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
Susan wrote: ...Seems like she is adapting her own take on this tradition in literature, whether she is referencing Austen or not...."Ahh! The wonderful world of intertextuality! I appreciated your comments, Susan, and what you saw/read/perceived/interpreted to bring to our attention.
I don't think you have to like another author to reference them either. Gosh, indeed you don't - that would cut out a lot of good references!!:).
Lily wrote: "Susan wrote: ...Seems like she is adapting her own take on this tradition in literature, whether she is referencing Austen or not...."Ahh! The wonderful world of intertextuality! I appreciated y..."
Merely just a personal observation of mine, Lily. That's what is so fun about literature, isn't it? It can be thought and talked about endlessly ;)
If my memory is accurate, both Anne and Emily managed to get their first work published before Charlotte.Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey were all published in the same year, 1847. Anne had the latter ready for publication by 1845 but there were delays by the publisher. You may be thinking of the small volume of poems which Anne and Emily published in 1846, with Charlotte's help.
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......"
Very interesting article! That quote by G.H. Lewes is a little curious. Did he write that before or after he met George Eliot? :)
MadgeUK wrote: "If my memory is accurate, both Anne and Emily managed to get their first work published before Charlotte.Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey were all published in the same year, 1847. Ann..."
i didn't realize they were all published the same year. i wonder if they felt any sort of competition as siblings?
Susan wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "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 d..."Yes Susan - I can imagine Bronte perhaps not liking the overall effect (the lack of "poetry" in her writing), but thinking a couple of little moments worth adapting!! Who knows?
Just on the role of the governess - Elizabeth Gaskell, in her biography of CB, recalled speaking to Charlotte about Anne’s novel Agnes Grey. Charlotte apparently said, “None but those who had been in the position of a governess could ever realise the dark side of “respectable” human nature.” It is for this reason that Anne Brontë said that the purpose of her novel is “not to amuse, but to benefit those whom it might concern.” All pretty serious business it would seem. Being a governess was a curious hybrid of mother, teacher, etiquette instructor and servant. It was usual to be ignored and ridiculed as we see in Agnes Grey and in Jane Eyre. Many were abused and god knows what else.
The quote from Lewes is certainly interesting in light of his relationship with George Eliot (me!!) but she was never an public supporter of the feminist movement, even though we see feminist elements in her novels.
Kristen wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "If my memory is accurate, both Anne and Emily managed to get their first work published before Charlotte.Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey were all published in the sa..."
It looks very likely.
BunWat wrote: "Interesting essay here:http://ariel.synergiesprairies.ca/ari...
About the governess role as portrayed in Jane Eyre and Emma. The later part of the essay f..."
BunWat-love the essay! I have only had a chance to skim it, but it really brings up many pertinent points to our discussion.
I haven't finished reading this section of Jane Eyre yet, but right now I am at the point where she is starting to feel a bond forming with Rochester. There are many great quotes that I'd like to bring up before the end of this section. Time to put my son to bed, though. This discussion is very thought provoking and am enjoying all the different points brought up.
What a wonderful discussion. I'm really enjoying following along this conversation. You are all adding so much more to my enjoyment of the novel!
BunWat wrote: "...Jane (Eyre, not Austen), for all of her outward restraint, is a passionate person who really wants to find people to care about..."Although I know little about their biographies, what little I have encountered suggests to me that Jane Austen's life may have had fewer (less severe?) abusive elements than the Brontes' lives. It seems to me we can notice that in their writings, for all their general awareness.
Amalie wrote: "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. ..."Joan Fontaine and Susannah York were very attractive, as was Gainsbourg. Gainsbourg was excellent, but John Hurt was awful.
I've always suspected that Adele was his child with the actress.
Very much so Lily, the Brontes were abused as children and abused as governesses. Austen's life was a 'doddle' compared with theirs and the 'gentility' in her novels, as against the brutality in the Bronte's, reflects this. To me their lives and their novels seem as chalk and cheese. The different part of England in which they lived may also have had a bearing because the Hampshire//Somerset area is pretty, rolling countryside with mild weather whereas the dales and moors of Yorkshire are rough and rugged with harsh weather. One of Austen's biolgraphers says that the Austen home was 'an open, amused, easy intellectual atmosphere', again contrasting with the seriousness of the Bronte's. Their fathers were both Anglican rectors but Austen's father was from the 'landed gentry' and wealthier, although he died when she was 30 and the family's financial circumstances were reduced for several years until her wealthy brother came to the rescue.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/austen/deane...
As I posted in the Background section, Phrenology was 'all the rage' in CB's day and we see more evidence of this when in 'Chapter I:14 Rochester holds up the hair from his forehead in order for Jane to inspect his 'intellectual organs'!! He comments that there was 'an abrupt deficiency where the suave sign of benevolence should have risen'. Jane concludes from this that he was no 'philanthropist' and that him letting her sit with him, despite their difference in stations,was an act of charity not benevolence. It is a strange 'chat up line' isn't it, for a bloke to say to a gal 'Criticise me: does my forehead not please you?' as he lifts up his (Byronic) locks of hair! It is more likely that another organ would be proferred for inspection today!:O
Jane question about philanthropy is interesting too because the Victorians were great philanthropists who endowed all manner of institutions etc and of course she had just come from Lowood, which was an institution supported (and originally failed) by philanthropists.
The 'organ of benevolence' is clearly shown here, just in case you want to inspect your partner:). (There are other diagrams and info on the Background thread.)
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x4...
BunWat wrote: "Interesting essay here:http://ariel.synergiesprairies.ca/ari...
About the governess role as portrayed in Jane Eyre and Emma. The later part of the essay f..."
A really interesting essay, BW. It makes me realise that Emma is overdue for a re-read and that I need to pay more attention to Jane Fairfax next time.
It's ironic, I think, that the mother substitute governess will in many cases have been the young woman sent away to school because of family circumstances and denied the opportunity to learn from her own mother the very things she was later expected to impart to her charges.
I believe this is the last day for our discussion of this section, so I wanted to post a couple of quotes I found from the novel that spoke to me:(from Ch. 15) "I felt a times as if he were my relation rather than my master: yet he was imperious sometimes still; but I did not mind that; I saw it was his way. So happy, so gratified did I become with this new interest added to life, that I ceased to pine after kindred: my thin-crescent destiny seemed to enlarge; the blanks of existence were filled up; my bodily health improved; I gathered flesh and strength."
Jane no longer grieves for a family. She seems to have found her family in Mr. Rochester. I found it interesting that she seems to be changing in body, almost like a metamorphosis is occurring within Jane. She is becoming stronger as her bond with Mr. Rochester grows.
Later, after Jane hears of Blanche Ingram and a possible alliance between her and Mr. Rochester, she starts to doubt her own feelings as products of her imagination (end of Chapter 16):
"Arraigned at my own bar, Memory having given her evidence of the hopes, wishes, sentiments I had been cherishing since last night-of the general state of mind in which I had indulged for nearly a fortnight past; Reason having come forward and told, in her own quiet way, a plain, unvarnished tale, showing how I had rejected the real, and rabidly devoured the ideal; I pronounced judgment to this effect: That a greater fool than Jane Eyre had never breathed the breath of life; that a more fantastic idiot had never surfeited herself on sweet lies, and swallowed poison as if it were nectar."
Jane's strong emotions have been brought down by her station in life once again, her idealism is smothered. Her inner self imagines that there is something between her and Mr. Rochester, but her outer self and her position in society only serve to beat these feelings down. Her drawing comparing portraits of both her and Blanche only serves to solidify this change in emotion she undergoes. One can only feel such sadness for such a person and such hatred of her society.
It is her body and appearance, thought to be changing and becoming stronger in the previous quote, that is reality to her.
Susan wrote: "...such hatred of her society...."Strong words, Susan. Are you willing to say more?
I read these lines without quite the fervor I sense in your assessment and more with romantic, idealistic Jane dueling with the realistic Jane (with perhaps a douse of self and socially imposed insecurity).
Although certainly class structures exist today in virtually every society, I do find it hard to have a "feel" at the core for the social system within which Jane functioned. What exactly was that society, should it be "hated," and what does that mean, I think are my questions? Are there certain aspects of particular import to this discussion?
Lily wrote: "Susan wrote: "...such hatred of her society...."Strong words, Susan. Are you willing to say more?
I read these lines without quite the fervor I sense in your assessment and more with romantic, ..."
Well, maybe "hate" is too strong a word ( I say this all the time to my son. You'd think I'd know better!) I am just expressing my own emotions as I read this portion of the novel. Poor Jane. She finally escapes all this awfulness from her early life, thinks she finally finds someone she can relate to, then, BAM, everything just falls apart because of this other woman who was gifted with a fashionable sort of beauty. Maybe I can relate to her too much, but just wish the world could be more ideal and less superficial.
BunWat wrote: "I wonder too, how painful it would be for someone like Jane, who lacks her own family, to be caring for someone else's. "I think that caring for another person's child would have been less painful than it otherwise might have been for Jane Eyre because she had found her mother substitute in Miss Temple, because Adele was motherless and unloved and because she (Jane) was treated with kindness and respect at Thornfield. Not so for Jane Fairfax, I think.
I also think that Jane and Adele are worth comparing with each other. Both motherless, both unloved but through circumstances (and temperament?) very different.
PS - I am so enjoying this discussion. I am new to the group and joined it largely on the basis of this discussion. It's making me think about Jane Eyre in a whole new way. Thank you all.
BunWat wrote: "...Its the old catch 22, parents want their kids well cared for but they don't want to be supplanted in the child's respect and affections by those caretakers..."That has always struck me as somehow placing greater bounds than necessary on love. (Our successive nannies and later my husband were our son's caretakers while I worked, so I have that particular bias/perspective on the topic.)
Someday I am going to have to look at the history of the practice of nursemaids. Certainly, women with resources have chosen and been allowed to treat child raising differently than those without.
Lily wrote: "Susan wrote: "...such hatred of her society...."Strong words, Susan. Are you willing to say more?
I read these lines without quite the fervor I sense in your assessment and more with romantic, ..."
Lily-I realized that I didn't address your questions. As far as really "feeling" how it feels to live within Jane's society, I think this is one of the major strengths of this novel. Through the singular, clear voice of Jane Eyre, we can get a very real glimpse into her world. To me, Jane could be any one of the compassionate, educated people of our day. The difference lies in that she was placed in an impossible position at birth and living life through her eyes renders us able to feel a little bit of what she could have felt.
Susan wrote: "...The difference lies in that she was placed in an impossible position at birth and living life through her eyes renders us able to feel a little bit of what she could have felt. ..."Okay, I'll be really cynical tonight -- who isn't (placed in an impossible position at birth) in whatever age, whatever circumstances, from Jeannette Walls's The Glass Castle to Jonathan Dee's The Privileges . I guess all I'm trying to say is that I don't think "society" has ever not been hard for virtually all concerned, although providing a wide variety of privileges and challenges and deprivations.
BunWat wrote: "...."Neat comments. Thanks for articulating them! Including: "...some of that is Charlotte engaging in wish fulfillment."
MadgeUK wrote: "Nor do I think that Austen's 'mannered' heroes have the same gothic passion that Heathcliffe and Rochester share. ..."They don't have any visible passion at all. They're such "gentlemen" 100% of the time. The Brontes' prose is practically purple in comparison.
Rochelle wrote: "They don't have any visible passion at all. They're such "gen..."I don't want to stray off topic too far, but I've always thought that Captain Wentworth, for example, shows plenty of passion. His letter to Anne Elliot is nothing if not passionate. Austen's heroes are certainly a lot more restrained than Rochester and Heathcliff, but I don't think it can be said that they lack passionate impulses or that their passion is never visible to the reader.
I very much agree Rochelle, which is why I prefer the Brontes. It is the difference too between the north and south of England, the northern folk being rougher and more outspoken ('blunt') and the southern folks being more genteel. The difference too between industries, the tough manufacturing industries being mainly in the north. These distinctions are now blurring but they were well delineated Austen's and Bronte's time. And of course neither of them travelled much out of their milieu and so reflected it.
Lily: I find it surprising that you do not appear to think that women's lives have improved since the time of Jane Eyre and that we are still as constricted by our society. Even in my lifetime I have seen a great change in the things which women are able to do and thinking back to my grandmothers, a vast difference from what they could do. The workplace alone changed drastically during the world wars, when women took the men's place in heavy engineering factories and in WWII they were on active service, albeit behind the lines. Now they are on active service at the battlefront. This in turn led to the opening up of many jobs for women, especially office jobs. When I was married in the 1960s, I could not take out a mortgage or any loan without a male guarantor. If I went into a public house or restaurant without a man, I would be at risk of being thought a prostitute.Yes, The Glass Ceiling is still there but compared to the lives of Austen and Bronte we are as free as birds. We do not have to languish at home as the Bennett sisters did, awaiting a suitor - we can go out and seek one in many places or choose to live happily alone. We can also choose not to have children or even choose the father or a child via IVF. We can choose to divorce if we are unhappy in our marriage and can get maintenance for our children. And so on.
Our nostalgia for times gone by and the many glamourising films has, I think, dulled our wits about what life was really like for ordinary folk and especially women, who 'belonged' not to themselves but to their fathers or husbands. Being an 'Angel on the Hearth' was slavery which continued long after slavery for Africans was abolished.
MadgeUK wrote: "Lily: I find it surprising that you do not appear to think that women's lives have improved since the time of Jane Eyre and that we are still as constricted by our society. Even in my lifetime I h..."Couldn't have said it better myself, Madge, when dealing with women's issues. Lily, I agree, people of all eras find themselves in impossible positions, born into a life they never would have chosen, but I think Bronte is choosing to highlight Jane's particular life as a woman in England during the Victorian period. Sure, there are other books that show life is hard for individuals, but life was pretty tough for Jane. I don't think anyone could deny this.
MadgeUK wrote: "Lily: I find it surprising that you do not appear to think that women's lives have improved since the time of Jane Eyre and that we are still as constricted by our society. Even in my lifetime I h..."Yay Madge! - we just need to maintain this (and improve) for the next generation. I too feel very lucky to be living in the 21st century. I still have my moments of frustration - especially as a woman over 40 - but there is certainly an equality that did not exist only a blink ago. When I have felt moments of frustration at a certain disdain aimed at me, Bronte's words on the battlements perfectly encapsulate how I was feeling.
BunWat wrote: "The sexual dimension of the relationship of a governess and men in the home are ...I was thinking about this yesterday in reference to modern day Saudi Arabia. In Saudi women aren't permitted to drive because according to religious authorities this reduces the temptation to leave home and meet strange men. So in order to go get food from the grocery, or get to work, or see their mother they have to have drivers, who are of course, since women aren't permitted to drive... male. The inherent contradiction of this is glossed over by simply refusing to acknowledge the drivers as "real" men. I've known a few people who have worked as Saudi drivers, and there is apparently a whole set of largely unspoken expectations of appearance, dress, demeanor to reduce anxiety around the inescapable fact that the guy driving the car is in fact a guy. One guy told me it really helps to be short if you want to get hired, and to look as gender neutral and non Arab as possible.
"
Thanks for this piece of information. I've been involved in women's issues for years, and am always interested in what is happening with women in other parts of the world.
With leads to the discussion on whether women's lives or better or not today. In the West, yes, definitely. Women are far more independent than at any other time. There are, of course, blips - equal pay, etc., but for the most part, women have it quite nice compared to our ancestors.
But we can't say ALL women. Women in other parts of the world outside of the West aren't able to lead strong, independent lives. Not that the women of the West should define what other women want or should do. But I think that it is safe to say that many women across the globe would like to have more control over their lives. And be valued as a woman.
Georgie wrote: "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. "Unlike many here, I love Woolf. She's one of my favorite writers. And "A Room of One's Own" is one of the most important pieces of feminist writings.
I believe, however, that "Three Guineas" is far more blunt and a stronger piece of feminist text. Unfortunately, it isn't read as much, and at the time it was published, Woolf's husband and male friends in the Bloomsbury group completely dismissed "Three Guineas." Woolf was hurt by their comments.
Her work is also incredibly important in WWI literature. And actually, "Three Guineas" connects both to feminism and WWI.
Her literature is hard to read because she writes in the stream of consciousness form of writing, but once I get into the rhythm of that genre, I love it.
Many have written that Rochester doesn't seem quite sure about how to treat Jane. I agree, but want to add that his response is often to revert to the old patriarchal way of treating women and to use his "superior" position to keep a distance between them. Up to this point, it seems as if it is only when he is vulnerable (after Jane saves him) that those traditional roles break down.
There were some restrictions on Rochester's behavior too. The lord of the manor didn't fall in love with a lowly, sexless, poorly educated governess. Marriage would be unthinkable. As late as 1959, Nelson Rockefeller's son shocked the public by marrying his father's former maid, a grocer's daughter. If Rochester allows himself to love Jane, he's knocking down some social barriers also.
Great points Rochelle. Even now such marriages between the classes evoke a lot of comment - as with the recent royal wedding.
I didn't say but what many things in society have "improved" nor was my comment about the difficulties of living in society intended to be restricted to women! But, it often seems too easy to say that one person's lot is easier or harder than another's in society. As Rochelle reminds out, Rochester had expected social restrictions on his behavior. He also faced considerable expectations, many of them financial. I always remember particularly a male colleague at the height of the turbulent 70's reminding me that he and other men had long faced many of the challenges and roadblocks I and women like me were now also undertaking. Societies just do place a lot of conditions on people, some of those conditions essential to living as communities, others throughout history and still today only too often unduly burdensome or humiliating.
Have to be brief because I have strained my shoulder badly and am in pain. Rochester's life is cushioned by wealth and position. Jane's is not.
Of course men, especially working men, have faced challenges and roadblocks but the roadblocks for women were not only greater but lasted longer because men manipulated the strings - controlled governments, controlled the law, controlled purse strings etc. Still do. You can only take the relativist position so far.
One thing that concerns me for the world going forward is women shouldering their Atlas role in holding up the universe. Power, regardless of its form, is frequently taken as oft as it is given. A challenge is for women to continue to assume those responsibilities and the challenges and the roadblocks that go with those roles.
BunWat wrote: "Sorry Lily, didn't understand any of that. If you feel like elaborating, maybe I can catch more on the next go round."I'm not convinced "roadblocks" are greater for women than for men -- if that helps clarify for you.
No doubt men face signficant "roadblocks", but on a global scale it seems that women still have less access than do men to the kinds of resources which will improve their lives: less money, less education, less mobility, fewer rights. To take a fairly hackneyed example, I wouldn't want to be a man living under Taliban control in Afghanistan but if I had to live there at all, my life would be easier as a man than it would be as a woman. Class and economic status are very important indicators of what one can expect out of life, but in many parts of the world gender is as important, if not more so. Western women, whose lives have improved so dramatically since CB's time, are indeed privileged. There are many women in the world now who daily undergo hardships far worse than anything which befell Jane Eyre.
But we must not forget the tremendous challenges that face us, whether men or women -- while in no way belittling the differences.And we have now probably strayed far, too far from Jane Eyre . But Rochester, Mr. Reed, and even the dreadful Mr. Brocklehurst had broad responsibilities, whether or not they carried them out well. Those responsibilities inevitably had roadblocks. And, yes, as men they had considerable power to deal with those roadblocks.
My Atlas shrugs on the theories of Ayn Rand:). If roadblocks were not greater for women than for men historically we would have had more women rulers and generals, more women explorers, scientists, doctors, judges, intellectuals etc etc etc. America might even have had a female President at its inception. Ditto the French Republic - despite the aims of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, égalité did not survive either revolution so far as sexual égalité was concerned.
MadgeUK wrote: "If the roadblocks were not greater for women historically they would have been in more positions of power throughout; we would have had as many female rule..."Hear, hear!! Madge for Prime Minister!!
Susan wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "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 d..."True, and there are plenty of Gothic elements in JE.
I see my plea to abandon in this discussion the modern roles of men and women, has fallen on deaf ears. :-)
I always get on late at night, after a good deal of the fun has passed. So I wasn't crazy thinking that R might be Adele's father. It's just my gut feeling, but are there any clues in the text? Did CB mean it to be ambiguous?
I agree Rochelle. We surely all know that we in the West are privileged from many points of view but that does not aid our discussion of the role of women - and particularly governesses - in Victorian times. And we have only to look at the Forbes 'rich and powerful' lists to know that power and wealth still resides with Western men. Rochester was a wealthy aristocrat who owned a large home and kept several servants, Jane was a poor orphan with no home, who was dependent upon her earnings as a governess, and her reputation. Rochester's world was his oyster, Jane's world was not. IMO Bronte is trying to show us how unequal Jane's world was - trying perhaps to illustrate why she and her sisters felt it necessary to publish under male pseudonymns.
Rochelle wrote: "I always get on late at night, after a good deal of the fun has passed. So I wasn't crazy thinking that R might be Adele's father. It's just my gut feeling, but are there any clues in the text? ..."
I think the text makes it at least a possibility. Adele's mother has told Rochester that the child is his and Rochester completely rejects this assertion. Jane contemplates it as a possibility, but says that she does not see Rochester at all in Adele's features (or at least, she says words to that effect - I don't have the book in front of me!) I'm not sure that CB meant readers to think that Rochester is Adele's father, as while his treatment of Adele is kind, there is nothing in the text to suggest that Rochester took on the burden of Adele with even the possibility of paternity in mind.
Why else would he take on the burden though? Because for a single man it is a burden. We do, however, see a contrast in the way that he treats Adele, who may not be of his blood, and the way in which Mrs Reed treated Jane. Perhaps it is is meant to be an idealised representation of the way orphans should be treated and therefore a piece of social comment on CB's part?
MadgeUK wrote: "Why else would he take on the burden though? Because for a single man it is a burden. We do, however, see a contrast in the way that he treats Adele, who may not be of his blood, and the way in wh..."It could be that, I suppose. Rochester's behaviour towards Adele certainly contrasts strongly with Mrs Reed's behaviour towards Jane. It's also consistent with the general portrayal of him as a man who, notwithstanding his tendency to brusqueness, treats his dependants well. Maybe this is an example of the unreliable narrator - Jane doesn't want to think of him as Adele's father, so she's going to make sure she gives her readers no reason to conclude that he is!
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)
Well, to me, it seems that if she was commenting on Austen's heroes, it is because she is poking fun at them (kind of like what Austen did to the Gothic novel). Seeing Jane placed in the role of heroine as opposed to the typical female in distress, and the seemingly Byronic Rochester being saved by this orphan "fairy-like" woman is a great twist. Seems like she is adapting her own take on this tradition in literature, whether she is referencing Austen or not. I don't think you have to like another author to reference them either.