Jane Eyre 2011: Week 3 - Volume the First: Part 3 - Chapters XII-XVII

[MadgeUK]

Why wouldn't she want to think of him as Adele's fther, given his kindness to her? Because she wants to think of him as a virgin? Given his age wouldn't she be likely to think of him as being mature enough to have other romances? Because of the high mortality rate amongst women during childbirth, Victorian women did not necessarily expect a man to come unencumbered after a certain age.

[Kim]

MadgeUK wrote: "Why wouldn't she want to think of him as Adele's fther, given his kindness to her? Because she wants to think of him as a virgin? Given his age wouldn't she be likely to think of him as being mat..."

No, Jane can't have thought of Rochester as a virgin, as she knew that Adele's mother was his mistress. I don't think she wanted to think of him as a virgin either. But she clearly says that she saw nothing of Adele in him. I've taken that to mean that Jane did not believe that Adele was Rochester's child. Now I'm wondering if that's right. Maybe I have to re-think my position on Jane's reliability! Or could it be that while men were not expected to be virgins, a strong social stigma attached to children born of liasions between men and their mistresses?

[MadgeUK]

Yes that is so Kim, Adele was a bastard born of sin, although the Victorians absolved the man and put the guilt on mother and child (surprise! surprise!):(:( . Here is a little essay on the subject of bastardy and baby farming which shows how very lucky Adele was:-

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal...

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: "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.."

Not necessarily.

[MadgeUK]

Yes it is a queston left in the air. CB wasn't keen on children either.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: '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..'

Not necessarily..."

One of the times we are on the same page, Eman. I once worked in the organization of a woman who was on the way to the top of corporate business. She clearly minimized the uniqueness or greater intensity of women's adversities as they increasingly participate in broader ranges of human endeavors.

Perhaps a little too felicitous, but one other viewpoint encountered from an entirely different (and far more radical) direction has been that women's actions are driven by the needs perceived to protect the human race, at least its next generation.

[Lily]

BunWat wrote: "Couldn't disagree more if I tried with both hands for a fortnight (name that quote). However its drifting pretty far off topic to get into a debate about womens rights."

Well, one source is Dorothy Sayers in correspondence to Murile St. Clare Byrne, January 4, 1937. But there may be others.

Not certain with what you disagree, but, as you say, this is deviating too far from Jane Eyre .

I didn't entirely agree with my then v-p, but I have come to increasingly understand her arguments and, on the other hand, to watch her somewhat modify the public statements she makes relative to the treatment of women as a gender.

She never considered victimization a position from which to negotiate power -- although she sometimes probably did it!

[Susan]

BunWat wrote: "It was Sayers I was thinking of, well done! Although I was thinking of the Dowager Dutchess of Devonshire in Busman's Honeymoon. I'm sure we can have a rousing debate about womens issues in some ot..."
Like what you said here, BunWat. Never thought of Jane Eyre as a bridge. I think Bronte uses the Gothic as a way to show the terrors of her world in a different light. And probably Du Maurier is continuing this tradition.

[Susan]

I brought up everything we have been discussing here about women's issues today at my weekly writing group and had the same sort of controversy happen. It really is a complicated topic and people seems to get very fired up about it! Men feel as though they are victims as well. It seems to me that always being seen as the bad guys must be tough and I think women sometimes feel that men aren't equipped to discuss an issue that immediately excludes them due to gender difference. I think it is a great issue to bring up in Jane Eyre, but I think there is much more about the novel to discuss further.

[Susan]

Yes, totally agree. It is an issue that should be discussed by everyone equally as reasoning human beings.

[MadgeUK]

I once worked in the organization of a woman who was on the way to the top of corporate business.

A woman who was able to be at the top of a corporate business because of those who had fought for her right to be so, a right that those of JE's time and before (and after!) did not think she should have because God had ordained that she should be an 'angel on the hearth', protecting her children and her husband and doing nothing else. Protecting her children and her husband whether or not she had a brilliant mind which would have enabled her, as Bunyat points out, to cure cancer or write amazing music.

To believe in the need to enhance the lives of women does not mean to say that the lives of all men are hunky dory. It has been a question of redressing the balance, of striving for some degree of equality of opportunity, an equality which Jane Eyre (and Sue Brideshead) did not have.

Despite their centuries of privilege, privilege we see exemplified in the Victorian literature we read here, men are now crying 'foul' and we are seeing the rise of anti-feminism as they struggle to regain their position of unchallenged, supposedly God ordained, power.

Marxists would, however, agree that it is not a gender question but is one which stems from within capitalism itself and that it is the means of production and exchange must be remedied so that the benefits accrue equally to all members of society. This argument sees the needs of exploited men, women and ethnic minorities as being the same. This was summed up by early socialists in Clause IV of the old Labour Party Constitution as meaning that there was a need:

'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'

Unwittingly, those arguing that men are as deprived as women are putting forward a Marxist argument, which I find very ironic because it was also the argument which led to the rise of Trade Unionism, now so much discredited, especially in the US. They seem to be attempting to reinvent the wheel.

Here is an interesting article on the current backlash against feminism, particularly the last two paragraphs:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/...

However, if folks wish to pursue this argument (which I have seen Everyman raise oft before as one of the few men here) they should perhaps continue it in the Cafe over a croissant or two. Discussing the increasingly gothic elements of JE would seem to be the better course as we come to the end of Part I.

[Lily]

Somehow, I'm a cynic about any human system having the corner on all the good ideas, or all the bad ones.

If any of you have easy access to Harold Bloom's Genius , you might find interesting reading his few pages on the Brontes. I'll introduce some excerpts as we get further along -- probably including some that I do not agree with but which were thought provoking. I mention the reference here a) because I read it this morning and b) because he admits he may stand in contrast to feminist and Marxist critics of Jane Eyre . (His contrast with Wuthering Heights tilts in Emily's favor.)

[MadgeUK]

Somehow, I'm a cynic about any human system having the corner on all the good ideas, or all the bad ones.

So am I, lest you think I was favouring the Marxist argument myself. That I put it forward does not mean that I agree with it hook line and sinker.

Bloom is well known for his opposition to feminist and Marxist arguments. I seem to remember from past discussions that Everyman is one of his 'fans' so perhaps he will be able to join you in decrying any feminist viewpoints put forward here, particularly if we get to the views of Gilbert & Gubar on the later chapters. (view spoiler)[ cf The Madwoman in the Attic. (hide spoiler)] Not that I anticipate any Marxist arguments here and I certainly won't attempt any, despite my democratic-Fabian-socialist background - putting my head into that lion's den is not my idea of bookclub fun.

(I think the majority of critical opinion these days favours Wuthering Heights over Jane Eyre. Tastes have changed and the gothic has gained more favour, WH being thought more gothic.)

[MadgeUK]

Those interested in the gothic may be interested in this review of Diane Hoeveler's Gothic Feminism : The Professionalization of Gender from Charlotte Smith to the Brontes .

http://rmmla.wsu.edu/ereview/53.1/rev...

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: I seem to remember from past discussions that Everyman is one of his 'fans'..."

Not a fan. I like some of his work, dislike some of his work. I liked the intro to his Western Canon, but disagree with some of his views on the works he discusses. I find his Shakespeare to be nearly incomprehensible. So no, not a fan.

But I do agree that I am highly suspicious of critics who take a one-sided view of works trying to fit them into their personal prejudices about society. All the "isms" and "ists" are pretty much more, IMO, concerned with imposing their prejudices on works rather than wanting to understand the author's point of view. Whether it be feminism, Marxism, bovinism, Naziism, or whatever ism one dreams up.

[MadgeUK]

We all have personal prejudices about society and in criticising any author's work we will bring these into play, just as professional critics do. It is not a question of not seeking to understand an author's p.o.v. but in looking at a work from different angles. For instance, you and I as a man and a woman are bound to see a work from a different standpoint, whether or not I am a 'feminist' (whatever that means these days). And as a socialist, I am likely to interpret works from a left wing standpoint, rather than a right wing one. As I so often reiterate, we none of us come to the reading of books (or to anything else) as 'virgins', we all bring our own baggage, our own 'isms'. I know full well that I bring baggage to JE from my days of studying social history at a left wing university but at least I can admit that and if necessary seek to redress the balance by looking at right wing criticism.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "...All the "isms" and "ists" are pretty much more, IMO, concerned with imposing their prejudices on works rather than wanting to understand the author's point of view...."

Not quite LOL, but a deep smile. (Still, the best sometimes help us see the author's point of view, especially if we have been reading from a perspective too enamored with our own POV.)

Since I don't tend toward the Gothic, personally I prefer JE over WH. But, Bloom places Heathcliff alongside Hamlet as a unique character in literature, subsequently reappearing in numerous guises in the hands of other authors through time. (He is not claiming Heathcliff is necessarily a likeable character.)

[MadgeUK]

I prefer JE as a story (and as social comment) but the descriptive writing, especially about the atmospheric (gothic) Yorkshire moors, is, I feel, better in WH.

[MadgeUK]

Since I don't tend toward the Gothic....

I think I see gothic literature rather as I see grand opera and like it for the same reasons. It is OTT, larger than life and therefore escapist. Sometimes I wish to escape:).

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: "We all have personal prejudices about society and in criticising any author's work we will bring these into play, just as professional critics do. It is not a question of not seeking to understand..."

What I fund personally unhelpful is deciding in advance even before one encounters a work what limited framework one is going to apply to it. If some critic wants to approach every work from the perspective of whether or not it gives proper respect to the author's treatment of the blades of grass under the feet of the characters, that's certainly their right, but it's also my right to think that that approach isn't likely to be of much interest to me.

And when they insist that that is the most correct way of understanding the author's work, and other approaches which conflict with that are less correct, I find back stiffening.

[Kim]

BunWat wrote: "The problem I have with the more extreme manifestations of the gothic is that I tend to find them so over the top as to be unintentionally humorous. I may have a slightly over developed sense of th..."

You and me both, BW. I've avoided re-reading WH for years because I don't like its main characters and I don't have a taste for the gothic. On the strength of this discussion I may try to persuade myself to give it another go. (Or I might just read Jane Eyre yet again!).

[Tango]

BunWat wrote: "The problem I have with the more extreme manifestations of the gothic is that I tend to find them so over the top as to be unintentionally humorous. I may have a slightly over developed sense of th..."

I have this reaction too. Have you read the opening scene of The Castle of Otranto? It is quite hilarious. Generally though I find Jane Eyre to be more serious and less melodramatic.

[MadgeUK]

I think that melodramatic gothic like the Castle of Otranto needs to be read as you would view grand opera. It is an art form in itself and requires a certain mindset and a willing suspension of disbelief. The Georgians and Victorians had more of a feel for it than we do today because we are more used to the realistic, not the fantastic. I do not like science fiction because I find it too fantastic but I wonder if those who do like it also like the other-worldliness of gothic?

The melodrama which the Georgians and Victorians liked has an honourable history but it has fallen out of fashion with us. I guess the last time it was popular was during the era of silent films when both the music and acting were melodramatic. We laugh at them now but our grandparents took them seriously -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodrama

http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/melodr...

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: What I fund personally unhelpful is deciding in advance even before one encounters a work..."

I don't intend to get into this argument again Everyman - you censored it in your own bookclub and I see no point in opening it again here.

[Kim]

"Oh! the helmet! the helmet!"... It is very funny!

I suspect my views about the gothic have been greatly influenced by the fun Jane Austen had with the genre in Northanger Abbey, which pretty much stopped me taking gothic novels seriously. However, I put JE in a different category. I've always seen its gothic elements as adding an extra dimension to a serious novel grounded in believable characters and real experiences.

That said, there is a scene coming up, the melodrama of which really makes me want to roll my eyes. The effect was heightened by hearing the words on audiobook rather than reading them on the page. I don't think this is the reaction CB would have wanted her readers to have! (No spoilers, of course, but I'll comment again when we get to that bit!).

[MadgeUK]

...there are times when she gets into one of her high flights and I start to feel the corners of my mouth twitching.

The use of language in the middle classes was much more high flown then and can seem ridiculous to us now. We have only to read the dialogue of a Victorian author and compare it with a modern one to see how much more hyperbole was used in everyday conversation and how many more long words were used too. They also read more serious works for pleasure than we do - sermons were bestsellers for instance. Times they have a-changed:).

On the other hand, I find that I read so much Victorian literature that I generally find modern literature lacking in eloquent language, particularly when it comes to describing landscape like the Dorset heathland or the Yorkshire moors.

[MadgeUK]

Kim: You make me want to listen to JE in audio! I can get audio on my Kindle but it is in boring monotone. I think I will download an audio version just to see what you are getting at - which edition are you listening to?

[MadgeUK]

Kim: You make me want to listen to JE in audio! I can get audio on my Kindle but it is in boring monotones. I think I will download an audio version just to see what you are getting at - which edition are you listening to?

Victorians of course had their own form of audio in their family book reading sessions and I guess some papas were much more melodramatic in their delivery than others. Dickens made successful stage performances by reading many of his novels to an audience, as did Thackeray. (Thackeray wrote to be read aloud.) The British character actress Miriam Margolyes has done some excellent readings of Dickens' Women, which are now available on CD. I was lucky enough to see her performing these, Dickens' style, in the West End a couple of years ago:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dickens-Women...

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "...We have only to read the dialogue of a Victorian author and compare it with a modern one to see ... how many more long words were used too...." (Msg 143)

Madge -- you remind me of a reaction I had to the most recent film version of JE -- at places it seemed as if the dialogue had been lifted from the original text; what made it seem that way was how stilted the language sounded to my ear. I don't know how "accurate" my reactions were, but they certainly suggest what must be one of the challenges for screenwriters in "translating" for the modern audience.

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "I think I see gothic literature rather as I see grand opera and like it for the same reasons. It is OTT, larger than life and therefore escapist...."

Hmmm! that may be helpful toward my own "appreciation" of the Gothic, i.e., to view it as escapist. I blame/credit my training in science for creating strong preferences for the "realistic" versus the "supernatural." I almost totally avoid "creepy" movies. I probably think of opera as dealing with human emotions and events via spectacular drama and music, although I don't know as if I have particularly "slotted" its role among art forms.

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "I think I will download an audio version just to see what you are getting at - which edition are you listening to?..."

Not Kim, but the edition I am listening to is from Books On Tape, read by Josephine Bailey. She may slightly prejudice the characters with her voice changes, but in general I think she does so positively for each one. (E.g., the gypsy fortune teller in section ?). I like this recording. I got it through our library system and it was the one available, so I don't know what other choices there may be.

[Lily]

Kim wrote: "...Maybe I have to re-think my position on Jane's reliability! ..."

Smile! Adele must have been an interesting character for CB to create. She needed someone for whom Jane could be governess. The ambiguity about Jane's thoughts about Adele's parentage seem very realistic to me, especially given Jane's growing attraction to Rochester.

However, I am not convinced but what Blanche may have had some positive traits that JE does not observe. She and her family may also have been savvy enough to have had some curiosity about conditions at Thornfield (view spoiler)[ and Mr. Mason's visit (hide spoiler)].

[MadgeUK]

that may be helpful toward my own "appreciation" of the Gothic, i.e., to view it as escapist.

Think of yourself as a Mary Shelley sitting around the fire of a Swiss Chalet telling scary stories to your husband and the gothic Lord Byron:O. Victorians frequently read aloud to one another and there were probably many 'drama queens' amongst them, eager to 'do a turn'. Ghost stories and stories of the supernatural were firm favourites and many which we still enjoy today for their 'horror' were written then. Frankenstein itself, Jekyll and Hyde, the Woman in White, the Picture of Dorian Gray and so on. This extract from Chapter 1 of Cranford, Our Society, gives you an idea of how common reading aloud was then:-

'"Have you seen any numbers of 'The Pickwick Papers'?" said [Captain Brown]. (They we're then publishing in parts.) "Capital thing!"

Now Miss Jenkyns was daughter of a deceased rector of Cranford; and, on the strength of a number of manuscript sermons, and a pretty good library of divinity, considered herself literary, and looked upon any conversation about books as a challenge to her. So she answered and said, "Yes, she had seen them; indeed, she might say she had read them."

"And what do you think of them?" exclaimed Captain Brown. "Aren't they famously good?"

So urged Miss Jenkyns could not but speak.

"I must say, I don't think they are by any means equal to Dr Johnson. Still, perhaps, the author is young. Let him persevere, and who knows what he may become if he will take the great Doctor for his model?" This was evidently too much for Captain Brown to take placidly; and I saw the words on the tip of his tongue before Miss Jenkyns had finished her sentence.

"It is quite a different sort of thing, my dear madam," he began.

"I am quite aware of that," returned she. "And I make allowances, Captain Brown."

"Just allow me to read you a scene out of this month's number," pleaded he. "I had it only this morning, and I don't think the company can have read it yet."

"As you please," said she, settling herself with an air of resignation. He read the account of the "swarry" [soiree] which Sam Weller gave at Bath. Some of us laughed heartily. I did not dare, because I was staying in the house. Miss Jenkyns sat in patient gravity. When it was ended, she turned to me, and said with mild dignity -

"Fetch me 'Rasselas,' my dear, out of the book-room."

When I had brought it to her, she turned to Captain Brown -

"Now allow me to read you a scene, and then the present company can judge between your favourite, Mr Boz, and Dr Johnson."

She read one of the conversations between Rasselas and Imlac, in a high-pitched, majestic voice: and when she had ended, she said, "I imagine I am now justified in my preference of Dr Johnson as a writer of fiction." The Captain screwed his lips up, and drummed on the table, but he did not speak.'

Authors commonly read their works to their friends at social gatherings and accepted criticism from them. Tennyson recited several corrected versions of the The Lady of Shalott to his friends before submitting it for publication!

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: " Think of yourself as a Mary Shelley sitting around the fire of a Swiss Chalet telling scary stories to your husband and the gothic Lord Byron:O...."

;)

[MadgeUK]

Ah but those tight corsets and gynae problems did make Victorian ladies have the 'vapors':O Jane was lucky.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-were-the...

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "Ah but those tight corsets and gynae problems did make Victorian ladies have the 'vapors':O Jane was lucky.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-were-the..."

"...women who thought for themselves were often assumed to be suffering from the vapors..." :O

(From the article!)

"...in some cases, the diagnosis hampered serious treatment of medical conditions like vaginal fistulas, a common complaint among Victorian mothers."

Recently read Verghese's Cutting for Stone which deals some with obstetric fistulas, still a major problem for many African women. I previously could not have told you what they are.

http://www.fistulafoundation.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetri...

As tiny a person as CB was, such must have been a real danger of childbirth for her.

[Susan]

MadgeUK wrote: " that may be helpful toward my own "appreciation" of the Gothic, i.e., to view it as escapist.

Think of yourself as a Mary Shelley sitting around the fire of a Swiss Chalet telling scary stories t..."

I do the same thing with my writing. It has promoted many necessary revisions!

I have to say that I am more of a Jane Eyre person, than a Wuthering Heights person. WH is a little bit too much for me. Also, I think someone else said this too, being a big fan of Jane Austen and having a great appreciation for Northanger Abbey kind of tempers my own appreciation for the Gothic. Real life can sometimes be scarier than the supernatural! :)

[Kim]

MadgeUK wrote: "Kim: You make me want to listen to JE in audio! I can get audio on my Kindle but it is in boring monotones. I think I will download an audio version just to see what you are getting at - which ed..."

I have the Naxos edition narrated by Amanda Root. We subscribe to Audible.com and use the credits we purchase monthly to buy more expensive books and then buy cheaper ones directly from the site. We use other audiobok suppiers as well and download free ones. However, I have a preference for professional narrators and Amanda Root is wonderful. I had never listened to an audiobook until until we started getting them to put on cd for my mother, who has macular degeneration. I've discovered that I love being read to: book readings around the fire Victorian- style would have suited me down to the ground, as long as the narrator had a few acting skills!

I take your point about opera, Madge. I also appreciate opera and I don't have a problem with its high-flown emotions. Mind you, I prefer it in Italian or French!

[Linda2]

Imagine what Madge could do if her shoulder were not painful.

[Linda2]

Susan wrote: "I have to say that I am more of a Jane Eyre person, than a Wuthering Heights person. WH is a little bit too much for me. ..."

I find neither protagonist in WH likable. The most well-adjusted person turns out to be the daughter, Catherine. I thought I liked WH for years, until I read it with another online book club, and found I had missed many of the fine points. Book clubs will do that to you.

For those who haven't read all of JE in the past, you'll find several more Gothic elements inserted into the story later. You might go, "Aw, c'mon, that's too much."

[MadgeUK]

Rochelle wrote: "Imagine what Madge could do if her shoulder were not painful."

LOL Rochelle. It is still very painful when the painkillers wear off - I have booked an osteopath appointment for Tuesday so hope that will help.

[MadgeUK]

I find neither protagonist in WH likable..

Do they have to be likable, especially in gothic horror? Shouldn't they be rather shocking? The moors are the best character in WH:)

[Linda2]

MadgeUK wrote: "I find neither protagonist in WH likable..

Do they have to be likable, especially in gothic horror? Shouldn't they be rather shocking? The moors are the best character in WH:)"

They don't have to be, but the heroine is usually likable, and in WH she isn't.

[Kristen]

MadgeUK wrote: "I find neither protagonist in WH likable..

Do they have to be likable, especially in gothic horror? Shouldn't they be rather shocking? The moors are the best character in WH:)"

I don't think they do have to be likeable. I don't think one needs to "like" a character in the sense of admiration or even respect in order to enjoy them-- whether gothic or not. Some of the more interesting characters in literature are very flawed, even sometimes evil. For example, the monster in Frankenstein.

[MadgeUK]

I think I have a fondness for Byronic characters - I like Heathcliff for instance, or rather empathise with him. However, I find Rochester difficult to like because he is so deceitful. There is more of the villain about him than the hero.

[David]

Kristen wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I find neither protagonist in WH likable..

Do they have to be likable, especially in gothic horror? Shouldn't they be rather shocking? The moors are the best character in WH:)"..."

I'd call it a creature rather than a monster, and certainly not evil but rather the ultimate victim of circumstances. His creator too is driven rather than evil.

[Lily]

BunWat wrote: "Dude, you desperately need someone to push you into a swimming pool. "

LOL!

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "However, I find Rochester difficult to like because he is so deceitful."

My word for Rochester is "abusive."

[Susan]

BunWat wrote: "I do not have a fondness for Byronic characters. I always want to mock them and put silly hats on their heads. Of course I feel somewhat that way about Rochester as well. Oh the seriousness! Th..."

I know a few of these characters in real life ;)

[Everyman]

Lily wrote: "My word for Rochester is "abusive.""

I think you're right, but we have to get a bit further in the book than this to fully expound this position.