Jane Eyre

(1847)

This is a book about a woman's life from the age of ten to twenty-two. You will enjoy this book if you don't mind romance and crying. It is easy to understand why this is a classic. Jane is sent to a horrible boarding school by her malicious aunt, then becomes a governess working at a mysterious manor. Love is around the corner, and she must avoid it at all costs.--Submitted by Anonymous

~

A flowing story in which the characters come to life. With vibrant and strong language Charlotte Bronte takes us on a magical journey through which we see Jane Eyre's life. In thrilling and descriptive text Bronte clearly describes Jane Eyre's tragic journey. Growing up she has a sad life, from the death of her parents to her abusive cousin. Yet when she goes to live with Mr. Rochester her life takes a rapid turn. Can this be Janes' chance for happiness or is she set for another fall?--Submitted by kerry

~

When I first read Jane Eyre, I was absolutely captivated by the story, the characters, Jane's plight as an orphan at Gateshead and Lowood and her transition to governess at Thornfield. The story develops in a way that holds your interest as she meets Rochester and the secrets of Thornfield are revealed. What lies in wait for Jane is nothing compared to what she has escaped from and this, I feel, is the most incredible and page-turning aspect of the book. For sheer what-is-going-to-happen-next value, Jane Eyre really can't be beat--it is a true gothic novel. It is a romance between two strong characters each with diametrically opposed pasts and who represent the time period in which it was written. The plot is so imaginative and so full of unexpected turns and coincidences that it is impossible to put down after being drawn in at Chapter One. This book leaves the reader wanting to know what will happen to the much abused Jane and read with increasing credulity all that she goes through as a child and subsequently the fate that befalls her once she is at Thornfield. Jane Eyre is truly timeless--it is a work of literature that will introduce readers of any age to memorable characters and a story that gets better and better each time you read it. Go get yourself a copy, curl up on the couch and travel to England in the 1840's courtesy of Charlotte Bronte! Happy Reading! --Submitted by Jennifer C. Person

~

Fan of this book? Help us introduce it to others by writing a better introduction for it. It's quick and easy, click here.

Quizzes on Jane Eyre
No quizzes available to take yet.

Please submit a quiz here.

Recent Forum Posts on Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre Thesis about Gender

Hello everyone - any good ideas for a thesis talking about gender & society issues in the great book of Jane Eyre?

Posted By Brocklehurst at Tue 18 Oct 2011, 9:27 PM in Jane Eyre || 1 Reply

kind of narrativevoice in jane eyre ...!!!

good eveing everyone ..!!:seeya: how are you ? would you please tell me What kind of narrative voice is used in the novel JANE EYRE and what influence does it have on the reader and the narrative? i will be so thankful to your help ..

Posted By fatimah23 at Sat 24 Sep 2011, 8:40 AM in Jane Eyre || 2 Replies

How many of you are obsessed with Jane Eyre?

Share your favorite part of Jane Eyre below. :piggy:

Posted By irishpixieb at Mon 22 Aug 2011, 9:18 PM in Jane Eyre || 13 Replies

Critical interpretations???

As you may know, I need to write an essay on how secrets are portrayed in Jane eyre...and I need to write it using critical interpretations or viewpoints to give a balanced arguement. Soo, i tried looking for some interpretations on google, but I really struggled to find anything. I'm looking for how a marxist may view the text, a femininst etc. Thanks :)

Posted By Dinosaurrr at Fri 8 Jul 2011, 5:30 AM in Jane Eyre || 9 Replies

How are secrets portrayed in Jane Eyre?

I have an assignment to do soon, and the topic of discussion is how secrets are presented in both Jane Eyre and Atonement. In this case, I need help with Jane Eyre. Other than Rochester's secret wife, could anyone elaborate on that? Thankyou! :)

Posted By Dinosaurrr at Wed 6 Jul 2011, 8:02 AM in Jane Eyre || 2 Replies

Jane Eyre help

I need help on this question. Anything at all will be much appreciated :) How does Brontë play with color and shadows in the Red-Room incident? Is the light and dark imagery continued in other areas of the novel, and if so how can it be related back to the red-room incident?

Posted By s7-e1 at Mon 2 May 2011, 5:00 PM in Jane Eyre || 0 Replies

Help! Info needed!

I recently bought a war economy edition of Jane Eyre and once I started reading it I have become quite certain that parts of the story are missing. I'm wondering if anyone might have any information on this edition as I haven't been able to find any info online. There is no publication date but as it is a war economy edition I assume it was printed somewhere around 1940 to 1950? I'm not sure. The info in the book says it was made in Great Britain by C Tinling & Co., LTD., Liverpool, London & Prescot abridged edition. It also says "book production war economy standard. This book is produced in complete conformity with the authorized economy standards." On another page it has: London, W. Foulsham & co., LTD. It is hard copy and 192 pages long. Any information about it would be greatly appreciated as I am very curious as to it's history and why it seems to have parts of the story missing! (did they have to make it shorter?). Thanks for your help!

Posted By MrsWentworth at Sat 23 Apr 2011, 5:14 AM in Jane Eyre || 0 Replies

Screen adaptions of Jane Eyre

I know this kind of analysis has been done before but then it seemed at least to me to be more of proving a narrow thesis about the novel than an attempt to comment on the adaptions in their own right. I will just give my opinion and I would love to be gainsaid by people who have their own opinion about the novel or the screen adaptions. I will just stick to the 1983+ adaptions since they are the only adaptions I have been able to see complete. Some of the earlier seem to have interesting angles but my knowledge of them is too fragmented. The 1983 adaption was a nice piece of theater, usually cherished by purists who wish an adaption to be as true to the details as possible. It really is very true to the details. Unfortunately, what works in a novel does not necessarily work on screen. The best part of it – and here it outclasses all the other adaptions – is the time at Loowood. The child actors are marvelous, especially when they avoid long theatrical lines and just act. Then there is the part of the grown up Jane. Sorry, but there is too much cherishing of long, complicated lines from the book and too little acting for me. It would be great on stage but not here. I believe Zelah Clarke might have been good at theater but none would believe her a young girl, fresh from a convent-like charitable school. She was too confident, to matured from the beginning and did not seem to change thru the play. And she never got out of the theatrical style. Timothy Dalton was good – in a commedia del art-like way. I laughed almost every time I saw him, looking at Jane like the Wolf must have been looking at The Little Red Cap, overacting the lines in a melodramatic way, using great gestures. He was funny and if that was the intention – good. StJohn had it nailed, though. That sublimely abusive part he plays, which in the end lashes back and rouses Jane from his spell, sending her head over heels back to Thornfield and Edward Rochester. That was a nice performance. I believe it was a mistake to not choose one angle of such a complicated novel but try to cover as much as possible. In my opinion it was also a mistake to not choose one way to interpret the novel, if necessary with some added scenes, instead of just cherishing the lines. In the end it felt very stiff and shallow. Filled up with all those beautiful lines it ended up empty of meaning. But of course – to choose one angle would have made a lot of people disappointed. In the 1996 adaption they kept to one angle. I think that version is shortened behind the recognizable and did not really like it but I still respect their way of choosing one theme (or two really) and stick to that. One theme is the rebellious Jane. She is a rebel in the book but here they have put more pressure on that. The hair cutting scene at school was not true to the book, but if you do not wish to use a narrator or long outspoken declarations you will probably have to add some visual things. And then there was the thing that made the novel Jane Eyre so famous and controversial. The novel was provocative and free-spoken. It was even thought to be morally dangerous. Today there is very little in the novel to provoke. But there is one thing more provoking today than it was then and that is the age difference. In the 1996 adaption they have made the most of it and that is at least courageous. The cost is of course that Edward Rochester had to be changed into something really soft and respectful in order to keep the couple acceptable. If she had been just a little less headstrong or he a little less respectful, then it would have been morally impossible today. But in this screenplay they mastered it and I felt it would be ridiculous to interpret it just as him abusing a young employee. But just put them side by side and say what you think! I bet almost everyone would say a dirty old man taking advantage of a teenager girl. I would for certain. This means the real Edward Rochester is sacrificed and if that is acceptable – I cannot decide my own opinion on that :-) In the end they did also another courageous choice. This Edward Rochester is not only Hollywood-like decoratively scarred. He does really look like he has been stuck in a bonfire. It is worth respect. To keep to one angle is dangerous, though. If you keep to the wrong angle… I thought the 1997 version was terrible. I believe Ciaran Hinds admitted he had not read the novel at all. For me I wonder if even the screenwriter had read it, or if the adaption was just based on overhearing some intellectual discussions among people who had. Yes, Edward Rochester is domineering, capricious, manipulating…yes he is a womanizer and quite dangerous to know. Yes, he is narcissistic and as for self awareness, well there is some difference between self-contempt and self-awareness… But what then does Jane see in him? What I can see in that adaption is just a brute. All the other adaptions I have seen bring out something of the charm. There is humor, intelligence, warmth, an open mind and some caring for others, even in his own selfish way. He admires the Jane he sees, just because she is independent, honest, careful about her self-respect and so on. And also you see sometimes the man of world, the educated and experienced man who brings the outer world into her confined life. In 1997 I saw nothing of it. Not in one single scene could I see anything worth liking, leave alone to fall in love with. He was a tyrant to everyone, which he is not in the novel. Even Mrs. Fairfax had a subdued look. They could not even make him tasty in his bedroom after the fire. In the novel, that is the scene where it begins to sparkle between them and no matter how flawed some adaptions might be, they still never fail that sparkle. And Jane panics, but she is also excited. Except in the 1997 version. Here she just panics and the way Rochester behaves would make it very weird if she had reacted any other way. Back in her own room, she seems scared, humiliated and trapped. How on earth could that scene bring on the erotic awakening of a young girl? And Rochester in the novel learns. It is a very hard lesson but he gains it. The way this one greets Jane when she comes back in the end shows clearly that he has not learned anything. I would not care so much if it was not for what that does to Jane. What have they done to her? Jane Eyre as an insipid sop who will take bad treatment as the natural prize for love? The only explanation I can find for this adaption is that she has been so habitually abused through her life, so that she will always go back to an abusive man, simply because that is the only relationship she is able to handle. To me this adaption is an insult to Jane Eyre. Jane in the novel is very careful about her own integrity. She knows she will have to fight for it and starts that fight the day after the proposal. You see nothing of this in the 1997 adaption if you do not count a soft, playful “argument” about the wedding dress. Yes she leaves after the failed wedding in this adaption too but she returns in a very different way. StJohn in the book is ruthless and mentally abusive. In this adaption he is kind and respectful and even if he becomes a little too ardent he is never the least abusive. Is that the reason for her to not only reject him but to run straight back to Rochester? And this adaption leaves out a very material circumstance in the book. Jane in the novel is not dependent anymore. If she can bear the social ban, which she once said she would, then she might go abroad with Edward Rochester without being his powerless property. Things might not have changed for him but they have certainly for her. This circumstance does not exist at all in the 1997 adaption. In that adaption she returns to become his mistress and only Providence saves her from that fate. I know this interpretation of the novel is unthinkable to many readers who insist on calling her a virtuous saint, even a metaphor for Christ. But that is rubbish. You need huge blinkers to not see what is gradually breaking lose in her mind during her way back to Thornfield. You will have no need for brilliant references around the literature of the time to see that. You hardly even need to analyze. Just read the plain text! True, there is a sado-masochistic angle in the novel. Victorian era was dark in many ways and domination-submission in a sexual context would be a very relevant theme in the time. But Jane in the book is too level-headed to give in to that. In the hour of trial she comes out to care about herself and will not become an object. In the 1997 adaption I believe that is how she will end up since Rochester did not even know how to be a kind man when he was blind. Regaining his sight he will probably abuse her. Then there is the 2006 adaption. I believe Sandy Welch thought: Sod the philosophy. I’ll go for the psychology instead and for the social context a governess lived in. If that was a good choice – well that is a matter of taste. It was at least a good analysis of the different options of two different kinds of media. I like very much the strict way they keep to Jane’s perspective. True Edward Rochester does also have some flashbacks were Jane cannot follow him but to the whole it is her view on him, on Adele, on Loowood and so on. To me, this is the only screenplay that had the same atmosphere as the book. That was also written from a strictly personal perspective. It is a very powerful portrait of a young woman coming of age. If it is true to Charlotte Brontë’s intentions is another question. Nobody can know that. But at least it challenges the ideas about Jane as a virtuous saint, the instrument for Edward Rochester’s redemption. In the novel that is his narcissistic way of defining her which she rejects. It sometimes feels a bit weird when readers seem to interpret the whole novel thru this male narcissism. Most people accept this as an early feminist work for God’s sake and Jane strongly refuses to be his angel. The 2006 version is not totally true to the novel. Rochester is much modernized. I believe Charlotte Brontë meant him to be a man of modern ideas but time has left him far behind. I reacted on this, just as many others did. But then he is not the only one that has been softened. Almost every person have their most distinctive characters softened in some way. Jane certainly, but also Blanche Ingram and the other house guests. StJohn is softened and Helen Burns is sharpened instead. In the novel she says she is not fit to live in the world. I have no idea if this is a way to bring across the psychology, which makes it necessary to make the characters comprehensible. Is that acceptable? Well it depends on what you want. It gives some good options at least. Like the way in which the child sees her abusers as monsters. The grown up woman sees them as humans. Except Lady Ingram, who reminds her of Mrs. Reed and awakens the little girl from Gateshead. And, thank God, Bertha is transformed into a human being. Mad and mentally disabled, yes, but not a monster in its cave anymore! To me that was the most troublesome part in a brilliant novel. My favorite so far has to be the latest. Not necessarily because of the angle, even if I think it refreshing, but the acting is very convincing. Ruth Wilson running away from Thornfield in the early morning, looking like an abused teenager on the run, or Toby Stephens falling in thoughts over Bertha and bursting out against the innocent Adele - that is beautiful acting. And Eliza – sensible but cold as a fish… It will be interesting to see the new screen-play this spring. Hopefully it takes up some new angle, which has not been explored before. But for the philosophical themes about power-resistance, male-female, religion-nature, domination-submission and so on, then I believe no screenadaption will ever make fair to the book.

Posted By MsSilentia at Sat 22 Jan 2011, 12:21 PM in Jane Eyre || 22 Replies

Who is afraid of Jane Eyre ?

hi...I just go through this article and want you all to tell me how you look into it..thanks ! "I see Jane Eyre as the spirit of Christianity (which makes her the same as "the spirit of all human beings" described by Syed Ahmad Khan quite independently in his short story 'Time Bygone' in 1873). In that case, Rochester becomes the embodiment of Western civilization and the body politics of Europe. Its dark secret is the fruits of colonialism which it is trying to hide in the attic because that is a bargain that went wrong: the marriage with the mad woman took place in Jamaica (a colony), and it has only brought anguish. However, Jane is a moral phantom like destiny itself, who cannot be diverted. Her principles do not bend any more than a force of Nature. Hence she leaves Rochester (the spirit of Christianity leaves the body politics of Europe). She does not find solace in the company of puritans either (just as Christianity is no more content with monasticism and is yearning to become a guiding force for civilization again). The mad woman does not represent the colonized nations. She represents no individual. She is an epitome of that moral weakness in Rochester himself which led him to seek fortune abroad. It is that same moral weakness, now personified in the shape of this woman, which brings doom to his estate: she puts fire in which she burns herself as well as the estate of Rochester, and he loses his eyesight temporarily. Uncanny, that this is exactly how Iqbal prophecied the end of colonialism in his seminal poem 'March 1907': "Your civilization will commit suicide with its own dagger." I do not mean to suggest that Iqbal was deliberating over the matrimonial problems of a 19th Century governess when he wrote this climactic poem about destinies of nations, yet it is extremely interesting to note that a particular interpretation of Jane Eyre brings out an embedded message completely identical to that of Iqbal. Is it my personal interpretation? Well, I belong to a tradition where every writer since Nezami Ganjavi in the 12th Century (and including Rumi, Jami, Bhittai, Sir Syed and Iqbal) has used the metaphor of the beloved to mean the spirit of a society, identical to "the spirit of all human beings." It is only natural for me to interpret Jane Eyre in this manner. "

Posted By Thinking at Wed 29 Dec 2010, 3:51 AM in Jane Eyre || 1 Reply

Mr. Rochester's decietful chara essay help

In the novel, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, Mr. Rochester, the object of Jane's affection, is swindling Jane's heart for the benefit of his own narcissistic egocentricism. Mr. Rochester's (adventures (FIX THAT NOAWWW!!!) emphasize his exceptionally deceitful character. I need to back this up with 3 examples and analysis so i currently have 1. Bertha mason, hid in room, bad living conditions, money marriage 2. After 1 year i will tell you why i have grace poole locked "up" 3. Garden, marry Blanche, u go to Ireland actually proposal Need analysis on top to support that Rochester needs to die in a hole, alone and suffering from frostbite.

Posted By book11 at Sun 26 Sep 2010, 5:46 PM in Jane Eyre || 2 Replies

Post a New Comment/Question on Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre

(1847)

Related Links:

Quizzes on Jane Eyre

Recent Forum Posts on Jane Eyre