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

[Kim]

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'm also not fond of the Byronic hero. However, I do make a bit of an exception for Rochester. I'm not entirely sure why. I suspect it's partly because I like Jane and Jane loves him, so I'm prepared to suspend disbelief and accept that a character loved by a character I like has something going for him. I also think that Rochester is beyond Byronic - he's become an archetype of his own and has a symbolism above and beyond the conventional Byronic hero. I suspect that his character has inspired every writer of romances since CB created him. (I say this on limited evidence. The only romance writer with whom I am familiar is Georgette Heyer. She used and re-used Rochester as the model for one class of hero, while poking fun at the type!).

However, notwithstanding my tolerance of Rochester (and it is only a theoretical tolerance - he would be hell to deal with in real life), there are plenty of times when I would very happily push him into a swimming pool!

[Kim]

BunWat wrote: "I have heard people say this before about Rochester, but I don't really see it. ..."

I agree with you, BW. I don't think that "abusive" is the right word to describe Rochester, at least not in the sense that word is generally understood.

[MadgeUK]

But abusive? Seems to me he's actually pretty decent to those who depend on him.

I agree Bunyat, although he is verbally abusive towards Adele at times, when he is cross. He is generally kind to those around him, although we could say that he abuses his position. He is in a very difficult situation (view spoiler)[ (being married to a 'madwoman' he could not divorce) (hide spoiler)] which, because of the law, he could not get out of and that must have been very frustrating for him. He is fond of teasing people - he teases Jane and Blanche but I would not call that abusive, particularly as teasing is a peculiarly Yorkshire form of humour which CB was probably used to observing. We see some of this in Chapter 24. (Not to be confused with being a sexual 'tease'.) It is a bantering way of making fun of a person playfully - my own family engage in it a lot.

[Everyman]

BunWat wrote: "Everyman wrote: "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."

I have heard p..."

I think the issue of abusive becomes clearer as the book proceeds, but for those who aren't there yet, this is a pure spoiler. For those who know the book, of course it's not.

(view spoiler)[ You don't think that enticing somebody to marry you in order to get them to sleep with you, because they won't agree just to be your mistress, when you know you're already married but you have concealed this from them, and you know that the marriage will be fraudulent and invalid and they will really wind up just being your mistress after all, isn't abusive? We have different standards of abusiveness! (hide spoiler)]

[MadgeUK]

Yes, as I posted earlier, it is deceitful but not abusive as I understand the term. Opinions about this will vary widely. (view spoiler)[ Rochester attempted to abuse the law but perhaps bigamy committed with good intent, because you are in love and in an impossible situation legally, as Rochester was, would not necessarily be classed as abusive per se. (hide spoiler)]

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

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, as I posted earlier, it is deceitful but not abusive as I understand the term. "

Gee -- we finally found something on which we disagree!

[Lily]

Fascinating! I post from vacation to stand by my original terminology! It certainly seems to me that the Wiki article does not refute such usage of the term! I shall be fascinated to hear the arguments in refutation -- even if the abuse can be "justified" or otherwise adjudged as within the range of human "acceptable behavior."

[MadgeUK]

Agreed Lily, the Wiki article does not refute such usage but shows how wide ranging it is. In the end it comes down to personal opinion unless it is a legal decision, given in court. After all, paedophiles do not consider what they do to children abusive and the beating of wives is not considered abusive by orthodox Muslims. Hate speech is legally considered abusive over here but not in the US. And so on:). What is 'acceptable behaviour' - acceptable to whom? Where and in what era?

Glad to see you back temporarily and hope that you are having a lovely time in Vermont.

[Kim]

I suspect we all agree that Rochester engaged in deceit, whether or not we would label his deceit as "abuse". Maybe we could abandon the argument about semantics and talk about the actual behaviour when we reach the relevant part of the narrative?

[Lily]

I don't think the discussion of Rochester's behavior belongs to just one part of the narrative. For me, it is a question of the character of the man revealed in the text across a variety of situations. each one of them understandable in themselves. I also respect the Derrida conundrum: "The only thing forgivable is the unforgivable." Finally, I think there are human conditions in which too much is unknown to know exactly what is under consideration, yet sometimes judgments must be made. (view spoiler)[E.g., was Rochester being the kindest of the kind in the care of his wife Bertha, as Jane (and the story) seems to presume? Was Adelle truly the bastard child of his mistress? What sort of behavior do we consider presenting himself as approaching destitute to his fiancee to be -- how did Rochester present himself in courting her? How do we consider the gipsy woman interlude -- is that also "only" deceit or don't we even call it that? Do any of those matter in the least relative to Rochester's treatment of and relationship to Jane? (hide spoiler)] I do hold the perhaps controversial view that young women (and men) need to be educated to recognize "abuse" when they encounter it and how to deal with it or avoid it in their lives.

[Everyman]

Lily wrote: "I do hold the perhaps controversial view that young women (and men) need to be educated to recognize "abuse" when they encounter it and how to deal with it or avoid it in their lives.
"

I hope that view isn't controversial. There are kinds and levels of abuse; you don't have to have bruises or broken bones in order to have been abused. As a family law lawyer I have seen all sorts of abuse, from the very obvious (attempts to murder) to more subtle on many levels. I agree with the what I believe to be the view underlying your posts, that it is valuable to recognize it in literature in order that we can be more sensitive to its various manifestations in real life.

[Lily]

Thank you, Eman. (MSG 182)

[Lily]

P.S. Including to learn to recognize when we are guilty of it (abuse) ourselves.

[Kim]

Lily wrote: "I don't think the discussion of Rochester's behavior belongs to just one part of the narrative. For me, it is a question of the character of the man revealed in the text across a variety of situat..."

Lily, I agree. I don't think it is in the least bit controversial to believe that young people should be educated to recognise abuse. As for Rochester, my point was only that people have been referring to a particular part of the narrative in this thread and hiding it as a spoiler. I don't mean to imply that there is no other part of his behavior which cannot be seen in a similarly negative light.

[MadgeUK]

Again, what is abuse and who defines it? I have often complained about abusive speech on American forums which I often find offensive but which is considered acceptable by American Moderators. 'Free speech' seems to include abusive speech. On the other hand, an American moderator once removed the common English saying 'suck it and see' because he thought it was sexually offensive whereas its meaning here is just 'try it and see', as with the sweet (candy) humbug. Whereas Americans used the phrase 'it sucks' with impunity. What would be classed as abusive hate speech here is not recognised as such in the US. In Germany they are even more stringent. Verbal abuse seems not to be recognised in the US because of the constitutional right to free speech but I consider it to be as harmful as some forms of physical abuse, especially when, as in forums like this, words are the only form of communication being used.

I feel sure that there will be those here who will find certain aspects of Rochester's brusque north country behaviour 'abusive' but which does not strike me as such. 'Bluntness' is a Yorkshire character trait much prized. Also, his teasing of Jane might be considered abusive but sarcastic teasing is again very acceptable in Yorkshire. (Eg: I remember being told by my father, after dressing up for a dance': 'You look like a dog's dinner!', meaning a mess but this was really a teasing backhanded compliment and I took it as such. Compliments were embarrassing, teasing wasn't.)

There are many references to Yorkshire bluntness, 'calling a spade a spade', in the British press, like these:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/2...

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/busine...

In the UK corporal punishment is regarded as abuse and cannot be used by parents upon their children. Americans often see this as an abuse of their parental rights. Sometimes I am inclined to agree that a slap on the legs might work wonders with modern British children.

Who is to be the judge of such matters?

[Kim]

I agree, Madge, that what is considered abusive (including verbally abusive) can be culturally specific. In Australia calling someone "a bit of a bastard" is not abusive at all. On the contrary, it is more a term of endearment. Calling someone "a real bastard", on the other hand, is abusive, albeit abuse of a fairly mild nature!

[MadgeUK]

Yes, bastard is a good example. In many parts of the world it is considered a really bad insult.

[Georgie]

The problem with slapping children on the legs is that there is small percentage of parents who do not understand what a "small slap" is. This is one reason why it is illegal - and also that it's pretty clear that physically hurting a child doesn't teach them anything except how to be afraid. There is always a better way to instruct children about what is right and wrong. As a teacher myself, there are some children who really tempt you to give them a "clip under the ear" but nearly always these children are the ones with a really dysfunctional homelife and probably get a "slap on the leg" an awful lot at home. In Australia, we are encouraged to engage in "Restorative Practice" which is basically reasoning with the child about their behaviour. It works a lot better than hitting them would.
On your father calling you a "dog's dinner" Madge, I'm interested to know how would you have reacted or felt if he had just said "You look lovely"?

[Georgie]

Kim wrote: "I agree, Madge, that what is considered abusive (including verbally abusive) can be culturally specific. In Australia calling someone "a bit of a bastard" is not abusive at all. On the contrary, it..."

mmm I'm not sure I'd like to be a "bit of a bastard" or "a real bastard" Kim. I don't think either is particularly complimentary although I do agree that there are shades of meaning there. "A bit of a bastard" could be seen as a scallywag or someone who goes against the norm whereas "a real bastard" is not a nice person at all. As in lots of cases of language use, it depends on the person it's aimed at and the context.

[MadgeUK]

I would have been embarrassed if he had told me I 'looked lovely' Georgie:). Compliments are not often given by northern men and I would have been suspicious of them. I am still suspicious of them and do not find them easy to accept. I find the modern practice of 'bigging up' everything very difficult to come to terms with. My own family are very low key in such matters and tend towards teasing rather than complimenting. A typical response to a compliment would be 'Oh yes, what are you after?' meaning that you may be seeking some reward for being nice to someone. Against, that is said teasingly but historically there is some truth behind it and people treated compliments rather like bribes. I think it is a peculiaryly British thing, especially in the north, and here is a BBC language lesson about it:-

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...

And an interesting American blog about it:-

http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blo...

[Georgie]

MadgeUK wrote: "I would have been embarrassed if he had told me I 'looked lovely' Georgie:). Compliments are not often given by northern men and I would have been suspicious of them. I am still suspicious of the..."

It's not at all peculiar to British people Madge - I know exactly what you're getting at but then we have obvious connections with the British here in Australia and especially in my own family (Yorkshire background and married to one).
However, I think there is something a little sad in it - and when I say that I think of my own grandfather who wrote to his family from France during WWI when he was about 20. He'd never been away from home before and he was desperately homesick. At the end of the letter he said to his sisters that he missed them but felt that he had to add "I know you'll be laughing at me but I don't care". Of course, they wouldn't have been laughing but it was just so alien to him to show any feelings at all and he was certainly only used to teasing them.
I'm not sure what "bigging up" is but I imagine that it is the constant use of praise etc but I think there are some moments when a small compliment said at the right moment goes a long way.

[MadgeUK]

but I imagine that it is the constant use of praise etc

Yes, effusive praise for no good reason. You see it everywhere today. I agree that a small compliment can go a long way but if big compliments are constantly given for very little, it devalues real praise and makes small compliments seem insignificant.