The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Jane Eyre
Brontë Sisters Collection
>
Jane Eyre 2011: Week 3 - Volume the First: Part 3 - Chapters XII-XVII
MadgeUK wrote: "As Chris is away on a well deserved holiday and may be otherwise occupied, I am putting up the thread for this section, which deals with Jane's new career as a governess - the former chapter in the..."Really interesting background material, Madge. Thank you for including that. That "in-between" world of the governess has carried through to the history of American schoolteachers, as well. They were to be docile, pleasant, conventional--and certainly not independent thinking.
It has interested me, on this reading of Jane Eyre, that even though she's a governess, the relationship between her and Adele is fairly undeveloped. Not a criticism of the work--just an observation.
Mod
Welcome back Chris and looking forward to your further insights on this part of Jane's bildungsroman.
Although we are now on Chapter 12, the descriptions of Thornfield (see Background post 3) and its surrounding in Chapter 11 are both Gothic and Sublime - Sublime being part of the aesthetic of Romantic writing and one of the characteristics of the Bronte's style of writing. They set the scene for what is to come:-'I looked up and surveyed the front of the mansion. It was three storeys high, of proportions not vast, though considerable: a gentleman's manor-house, not a nobleman's seat: battlements round the top gave it a picturesque look. Its grey front stood out well from the background of a rookery, whose cawing tenants were now on the wing: they flew over the lawn and grounds to alight in a great meadow, from which these were separated by a sunk fence, and where an array of mighty old thorn trees, strong, knotty, and broad as oaks, at once explained the etymology of the mansion's designation.' (Rooks symbolise the future and sometimes death.)
At the end of the chapter Jane hears a 'curious laugh; distinct, formal, mirthless.....that seemed to
wake an echo in every lonely chamber'. Very gothic and a great foreshadowing of things to come, the first of which is her 'anonymous' meeting with Mr Rochester in the next chapter!
In Chapter 12 we also have a hint of the sublime: [I]climbed the three staircases, raised the trap-door of the attic, and having reached the leads, looked out afar over sequestered field and hill, and along dim sky-line--that then I longed for a power of vision which might overpass that limit.....[to] allow my mind's eye to dwell on whatever bright visions rose before it--and, certainly, they were many and glowing; to let my heart be heaved by the exultant movement, which, while it swelled it in trouble, expanded it with life; and, best of all, to open my inward ear to a tale that was never ended--a tale my imagination created...'
Jane's moonlight meeting with Rochester, looking like the mythical 'Gytrash', again has gothic overtones with 'notions' of 'goblins'. Gytrash was a malevolent spirit in the north of England (with a forked tail like the Devil) who takes the form of a large dog or horse, and leads people astray - another foreshadowing. (Folks may remember its appearance in Harry Potter!)
BTW the early New York skyscrapers were once considered an example of Sublime landscape.
Excellent analysis Madge, and what an observation! I'm really enjoying this discussion, although I don't post a lot I go through all the posts and this is the best and the most active discussion I've come across here at Goodreads!
Speaking of Jane's meeting with Rochester, it's interesting and symbolic because Jane meets the hero of the novel at his fall, contrasting the conventional first meetings between the hero and the heroine of Victorian novels. Sorry I have to go now...it's raining heavily here and a lot of thundering. I'll come back to this later.
did anyone notice a contrast between the way Rochester treats Jane during their first meeting in the road,and when she is under his roof?i also realized that Rochester requires her help more than once, something which i don't think i noticed in previous readings. the first time being when he leans on her so that he can walk to his horse, the second time when she saves him by putting out the fire in his room, not to mention the times he basically commands her to converse with him because he needs someone to talk to.
i love the descriptions of her drawings-- so weird! in my mind, i picture something similar to the surrealists, which came muuuuch later after this novel.
Kristen wrote: "did anyone notice a contrast between the way Rochester treats Jane during their first meeting in the road,and when she is under his roof?i also realized that Rochester requires her help more th..."
Kristen wrote: "did anyone notice a contrast between the way Rochester treats Jane during their first meeting in the road,and when she is under his roof?
i also realized that Rochester requires her help more th..."
I noticed that, too, Kristen--the contrast you mention. Is it that he's unaccustomed to treating someone, especially a subordinate, as a near-equal? Perhaps on those occasions when he's out-of-doors or in non-public settings (his room) he can be more in his natural state, whereas once he's in the public rooms of his manor-house he assumes the position and the public role he's always held?
Cathleen wrote: "Kristen wrote: "did anyone notice a contrast between the way Rochester treats Jane during their first meeting in the road,and when she is under his roof?i also realized that Rochester requires ..."
i think you're right, Cathleen. i couldn't quite put my finger on it. it's almost as if he's not quite sure what to do with himself or how to treat her. one minute he's commanding her, the next practically apologizing. jane goes through a variety or reactions and emotions to his treatment- amusement, surprise, blunt reproof, hope, confusion. the social constraints and class issues, i think are what makes this whole section so fascinating.
Kristen wrote: "Cathleen wrote: "Kristen wrote: "did anyone notice a contrast between the way Rochester treats Jane during their first meeting in the road,and when she is under his roof?i also realized that Ro..."
Yes, I think that her response to him and their interchanges are fascinating, too. I can see why he often uses nicknames that connote an other-wordliness about her. For one who's had the life she's had, she's remarkably comfortable in her own skin and exhibits a core of self-knowledge and strength.
He doesn't quite know how to treat her because she's completely counter to his image of a governess, and ours. It's also what I love about her best. She's such a multi-faceted woman, I think more complex than him. She's wise beyond her years. How old is she --18, 20?
A few more thoughts: it's Jane's character that has propped this book up for so many years, not the plot. And while the critics lambasted her, the public, largely women, must have been buying the book by the thousands, maybe fantasizing about ---(spoiler here, I'll skip it)Here's an interesting point of view of Jane's place:
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/b...
Good points Rochelle. It is her role as governess, as your link and mine in post 1 point out, which caused so much controversy and probably shocked the employers of governesses rather than the women themselves.Jane's relationship to Rochester goes against the stereotype of the Victorian governess who was supposed to be a homely, severe, unfeminine type of woman. 'This denial of a governess’s womanliness, and her sexuality was another way of reducing conflict that could arise from jealous wives or mothers. The sexual dimension of the relationship of a governess and men in the home are rarely mentioned in literature'(Peterson). Middle-class men had a tendency to stay at home until they married at the age of thirty. Unprotected by her own family the governess was vulnerable to sexual approaches. Women saw the governess as a threat to their happiness so because of the threat the governess aroused in the home, an attractive one was usually not employed.
As we read about Jane's burgeoning relationship with Rochester we can see that CB is challenging these stereotypes, although Jane is described as being in 'plain Quaker trim, where there was nothing to retouch all being too close and plain, braided locks included'.
This 1844 painting of a plain governess shows her as an outsider (see also Related Materials, although they contain Spoilers):-
http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/...
This is a pastel portrait of the equally plain CB by George Richmond, drawn not long after Jane Eyre was published and said by Gaskell to be a good likeness:-
http://www.thecultureconcept.com/circ...
A bit OT -- I've always found it bothersome that while Jane is described as plain, every movie version has used an attractive woman to play here. I've not seen the recent film, but I've seen every other version ever made. American and British cinema have a difficult time portraying a plain heroine, although if a French version had ever been filmed, I think it would have been more accurate. Jane has that famous line, "Do you think because I'm plain and poor..." and she never has been. CB has nothing wrong that a little makeup and a good hair stylist couldn't fix :-)
I would think too that it was in a governess's interest to appear as plain as possible if she wished to get and keep a job so I guess that the Bronte sisters moulded themselves along these lines. We also know that their father tore up a silk dress given to their mother and according to Mrs Gaskell insisted on 'plain-ness' in their dress too:'Mr Brontë wanted to make his children hardy, and indifferent to the pleasures of eating and dress... Mrs Brontë's nurse told me that one day when the children had been out on the moors, and rain had come on, she thought their feet would be wet, and accordingly she rummaged out some coloured boots... These little pairs she ranged round the kitchen fire to warm; but, when the children came back, the boots were nowhere to be found; only a very strong odour of burnt leather was perceived. Mr Brontë had come in and seen them; they were too gay and luxurious for his children, and would foster a love of dress; so he had put them into the fire.”
Make-up and a hair stylist would have sent them straight to hell!
Most enlightening. I can see why CB conjured up this fantasy of a bright, mature, knowing governess with self-respect, working for a man who learns to respect her.
Yes, and perhaps that is why in Chapter 14 CB takes Adele out of the 'brown frock' and allows her to be transformed by the rose-coloured satin dress her father had brought from Paris. Wish fulfilment?There is, I think, in Rochester's indulgence of his little 'French flower', a feeling that he is a dreamed of father-figure to Jane as well as a potential lover. Freud before Freud:).
Rochelle wrote: "A bit OT -- I've always found it bothersome that while Jane is described as plain, every movie version has used an attractive woman to play here. I've not seen the recent film, but I've seen every ..."I think the Jane in the recent version is sufficiently plain. Definitely not made up at all. This was one of the things I appreciated about the film.
MadgeUK wrote: "Although we are now on Chapter 12, the descriptions of Thornfield (see Background post 3) and its surrounding in Chapter 11 are both Gothic and Sublime - Sublime being part of the aesthetic of Roma..."Madge-thank you for the analysis of Thornfield and its sublimity. Also, I was puzzled by the use of the word "gytrash". I love this particular passage of Jane looking out into the distance. I felt it illustrated her character very well and her wish to become more than her station has given her. Also, I had the feeling of the battlements of Thornfield being a sort of prison. She can see out at the distance beyond, but just cannot reach it.
Amalie wrote: "Excellent analysis Madge, and what an observation! I'm really enjoying this discussion, although I don't post a lot I go through all the posts and this is the best and the most active discussion ..."
Amalie-I totally agree with you! I love this discussion we are having and it is so much more in depth than others I have been involved with. I had read through a little of the "Jude" discussion and was amazed by all the various references and research done, so I was not at all surprised that this too would be a good one.
I love the idea of Jane rescuing Mr. Rochester. Kind of reminds me of the rescue scene between Willoughby and Marianne in Sense and Sensibility. I did find the early interactions between Jane and Mr. Rochester puzzling. It is almost as if he does not know how to treat her. Maybe he senses that he is dealing with such an interesting and deep person that he refuses to categorize her. Or maybe an initial attraction that he is not sure about?
Susan wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Excellent analysis Madge, and what an observation! I'm really enjoying this discussion, although I don't post a lot I go through all the posts and this is the best and the most ac..."
I think the scene where Jane rescues Rochester is also quite titillating for the reader (or maybe it was just me as a teenager!) as she enters his bedroom to do so. It's the first real sexual tension between them and the first time she holds the power in the relationship.
Susan wrote: "Amalie wrote: "Excellent analysis Madge, and what an observation! I'm really enjoying this discussion, although I don't post a lot I go through all the posts and this is the best and the most ac..."
That's a really interesting point. His other involvement with women seems limited and conventional, in keeping with what one would expect a man of his wealth/status would have with housekeepers, prospective wives and the like. At times I sensed that he was clearly surprised by Jane's depth and her quickness. Although he's brusque on their first meeting, he soon readily and regularly seeks her out. I wondered if it were more of a novelty or curiosity for him, at first.
Cathleen wrote: "I wondered if it were more of a novelty or curiosity for him, at first...."Or just plain loneliness and the presence of a possibly educated and nonthreatening female in close proximity? Or maybe just possibly "interesting female"?
Georgie wrote: "It's the first real sexual tension between them and the first time she holds the power in the relationship. ..."I absolutely agree Georgie, in fact that was what I tried to say. I was not reading into the sexual tension but I see what you mean now, I was referring to the power relationship. Here Rochester depends on Jane's strength to walk back to his horse and we know this won't be the last time Rochester will depend on Jane, physically or emotionally. There first meeting tells the reader how there relationship will be like and i there is a reverse in this power relationship, the woman is always strong.
Just think even in this Gothic setting, we don't see the usual "Victorian female hysteria" in Jane anywhere.
Talk about the position of the governess, the picture says it all. This is best brought out in Agnes Grey. Invisibility of the Governess is a key theme in the novel I'm sure most of you are here is familiar with the novel.
Rochelle wrote: "A bit OT -- I've always found it bothersome that while Jane is described as plain, every movie version has used an attractive woman to play here. I've not seen the recent film, but I've seen every ..."Rochelle, I've seen almost all the versions of Jane Eyre and I don't think those actresses can be called attractive. Jane in 2006 BBC miniseries with Ruth Wilson, I agree, is pretty may be even too pretty but that version has the best scene of the first meeting of Jane and Rochester and the proposal.
The other considerably good versions are: (according to my taste) Jane Eyre 1996 version starring Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane. She's THE BEST Jane. Whenever I go through the novel her image comes to my mind and I like it. She's the Jane Eyre in the novel. This is the version I recommend to my students although the proposal scene is pretty dull.
The other good version is the new one. I liked it but I'm not so crazy about Jane although the young actress is really good, Charlotte Gainsbourg will always be "my" Jane.
Then speaking of how she's little, plain and poor..." well Jane is really self-conscious and I don't blame her after all she's been through. Abused children do have lot of self-esteem issues so we can't quite say she is not attractive, On one talks about her appearance in the novel other than Jane herself. It kind a connects back to CB herself, I read in biographies that she was highly conscious of her appearance and considered her to be the ugly duckling and we know that Charlotte Bronte was petite.
I think Rochester was attracted to Jane immediately - although he didn't show it of course. Perhaps he's attracted to her controlled 'unhysteric' nature? Could we go so far as to suggest that he's attracted to a certain masculinity in her?? I'm thinking here of her lack of typical feminine attributes (beauty) and her ability to take control in moments of crisis.
It's in chapter 12 that we see Jane at her most outspoken about the position of women. I can only imagine what it must have been like for a bright, able woman at this time to be denied any kind of freedom of choice. Jane voices this very powerfully and passionately on the battlements with declarations such as "I longed for a power of vision which might overpass that limit" and "Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer..." (GO JANE!)But it is chapter and this scene that prompted Virginia Woolf to be quite critical of Charlotte Bronte in "A Room of One's Own". She says that her genius will never be realised because she writes in "a rage when she should write calmly" and "she will write of herself when she should write of her characters". She finishes by saying it was no wonder that she died "young, cramped and thwarted". Of course, what she is getting at is that if she had had a bit of money and a room of her own, things may have been very different.
When I read this passage now, I can see what Woolf was getting at - it is as though CB is speaking directly to us at this point, and perhaps that is a fault as we are then taken away from the story and Jane.
Great comments everyone! I think VW writes calmly when she should be in a rage and she too died young, cramped and thwarted!:). There is nothing wrong with authors writing of themselves in novels - to some extent they all do it. Few characters are a total invention. What is remarkable about CB is that she led a very narrow, restricted life without any romances, and yet imagined many things outside of it, including a great love story. A tribute maybe to the wide scope of the reading the girls and their father did in the vicarage. Mr Bronte read The Times out to them every day and they were encouraged to take an interest in politics, and they made frequent visit to Keighley Library. After JE was published her very kind publishers regularly sent her boxes of books to read and there is constant correspondence between CB, them and most of her friends about the books they are exchanging.Once you have read something of CB's life, as in Mrs Gaskell, it is impossible, I find, to separate Jane from Charlotte and it is titled 'an autobiography':-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jan...
She had very few conversations with men other than her father and Branwell before she became an established author so the repartee with Rochester is all the more remarkable. Some of it maybe a rehash of conversations with Branwell before he became dissipated because he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent young man and, like his sisters, well read.
But don't you find it an interesting stylistic point the break in the story on the battlements? There is a definite change in tone and the comments are so passionate and out of sync with the times and the story. That is what VW is noticing. She also acknowledges CB's genius so is not really denigrating her as such. By the way, I think A Room of One's Own to be one of the most passionate and outraged pieces of writing I've ever read - but it's an essay not a work of fiction...and VW chose to end her life. I don't think I agree she was that young (59 is youngish to die now but not so much when she died but CB was only 39 - again probably not that unusual to die at that age in the Victorian era) or cramped or thwarted. Mental illness is another thing altogether. Yes, it is an autobiography but it's Jane's (however thinly veiled) not CBs. We are never told otherwise. She did visit London occasionally after the success of Jane Eyre and met other famous authors and went to Ireland for her honeymoon - more exciting life than mine! As for romance, she married a guy just before she died whom she apparently based on Rochester and then, according to Gaskell, got pregnant before she died (maybe an ectopic pregnancy??) - so I think we can safely say she knew about passion. I'm not so sure that we can assume she was as sheltered ( and I'm being careful here because by our standards she certainly was) as she is portrayed to be. I can't help thinking it's a bit like Austen's reputation also.
Georgie-I was going to bring up this passage as well. I agree with both you and Madge. I felt you do get a sense of Bronte's voice here, but it is definitely Jane herself speaking. It is a break in the narration, but it seems intentional to me, almost like a Shakespearean soliloquy. I feel it brings us closer to the true Jane without her societal facade of governess and orphan. I love both Woolf and Bronte because they are Woolf and Bronte, each getting to the heart of women's issues in their own way.
Amalie wrote: "Rochelle wrote: "A bit OT -- I've always found it bothersome that while Jane is described as plain, every movie version has used an attractive woman to play here. I've not seen the recent film, but..."I have not seen the most recent film yet, but I felt that all the previous "Janes" had an odd quality to them. My favorite is, by far, the 2006 version. I felt the chemistry between Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens to be incredible.
Georgie wrote: "It's in chapter 12 that we see Jane at her most outspoken about the position of women. I can only imagine what it must have been like for a bright, able woman at this time to be denied any kind of..."I was struck by that passage as well, Georgie. The tone and even the anger (?) that came through seemed a marked contrast to other points where Jane revealed glimpses of her interior life. I haven't read Woolf's appraisal of Jane Eyre, but from the portions you describe, I'm not convinced of Woolf's argument. I'll have to read "A Room..." I wonder, though, how else would we know of Jane's clear, intellectual "unconventionality," if Bronte didn't insert that interior monologue at that point in the novel?
Cathleen wrote: "Georgie wrote: "It's in chapter 12 that we see Jane at her most outspoken about the position of women. I can only imagine what it must have been like for a bright, able woman at this time to be de..."Yes, it does sound like anger Cathleen. She sounds furious actually!
And I agree with you Susan, that it's a bit like a Shakespearean soliloquy. That picks up nicely on Cathleen's point of us entering into the Jane's interior world at this point. Troubling as it is, I think it is one of the best passages in the book.
but it is definitely Jane herself speaking. It is a break in the narration, but it seems intentional to meI think there has to be a break in the narrative style here because the previous chapters about Lowood were based on CB's personal experience whereas JE's meeting with Rochester and the romance element were not. Apart from her crush on Professor Heger in Belgium she did not have a 'romance'. Nicholls proposed to her in 1852, when she was 36 and after JE was published. Her father at first refused to acknowledge Nicholls as a suitor, who was his curate so a lower 'class'. He went away for two years and then came back to propose again, therefore her couple of years of romantic involvement happened after she wrote about Rochester. She was painfully shy and 'company' made her ill so she avoided many social events when she might have met eligible men in London. Her first meeting with Thackeray was a great disappointment to those literati invited by him to meet her, because she scarcely spoke a word all everning. Jane is much more forthcoming than Charlotte!
Georgie: As you may have gathered I am not a fan of VW so will not comment on her work lest I offend you:). Suffice it to say that I do not think she could have understood an impoverished author from an isolated village, coming as she did from a privileged London background and always having lived amongst the wealthy literati. I think CB's problem might have been more that she had too many 'rooms of her own' - she lived a very lonely life with her reclusive, elderly, sick father after her remaining sisters died when she was 32 - her letters are full of her feelings of loneliness and depression, which hampered her writing of both Shirley and Villette. Whilst writing JE she had been used to discussing her work with her sisters Emily and Ann and she badly missed that interchange after they died. The Brontes led a very isolated, impoverished life in a small Yorkshire village, only visiting nearby female friends. She and Emily were in Belgium for two years to lern French, when she was 26, but did not mix with people there, mainly because they were very anti-catholic. CB was a governess at a couple of other places in Yorkshire for only a few months. It was not until CB arranged a meeting for herself and Ann with their publisher in 1847 (aged 31) that she made much contact with the outside world. After the publication of JE she made occasional forays into London and met the 'literati' but it was a great trial to her because she was so shy and in ill health. She was 32 by the time she started visiting literary friends in other places like the Lake District and Scotland, 36 before she had a proposal from her father's curate (after JE was published) and 38 when she went to Ireland for her honeymoon, just before she died. There isn't a lot of evidence of 'passion' in her married life although she was much happier and less lonely. She is said to have 'admired' Nicolls but not to have loved him. Rochester is more likely to have been based on the dark skinned, dark haired Belgian, Professor Heger, on whom she had an unreciprocated 'crush' whilst in Belgium and to whom she wrote passionate letters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant...
Georgie wrote: "I think Rochester was attracted to Jane immediately - although he didn't show it of course. .."Isn't Rochester basically likely to be attracted, at least initially, to almost any healthy young woman? If I recall correctly (I'm not re-re-reading the full book for this discussion, just reviewing portions) he was off pursuing the pleasures of the flesh where he could find them (hardly surprising for a virile man cooped up in a Gothic mansion on the Yorkshire moors without a wife to share his hearth). What would have been more surprising, to me, would have been if, running across this young woman out in the middle of nowhere and leaning on her shoulders, he didn't have at least the beginnings of, uh, well, you know what I mean.
Yes, good point Madge - and I agree with just about everything you say. I'm not a particular fan of Virginia Woolf by the way, but do like that essay and thought it was particularly relevant to this discussion. I suppose where I'm a little uneasy, is reading too much of an author's life into a work of fiction. It's very tempting to do this sometimes, especially with a work like Jane Eyre. But in the end, it is guesswork. We can only guess who Rochester was based on, whether Jane is based on CB herself etc.
I like to think that what is true are the words on the page - and the cry from the battlements is unmistakenly a cry of frustration and a yearning for equality. And for me, these words are as fresh today as the day they were written.
Georgie wrote: "Yes, good point Madge - and I agree with just about everything you say. I'm not a particular fan of Virginia Woolf by the way, but do like that essay and thought it was particularly relevant to th..."Totally agree, Georgie! One thing I wish to point out is the change in language that occurs between this passage and the passage that occurs just before (the beginning of Chapter 12). It is almost as though Jane's voice becomes clearer and less touched by societal convention. Jane is quite the unique individual-she has no real class to adhere to (neither rich, nor poor) and no family to belong to (any family she has has pretty much rejected her), so for her to go on top of the battlements and say her creed (so to speak) is definitely monumental and purposeful on the part of Bronte. She is a bit above it all, isn't she? And watching her, I feel this is a good thing.
BunWat wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Isn't Rochester basically likely to be attracted, at least initially, to almost any healthy young woman? ..."There's a difference between sporting wood and being genuinely inte..."
Good point, BunWat, but we might need a bit of the male perspective in this case. Which has more hold over a man-sexual desire or pain? ;)
Rochester was accustomed to getting what he wanted -- even when he didn't get it. Like his actress in Paris. He is this rather intriguing mixture of bad boy - good guy (taking on the rearing of Adele). Byronic? I don't know that character type well enough to speak with confidence.
I love that you refer to Rochester as a Byronic hero, Lily. Brings me right back to the Willoughby rescue scene in sense and Sensibility. Could Bronte have been playing with this scene from Austen? Could Rochester be a different sort of Byronic hero, and Jane a very different Marianne?
I think that the Byronic hero pervaded Victorian literature just as much as the Georgian, if not more so because his work was then circulated by the public libraries. After Byron died his famous heroic death (Charlotte was then 8), there was a flowering of his literature and many reprints of it were made, so girls like the Brontes would have been very familiar with it. Many critics have alluded to the influence that Byron's life and works had on the Brontes.Bronte was rather dismissive of Austen (see Mrs Gaskell) so I guess it would be unlikely that she would borrow the Willoughby scene. Nor do I think that Austen's 'mannered' heroes have the same gothic passion that Heathcliffe and Rochester share.
MadgeUK wrote: "Nor do I think that Austen's 'mannered' heroes have the same gothic passion that either Heathcliffe or Rochester share."agreed! probably why i am much more of a bronte fan than an austen fan.
This little Victorian Web feminist piece gives some ineresting comments by Ellen Moers on the gothic elements of both Heathcliffe and Rochester:-http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/eng...
MadgeUK wrote: "This little Victorian Web feminist piece gives some ineresting comments by Ellen Moers on the gothic elements of both Heathcliffe and Rochester:-http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/eng......"
Interesting article Madge. I love the quote by George Henry Lewes - it makes the angry tone of Jane on the battlements that much more understandable.
Moers' idea of the travelling heroine is interesting too, as Jane does an awful lot of moving around in this novel before she finds her place. It's also the travelling she does inside Thornfield in the many passages and stories of the house.
I have found what I had pursued of the Brooklyn CUNY link very interesting so far. A few days back, I hadn't searched through Madge and others many background posts to check if it was already there, so I am glad to see it up today here!
Susan wrote: "I love that you refer to Rochester as a Byronic hero, Lily. Brings me right back to the Willoughby rescue scene in sense and Sensibility. Could Bronte have been playing with this scene from Auste..."I too like that idea but as Madge has mentioned I don't think she borrowed anything from Austen. Charlotte was pretty dismissive of Austen's novels (which is kind a annoying to me.) But why would she had to go that far, what about Emily's Wuthering Heights. Isabella imagines Heathcliff to be a romantic hero of the Byronic variety so perhaps she was influenced by the character of her own sister's. If my memory is accurate, both Anne and Emily managed to get their first work published before Charlotte.
Compared to Heathcliff, I don't know, I feel perhaps Rochester is only little better with the intention and the determination of always end up getting what he wanted.
Susan wrote: "I have not seen the most recent film yet, but I felt that all the previous "Janes" had an odd quality to them. My favorite is, by far, the 2006 version. I felt the chemistry between Ruth Wilson ..."I wouldn't call 2011 version is better than 2006 mini series which is my favourite too! But Susan, I didn't like certain twists in 2006 version, for one that version completely exclude the possibility of Rochester being Adele's biological father, it sides a little too much with Rochester trying to make him look too innocent, but I agree they have such a great chemistry however my favourite Jane is still Charlotte Gainsbourg but they version is not so good only the actress. :)
I often avoid posting Feminist and Marxist links because they provoke controversy but this seemed quite a good one - not from the Victorian Web though, just the same blue!
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Cutting for Stone (other topics)Northanger Abbey (other topics)
The Castle of Otranto (other topics)
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (other topics)
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Abraham Verghese (other topics)Harold Bloom (other topics)
Jonathan Dee (other topics)
Jeannette Walls (other topics)
Charlotte Bronte held several posts as a governess and as Jane Eyre she is tutor to the Paris born Adelle. Charlotte and Emily Bronte perfected their French in Belgium (part of which is French speaking) where she fell in love with her French tutor, Professor Heger. The desperate letters she wrote to him when she returned to Haworth, spurned, were torn into small pieces, repaired with needle and thread and then left forgotten in a drawer until 1913! (I have put something about the Pensionnat Heger in Background Resources.
The role of a governess in Victorian society was a very ambiguous one - she was neither a servant nor a member of the family, and much was written about them and by them. The Victorian Web piece below (Spoiler) says that part of the reason that Jane Eyre was considered shocking was because of the 'strong voice' that Jane had as a governess:
'Orienting the point of view so closely to a governess was a remarkable strategy in its time. It was even considered shocking because it contrasted with the normal connotations and status of a governess in that period. Giving a governess — even a fictitious one — such a strong voice ran against common views of the proper role of such a woman. Indeed, Brontë's narrative strategy could have been seen as having ramifications for society at large by changing people's ways of thinking about gender and class. No doubt, such currents of thought would have shocked many in Victorian England.'
(view spoiler)[ http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/b... (hide spoiler)]
So although liberated women of the 21st century see her actions and conversations with her employer as perfectly acceptable, they were deemed shocking by many of her contemporaries.
The first person narrative may seem less 'reliable' than in previous chapters because Bronte is combining her memories as a governess with more imaginative, romantic material.