jane Eyre as "that intensely interesting novel" and read it to Prince Albert."
And this is the link (not sure I know how to do this properly) for the Elizabeth Rigby Review from 1848:http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/peter....
Kristen wrote: "Sometimes people have good intentions, but they don't realize the damage they may be causing to a person. Thankfully, here in California anyways, many people in the church are realizing more and more that we should be concerned with people emotionally and physically as well, not just "salvation". "I agree with you that change in this area is indeed progress. (Not all social change is progress, IMO!) And we all know the saying about the road to hell being paved with ... (to which a precocious child once asked me, well then is the road to heaven paved with bad intentions?)
I keep realizing that it took Christianity at least 1600 years to start developing a kinder, gentler Christianity, and we're still working on it (as we see in Jane Eyre, there was still a lot of work to do in the mid-1800s).
Georgie wrote: "Religious zealotry and cruelty often seem to accompany each other."True, though I would have said sometimes rather than often. But religious zealotry and great compassion also often accompany each other.
Yes, quite true however in the case of Brocklehurst, I would argue that he uses his religious zeal as justification for his cruelty towards the students.
Georgie wrote: "And this is the link (not sure I know how to do this properly) for the Elizabeth Rigby Review from 1848:http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/peter...."
Just realised that this link has all of the abovementioned reviews.
I'm using the Norton Critical Edition. Here are a few snippets from contemporary reviews:George Henry Lewes, Frazer's Magazine, December 1847: "With the disentanglement of the plot . . .your interest does not cease. You go back again in memory to the various scenes in which she has figured; you linger on the way, and muse upon the several incidents in the life which has just been unrolled before you, affected by them as if they were the austere instructions drawn from a sorrowing existence, and not merely the cunning devices of an author's craft. Reality--deep, significant reality--is the great characteristic of the book. It is an autobiography,--not, perhaps, in the naked facts and circumstances, but in the actual suffering and experience."
John Eagles, Blackwood's Magazine, October 1848:
"It is a very pathetic tale--very singular; and so like truth that it is difficult to avoid believing that much of the characters and incidents are taken from life"
Elizabeth Rigby's review is also included, but since someone has already posted a link to that material, I won't quote from it. This edition also contains some interesting material on the Cowan Bridge School, but I'll save that for next week.
It looks like we are in for several days of rain here in Iowa, so I may head to the UI library to do a little digging for other contemporary reviews.
You guys are wonderful! Thanks for all the input! (I use "guys" as a gender free term, even though I know I defy our language.)
Christina wrote: "I'm using the Norton Critical Edition. Here are a few snippets from contemporary reviews:George Henry Lewes, Frazer's Magazine, December 1847: "With the disentanglement of the plot . . .your inte...
Thanks for posting! From what you quoted, I don't see much contemporaneous outrage at the events in the book.
MadgeUK wrote: "That's a good way of looking at the bildungsroman element Amalie!It is thought that the name Eyre is derived from the family who lived at Norton Conyers - Thornfield - see my Background thread. A..."
Thanks! This is why I love group reading. I always end up learning something new :) I'll try to combine it with the next batch.
Susan: You asked for some contemporary reviews of JE. As I have in the past been criticised by certain people (not by Chris however) for posting background information within the read, I have put such links on the Background information thread, which is what it was established for. However, beware, because these links contain Spoilers (one of the reasons I have previously quoted from them rather than give the link.) One of the other benefits of a Background thread is that the information is in one place for later reference, whereas links can get lot within the general read. I have quoted from several of these links and other sources which I have to hand as we went along, as to the critical reception of JE and how shocking it was to her contemporaries in various ways. The background material I have posted gives more extensive details in case there is anyone here who thinks I was fabricating information. Other sources which I regularly use, and which themselves quote from contemporaneous sources, are Victorian People and Ideas by Richard D Altick, What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew : From Fox Hunting to Whist - The Facts of Daily Life in 19th Century England by Daniel Pool and English Society in the Eighteenth Century by Roy Porter, all of which are beside my desk and which I recommend to those who like to read about this period.
Back to the book: Some of the most virulent of the contemporary objections arose from CB's portrayal of a governess, who had a very ambiguous place in Victorian society, and I have posted specific information about this aspect of the novel on the Background thread. JE's experiences at Lowood are, of course, where CB first portrays the life of a governess and this was drawn from her own and her sisters' experiences at the School for Clergyman's Daughters (again, link in Background info). Contemporary accounts by boarders there (I think in Mrs Gaskell) confirmed her descriptions of this dreadful place. There is more about JE's role as a governess later on in the novel but to reveal what the objections were to this would be a Spoiler.
Jane's criticisms of Lowood, such as those in Chapter 7, would have struck at one of the pillars of Victorian society, the sponsors of such institutions. (See Victorian Web Victorian Orphan Asylums : The Real Story.) However, whilst such benefactors did indeed give generously to orphanages and foundling hospitals (without tax breaks!), they frequently did not check upon how their money was being spent and the running of them was left to some very nefarious characters, as exemplified by Mr Brocklehurst (and the notorious Bumbles in Oliver Twist). Novels by authors like Dickens and CB lifted the lid on these conditions and gave rise to later more responsible benefactors, like Dr Barnardo, whose Village Home for Girls was a model which others followed:-
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/barnard...
http://www.goldonian.org/barkingside/
How different Jane's life would have been at a Barnardo's Village Home - but that would have been a different novel!:)
(BTW During my dark depressive days, my own four children spent two comparatively happy years in a Children's Home modelled upon Dr Barnardo's ideas, built by a later Victorian benefactor, Dr Thomas Stephenson. We spoke of Wills - mine benefits his organisation, which is still active today.)
We have spoken quite a lot about cruelty in this section and I thought I would draw attention to William Hogarth's set of prints of 1751 on this subject, his thesis being that cruel children, if left unchecked by society, become cruel adults:-http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibi...
http://www.graphicwitness.org/coe/cru...
Hogarth himself was a great philanthropist and was one of the founders of the first Foundling Hospital, where, incidentally, Haydn, another benefactor, first conducted a performance of The Messiah.
That's interesting about children and cruelty Madge. I've noticed that quite a few Victorian novels feature "nesting" - which is when little boys go out and find birds' nests to destroy. Agnes in "Agnes Grey" gets very upset when the nasty little Tom does this - and I'm sure I've seen it in other books - maybe "Tenant of Wildfell Hall" or "Tom Brown's Schooldays". There does seem to be quite a few cruel little boys in the Bronte sisters' works. I wonder if little boys still go out nesting? Most likely.
Big boys too Georgie, eggs from rare birds' nests are big business in certain parts of the world:(:(. Yes, it is quite a common occurrence in Victorian novels, although they were unaware of the wider implications to wildlife birdnesting had. Our men and boys should know better.
Yes, quite right - here in Australia that is definitely true.
Sorry, was editing as you posted!As readers of the Victorian genre, we all know that these cruelties went on in Victorian times (and ours!) but we are also reading authors like Bronte and Dickens who fought against them and did their best to expose the ills of their society, often at personal cost. For us to condone them here seems to me to be spitting on their memories. Their portrayals of cruel boys like John or of the cruelty of guardians like Mrs Reed and schoolteachers Mr Brocklehurst were what helped to bring about the social changes we now benefit from.
I bet Brocklehurst was a cruel little boy!
Yes, I quite agree, the reason Agnes gets so upset is because Bronte wants to show the reader how wrong it is. The Brontes were animal lovers for sure and were incensed by cruelty towards them - and indeed anything vulnerable, including children. Not sure what you mean by us condoning the cruelty here??
I feel it is condoned if we say it is just part of Victorian culture, this is what happened then etc and feel sure that CB did not want us to look at this way. She wanted us to be as outraged as she was, as Anne was. It goes without saying that there were beneficient aunts, kind boys, good headmasters and exemplary institutions but those are not, to my mind, the stuff of this novel.
Mmmm - it was part of the Victorian culture as much as it is part of any era - so much cruelty everywhere which we never seem to learn from. The Bronte sisters were clearly kind and empathetic - their novels are testimony to this. Most people at this time were as well. These extreme characters are what elicit such a strong response in the reader - I certainly don't think they were typical of the Victorian era any more than any other era. I brought up the "nesting" because it stuck in my mind as being cruel - certainly the way Tom delighted in it. CBs genius is how she depicts the cruelty so succinctly to make us repulsed by it.
Georgie Post 274: Yes, and did the Reed children grow up to be nice people? Hogarth's prints were very influential in their day so CB could be drawing a parallel.
I certainly don't think they were typical of the Victorian era any more than any other eraThey were typical enough to cause writers like Dickens, Bronte, Gaskell to write about them from a reforming p.o.v., and for an artist like Hogarth to deliberately portray them. The majority of people did live in squalor, the majority of orphans were ill cared for, a high proportion of parents drank to excess etc. so their concentration on these social ills brought about much needed reforms and in UK society today we see far fewer of these things, partly because such books caused laws preventing them to be enacted. Dickens in particular spent his adult life involved in reforms of various kinds. He first became a Hansard writer hoping he could meet and influence MPs in Parliament, then a journalist to the same end. He eventually found that writing sensational novels would bring things to the attention of more people - which they did.
I think this is all getting rather complex because these writers were reacting against an ineffective social system - which was the real problem - caused in part by the Industrial Revolution - and lots of others things. The point I was making was that the cruel characters (people) have existed and still exist - but in the Victorian era they had a free rein to do almost what they wanted without check. This is not the case now - and, yes I agree, we certainly have Dickens, Bronte et al., in part, to thank for this.
I agree - I just want to give Bronte some credit, as we read, for the part she played , as one Yorkshirewoman appreciating another:).
I'm one too Madge - just a few generations ago!
Really? That's nice! I live in Hertfordshire now but spent a lot of my childhood/girlhood in the Sheffield area, with regular jaunts out to the Moors and Dales.
My relatives were from near York - and as I said before my husband was born in Skipton and his parents now live in Hertfordshire too. Small world really.
The book again: For a description of the School for Clergymans' Daughters, or Lowood, not based on CB's account, folks could read Chapter IV of Gaskell's Life of Charlotte Bronte where she gives an account based on her own visits and interviews with others who attended or worked at the school. Helen Burns is based on the sick Maria Bronte. It is a very harrowing account of what the sick Bronte children endured there:(. Of 'Miss Scatcherd's treatment of Helen/Maria Mrs Gaskell writes: [Charlotte's] heart still beat with unavailing indignation at the worrying and the cruelty to which her gentle, patient, dying sister had been subjected by this woman. Not a word of that part of Jane Eyre but is a literal repitition of scenes between the pupil and the teacher. Those who had been pupils are the same time knew who must have written the book f rom the force with which Helen Burns' suferings are described.....they recognised in the writer of Jane Eyre an unconsciously avenging sister of the sufferer. [There follows a description by a fellow pupil of the dormitory where Maria/Helen lay, confirming Miss Scratcherd's cruelty to her.]'
By now many of you have heard me speak of the difference between "empathy" and "sympathy" as well as of the work of Marshall Rosenberg (
Nonviolent Communications
). From time to time I take a class or lesson from a woman trained in his techniques. This week I did such, and a couple of points may be of interest here. She (and another friend) had just spent several days at the events associated with the Dalai Lama's visit to Newark. Part of the strong message there was the need for increasingly using and finding verbal (non-violent) means of solving problems, from personal ones to community ones to global ones. The other point that she made that is probably more relevant to our immediate discussion was that one of the role plays she had seen presented by Rosenberg was having empathy for one of the worst villains of history, the point being that one need not condone the actions of another human being to have or extend empathy. (Rosenberg apparently has worked in situations such as reconstructing communities after genocide incidents.)
I share these comments here in the context of thinking and commenting about some of the villainous characters in Jane Eyre.
(Incidentally, I am interested in learning about the work of others who do work and develop techniques analogous to those of Rosenberg (even if, perhaps especially if, they are different), so if others know of those, perhaps we can take that discussion to Tea and Croissants.)
Indeed, one need not condone the actions of another human being, no matter how villainous, to have or extend empathy but empathy is by no means universally extended to villains because we tend to apportion blame - as in the recent reports of Bin Laden's death. I haven't noticed any empathy being extended to his wives, for instance. (A Cafe topic I know.)As to finding verbal means of solving problems, like Winston Churchill after WWII, British diplomats have long advocated 'jaw jaw and not war war' but are frequently derided as being cowardly or condoning terrorism. (Another Cafe topic.)
So desirable though empathy is and as we have seen here, it is in short supply a lot of the time. We are good here on the 'jaw jaw' bit though:D. Also should we extend that empathy to characters in a novel where the author intended us to see villains - which is so often the case in melodramatic Victorian novels. We would surely then be reading an entirely different story. And would empathy have got the social results which authors like Dickens and Bronte were seeking or would children still be up chimneys?
Kristen wrote: maybe her various caretakers were more concerned with her soul than her physical and even emotional comfort..Do we see textual evidence of this? Does CB bring this out in the novel do you think? Was it thought that starving children half to to death and keeping sick children in extremely cold rooms improved their 'souls'? Is this what 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven' meant?
MadgeUK wrote: "...Also should we extend that empathy to characters in a novel where the author intended us to see villains - which is so often the case in melodramatic Victorian novels..."Consider the possibility that identifying and naming villainy is not necessarily incompatible with empathy.
MadgeUK wrote: "I feel it is condoned if we say it is just part of Victorian culture, this is what happened then etc ..."I don't see it as condoning something merely by describing and understanding its historical reality. I do not condone slavery by pointing out that it was a normal part of the ancient world, nor do I condone slaughtering non-Christians by describing the events of the Crusades. It is possible to represent the historical events of the past without feeling a need to comment morally on them.
Georgie wrote: "Mmmm - it was part of the Victorian culture as much as it is part of any era - so much cruelty everywhere which we never seem to learn from. ..."True. In fact, we seem to delight in inventing more gruesome and effective means of cruelty. Earlier generations would have had no understanding of the degree of cruelty imposed by poison gas in WWI or the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII or the use of napalm to burn enemies to death in the Vietnam war.
I don't know whether English schools still follow the practice of fagging, but I know that, despite opposition, some fraternities in the US still, sadly, follow quite cruel practices of hazing on the theory that it is good for creating a lasting bond between past and current victims of the process.
Why all this? Why the cruelty which seems to lie in the center of what it means to be human? Does Jane Eyre offer any help in understanding this? Or does she merely describe a situation without any hope or expectation of change?
Georgie wrote: "My relatives were from near York - and as I said before my husband was born in Skipton and his parents now live in Hertfordshire too. Small world really."Small world indeed, My family base is in Darlington, only 50 miles or so north of York and not much further from Skipton.
I was pondering, as I was drifting into sleep last night, whethe Jane might have subject to occasional epileptic fits. This would help explain some of the actions of people which, outside of this context, might seem to some inexplicably monestrous. It would help clarify a great deal about the incident with John that opens the book. If she had been suffering a fit, she might well have unmeaningly attacked John, and certainly would have needed to be restrained and removed to a quiet place to recover. It would explain why a room of the house was apparently designated as a place for her to go to recover her senses, as they would see it in 1810. It would explain why Mrs. Reed would remind Bessie to lock the door; perhaps in a prior incident Jane had escaped from the room and injured herself falling down the stairs or otherwise. (It’s likely that Bessie did stay with her as she came out of the fit, but she, understandably, wouldn’t remember the details of what happened during the course of the fit, and may well have believed that she had been left in the room alone.) It would explain why the other children see her as different and treat her in ways we see as intentionally unkind. They would probably be a bit afraid of her, afraid that at any time she might fall into a fit. Even today, children are not naturally very sympathetic toward the mentally ill; far less so would they have been 200 years ago. It would explain the need to send her to a school 50 miles awy. Surely there were schools nearer than that, but they might not have been schools equipped to or willing to deal with her condition. It would explain the candid discussion between Mrs. Reed and Mr. Brocklehurst which Jane interpreted as negative; Mrs. Reed would have needed to make sure he clearly understood Jane’s condition.
We know that Jane’s mother died either during or shortly after her birth. Was she ill during her pregnancy, and did her illness affect Jane’s prenatal development? We are told that Jane was a small child; had she been born prematurely, or as they would have said then “before her time”, and with the absence of the sophisticated neonatal care we have today, might some brain misfunction have occurred?
I freely admit that there does not appear to be any direct evidence in the text for this theory. It arises from reading between the lines and thinking about the events described and whether there might be a logical explanation to explain what seem to be otherwise inexplicable behaviours by a young mother and family raising this child in their household. But if it is true, Jane herself may not have understood fully, and therefore not have been able to explain, what was going on with her, or she may, quite understandably in an age when the mentally ill were not treated with the kindness and understanding they more often (though sadly not always) are today, been unwilling to reveal this aspect of her character. I freely admit that it is pure guesswork, though I submit that it is guesswork which I think does not do violence to the text, but indeed could explain some features of the story as Jane sees it from her point of view.
I think I've read somewhere before that the fit Jane has is very like an epileptic fit and seems quite possible - although she doesn't have another fit in the course of the novel that I'm aware of.
Georgie wrote: "I think I've read somewhere before that the fit Jane has is very like an epileptic fit and seems quite likely - although she doesn't have another fit in the course of the novel that I'm aware of."While such is possible, I personally don't, at this point, find that hypothesis useful to my close reading of the book. But others may ...
I was pondering, as I was drifting into sleep last night, whethe Jane might have subject to occasional epileptic fits. If this were the case wouldn't there be some textual evidence to support fits, other than the fit/faint/unconsciousness at the beginning? Epilepsy was a very serious matter in Victorian times and it would be unlikely that CB did not make this clear. Nor is there any indication that she herself suffered from fits and the story is (according to Gaskell and others) largely autobiographical. We are not told what Jane's mother died of so it is pointless to speculate. She could, I suppose have passed on all kinds of genetic illnesses.
We could suppose all kinds of things. Let's suppose that Jane was an Alien? It would fit the story that she was of a different race and therefore from another planet, which would perfectly fit the reason for Mrs Reed disliking her and keeping her away from her children, whom she might abduct. I could go on inventing such suppositions all day but is this what we set out to discuss here or are we discussing the Autobiography of Jane Eyre, written by Charlotte Bronte, about which there is quite a lot of factual evidence with regard to CB's background and Lowood School in particular. Additionally, For those of us who have already novel (of which I thought you were one) know that quite a lot of this kind of speculation, especially about Mrs Reed, is not borne out as the novel progresses.
I find it very difficult indeed to discuss a book that is being rewritten in this way. It isn't what I joined this group for. Perhaps I will go over to Moby Dick and start speculating there to see if I then like that read any better. Was Ahab an epileptic do you think? He was certainly a very difficult man - he must have had some sort of mental illness, OCD perhaps? Maybe Moby Dick was a figment of his imagination, particularly if he were a schizophrenic having hallucinations? Ishmael may have imagined the whole thing and be a completely unreliable narrator. And as for Melville, he must have been completely out of his mind or wait! maybe he didn't write the book but Hawthorne did. They were very friendly, some suspect a homosexual relationship. Shall I post all this on the Western Canon discussion thread?
On the other hand, is it possible to get back to the text of the novel which is before us instead of indulging in wild imaginings? Chris did not approve of another thread for your hypotheses and I doubt that he would approve of them being used to hijack this one.
Please everyone, can we please get back to discussing the text of the novel or any truly relevant background material related to it. There are people here who have not read the novel before and who, I feel sure, want to know what Charlotte Bronte's storyline was.I think Georgie mentioned that she thought Brocklehurst was a nasty character. He was based on the Superintendent of the school the Bronte sisters went to but Gaskell says (in Chapter V and VI) there were divided opinions about him, some of the children and staff thought him very kind and others, like Charlotte, saw him as a monster. Whereas reports of the school overall, by pupils and staff, were generally bad, especially the cook and the cooking!
Reports about the Superintendent (Brocklehurst) Gaskell found ambiguous, although she reports that Charlotte formed a very bad opinion of him. Do we see such ambiguities in the text? We know that Brocklehurst gave Jane a bad reputation in Chapter 7, following her aunt's report but in Chapter 8 kindly Miss Temple exonerated her after Jane had explained that she I 'never forgot the, to me, frightful episode of the red-room: in detailing which, my excitement was sure, in some degree, to break bounds; for nothing could soften in my recollection the spasm of agony which clutched my heart when Mrs Reed spurned my wild supplication for pardon, and locked me a second time in the dark and haunted chamber.' The chamber where she 'supposed' she had 'a species of fit: unconsciousness closed the scene.' Bessie later said 'she might die; it's such a strange thing she should have that fit....' (Edit: My OEED defines 'fit' as 1 a sudden seizure of epilepsy, hysteria, apoplexy, fainting or paralysis, with unconsciousness or convulsions and (2) a sudden brief attack of an illness or of symptoms such as a fit of coughing.' I believe that migraine sufferers see a 'bright light', such as Jane reported?)
BTW Gaskell reports that Charlotte went to 'Lowood' when she was eight and left it after the typhus epidemic when she was nine, when she was taken home to look after the remaining sisters, a responsibility which she apparently took very seriously, even at that young age. Do folks think that this two year difference in age at the start of Jane Eyre's Autobiography, when Jane was 10, makes a difference to what is being narrated as part of CB's own memories?
Mod
In gothic fiction female (and sometimes male) characters were always fainting, having fits or falling into a swoon at moments of great emotion. Hope you don't mind my jumping into this discussion - I have been following avidly for the last few days:)
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Jane Eyre (other topics)Get Me Out of Here: My Recovery from Borderline Personality Disorder (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
Wide Sargasso Sea (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Rachel Reiland (other topics)Marshall B. Rosenberg (other topics)
Everyman-I would be interested in finding this out as well. I've been focusing my own interpretation of the text on what was the right thing to do, not what would be the norm of the time. As we all know, and we see it all the time in great literature, what is normal isn't always what is right, and it takes strength to overcome societal standards. If we could see some of the reviews of the time, this would give us some insight into how the text was perceived.