This is a story 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
God gives us a lot of blessings. Sometimes we don't care when we read or see that there are people don't have those blessings. We should thank God for what we have. In Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte shows us many variable things we have and don't consider it; for example to have a family, to be able to see it also shows us that if we are patient for what we have God will give better things. Jane Eyre is a classic romantic novel. It talks about a girl searching for a family and someone to consider her despite being poor and a woman she wants to be independent like all the women now but it is more difficult for her. She lived a misery life till she achieved one of her dreams but will she achieve the rest of her dreams? Try to find yourself what dream did she achieve and if she will achieve the other dreams. I am sure that all the women will like this novel.--Submitted by Belle Brown
How does Jane's choice to speak or not speak in different interactions with Mr. Rochester reflect her changing relationship with him? (for the earlier portion of their relationship) Any knowledge greatly appreciated Thank you
I'm not an expert in old books. My friend has a Jane Eyre and we can't figure what year it was printed there doesn't seem to be any dates in it. Apperently I can't add a photo so it is a brown book the spine says JANE ERYE Bronte The Home Library A.L. BURT COMPANY N.Y. inside it says JANE ERYE By Charlotte Bronte (CURRER BELL) Author of "THE PROFESSOR," "SHIRLEY," "VILLETTE," etc.
I'd love to have reader's views on the following question: What were Jane's intentions when she returned to Thornfield after hearing Rochester's "voice"? I've had discussions (elsewhere) with those who are convinced that Jane would stay with Rochester even if she found the status quo (ie. Bertha still alive). After careful examination of the text, I haven't found anything to support such a conclusive view. Ch. 31 Yes; I feel now that I was right when I adhered to principle and law, and scorned and crushed the insane promptings of a frenzied moment. Ch. 34 (while considering missionary work with St John) The case is very plain before me. In leaving England, I should leave a loved but empty land — Mr. Rochester is not there; and if he were, what is, what can that ever be to me? My business is to live without him now: nothing so absurd, so weak as to drag on from day to day, as if I were waiting some impossible change in circumstances, which might reunite me to him. Ch. 35 (while trying to resist St John's will, moments before "the voice") I was almost as hard beset by him now as I had been once before, in a different way, by another. I was a fool both times. To have yielded then would have been an error of principle; to have yielded now would have been an error of judgment. None of this is to say that Jane doesn't struggle with her convictions (just as she did the night she left Rochester). She longs to have knowledge of Rochester's welfare, her letters having gone unanswered. She also has a rather ambiguous exchange with St John earlier the same day: "God did not give me my life to throw away; and to do as you wish me would, I begin to think, be almost equivalent to committing suicide. Moreover, before I definitively resolve on quitting England, I will know for certain whether I cannot be of greater use by remaining in it than by leaving it." "What do you mean?" "It would be fruitless to attempt to explain; but there is a point on which I have long endured painful doubt, and I can go nowhere till by some means that doubt is removed." "I know where your heart turns and to what it clings. The interest you cherish is lawless and unconsecrated. Long since you ought to have crushed it: now you should blush to allude to it. You think of Mr. Rochester?" It was true. I confessed it by silence. "Are you going to seek Mr. Rochester?" "I must find out what is become of him." I'm a bit puzzled about what Jane means by "doubts", but I still think she only wants to know that Rochester is alright. Even after hearing the "voice" she muses: My spirit...is willing to do what is right; and my flesh, I hope, is strong enough to accomplish the will of Heaven, when once that will is distinctly known to me. At any rate, it shall be strong enough to search—inquire—to grope an outlet from this cloud of doubt, and find the open day of certainty. Jane even tells her cousins that she'll return, although her absence would be "at least four days". On the road to Thornfield, she has an internal war between heart and "monitor", with the monitor saying: Your master himself may be beyond the British Channel, for aught you know: and then, if he is at Thornfield Hall, towards which you hasten, who besides him is there? His lunatic wife: and you have nothing to do with him: you dare not speak to him or seek his presence. You have lost your labour—you had better go no farther.... And yet, as she nears Thornfield: Could I but see him!—but a moment! Surely, in that case, I should not be so mad as to run to him? I cannot tell—I am not certain. And if I did—what then? God bless him! What then? Who would be hurt by my once more tasting the life his glance can give me? So, what do you think? Has hearing the "voice" changed Jane's resolve? Does she sense that the situation has now altered? Sorry if this has been discussed here before!
Hi guys, This is something I've always wondered about in Jane Eyre: the 20-year age gap. When I first read the book, the ending was sort of spoiled for me - I knew that Jane and Rochester would fall for each other and get married. So when I got to the part when you learn their ages (their early conversations) - man, I was shocked. Especially because Rochester kept on stressing how "he was old enough to be her father" and kept saying how innocent and inexperienced she was. It just seemed weird to think that they would ever have any sort of romantic relationship. And yet, once Jane starts to fall in love with him, and Rochester starts calling her Jane instead instead of Miss Eyre (it was a subtle change, but I think it made a huge difference), I really started viewing their interactions in a completely different light. I completely forgot about the age difference, and became engrossed in their relationship. And honestly, as the story developed, I really could not recognize any "significant" differences between them caused by age. I mean sure, Jane is pretty naive compared to Rochester, but in general, I never saw any real "problem" caused by their age gap. Why is this? Was a large disparity in ages more prevalent in those times? (I didn't think so because of Miss Fairfax's words though) Or is it just that Jane is "wise beyond their years?" (I guess her rough child made her personality more mature - and Rochester does seem a bit immature) Or is age simply not a factor in true love? What do you guys think?
Hi guys, I am a huge fan of the book Jane Eyre. For starters, there's Jane herself, who I admire more than anything. Her strength, independence, and piety, despite everything life throws at her (being plain and poor, the cruelty of her relatives, the death of Helen Burns, Mr Rochester's deceit), is amazing. Her counterpart, Mr. Rochester, is just as perfect. Brooding, sarcastic, passionate, and head-over-heels in love with Jane... I love this character. Their relationship is fascinating and the language of their conversations - beautiful. I especially like how they are both not pretty/handsome. It really shows how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that their love is based on themselves as people, not just on appearances. And then there's Pride and Prejudice. Yuck. Let's start with the heroine, Elizabeth. She comes from a big family with an annoying mom. Big deal. She is also beautiful and intelligent, and likely to attract the attention any guy - that doesn't sound like any underdog to me. And Darcy, I'm sorry, I know he's "every women's dream," but I just don't see it. Sure, he's rich and handsome, but who cares? He is pompous and rude. His "transformation" at the end into a less prideful guy - I'm not buying it. And, Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship? They never acted like they were in love at all. My interpretation: Darcy was interested in Elizabeth because she was an outspoken pretty girl. I believe he "pretended to change" at the end for his own sake because he didn't like being rejected (remember how shocked he was when she rejected him? Ug, how conceited can you get). Elizabeth was only interested in Darcy because he became the "stereotypical perfect guy." I mean really, if you could make a checklist: Handsome? check. Rich? check. Gentlemanly? check. Honestly, I bet every women the world would fell themselves compatible to him. Thus, there's nothing special in Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship - I think its superficial. So, does anyone agree? I've honestly never met anyone who has. If not, could you please explain the appeal of Pride and Prejudice and/or Darcy to me?
I'll give my opinion: - Orson Welles: though he is the least attractive Rochester, I thought he was excellent. He looks decidedly unconventional and radiates a kind of brutish sexuality- the kind of thing that Jane hates by principle. If we're seeing things through Jane's eyes, his coarseness may well be magnified. It's much easier to see why Jane would be repelled and conflicted by this man. - Timothy Dalton: certainly the dreamiest Rochester for those who like him as a romantic hero. In some respects I think he's too nice but he conveys passion very nicely. He's clearly far from not being handsome but Jane wouldn't fall for conventional beauty. As played here, I think it's meant to be surprising that she doesn't fancy him. - William Hurt: he looks gruff and weary, clearly a man with history. I think he does bring something to the role; here Rochester looks like a man who's on his last legs and sees Jane as his only chance of redemption. His need for Jane, beyond love, is apparant. - Toby Stephens: again, going for a softer approach like Dalton. Convincingly less attractive so we don't end up shouting at the screen in the way we do with Dalton. His performance is quite faithful on a surface level but I think Rochester should be more of a loose gun. - Michael Fassbender: I thought he was all right. Yet again, it is a more diluted costume drama approach where Rochester appears grumpy rather than tortured. More Austen than Eyre me thinks. So I believe the performances fall into two camps; Rochester as a Darcy-esque romantic hero and Rochester as a psychological wreck of a man. Although I don't mind either interpretation, I think the latter is closer to the book and would like to see more versions of that.
I was thinking what a clever clogs Sebastian Faulkes is after listening to him take part in The Write Stuff radio programme again. Sebastian Faulkes is probably most famous for Birdsong and Charlotte Grey. Anyway, that reminded me of a disagreement he got into with the presenter of another radio programme a few years ago on the subject of heroines versus female heroes. When I looked that up, I found he had written an article which described Becky Sharp from Vanity Fair as a hero, but Jane Eyre as a heroine. Jane Eyre is a heroine because she wants to marry a man. I suppose Becky Sharp is more interested in money. Then I found this blog that argued this wasn't fair on Jane Eyre. What interested me most was that by running away from Thornfied Hall, Jane Eyre had risked her life. She could not get another position as a governess without references, and her only other option was prostitution. I don't suppose Jane would have resorted to prostitution even if the alternative was starvation, but as the blog says, prostitution was itself a drawn out death sentence. It shows what a weak position a governess was in against an unscrupulous employer. I wonder if that is true those were her only options. Tess Durbeyfield from Tess of the d'Urbervilles seemed able to find work, but then she was a farm labourer. Jane would have no experience in farm work.
I have been thinking that many Victorian readers would have had some sympathy with Rochester: married to a mad woman who wants to kill him. It is almost understandable that he would try and make a bigamous marriage with a woman he truly loved. But what if Bertha had not been a homocidal maniac, just rather an unpleasant woman? Or if there was nothing really much wrong with her, just that there was a personality clash between them, or they had fallen out of love and had started to grate on each other's nerves. Not many men were married to psychotic and dangerous women, but lots were trapped in loveless and unhappy marriages. However if Rochester's marriage had been of this type, his actions would have been totally unacceptable, and surely Jane, being so pious, would not have gone back to him even after Bertha's death. I remember watching a programme called 'Who Do You Think You Are?' in which famous people track down their ancestors. In this episode, Kim Catrell from Sex in the City discovered that her grandfather, I think, had abandoned his first wife and family and had bigamously married another woman. You could sense the waves of loathing and disapproval. However, divorces were not easy to obtain so bigamous marriages were not uncommon. Having said that, he did sound like a scumbag because he had responsibilities to his children, which he did not live up to. At least Rochester does provide for his dependants, but then he can afford to.
One aspect I found striking after reading Jane Eyre was the short life expectancy amongst the adults. This was different to Dickens' Great Expectations, in which many of the major characters survive into their sixties, eventually dying of unnatural causes. At the start of that book, all of Pip's family except his sister are dead, and Pip's sister later dies due partly to Orlick's assault on her. However, if you survived into adulthood, the chances of your reaching old age appeared quite good. In Jane Eyre that does not seem so true. There seems to have been only one character who survived into old age: Mrs Fairfax. Jane's parents and her uncle on her mother's side die while Jane is a small child. Jane's aunt, the mother or St John, Diana and Mary Rivers, has died some while before the main events of the story. St John, Diana and Mary Rivers' father has died shortly before Jane arrived at their home. Jane's other uncle, John, also dies during the course of the book. In addition, Jane's aunt Reid and her cousin George die about half way through the book. Lastly, St John Rivers is reported to be dying, presumably while in his thirties, in the last chapter of the book. This is in addition to Helen Burns and the other girls who died at Lowood School. Unlike Great Expectations, none of these people died violent deaths. They all died from illness, although George's early death was brought on by his dissolute life style, while St John's death was hastened by his missionary work in India. The only character who suffered a violent death was Bertha Rochester, who jumped off the roof of Thornfield Hall (iirc). Maybe this partly explains why Jane is happy to marry a man twenty years older than her. She knows her constitution is weak, while Rochester's is strong. Maybe she was not counting on lasting a long time. Jane has a dread of emigrating to India where she thinks she would quickly die. Diana Rivers tells her it is a place which kills the strong while Jane is weak and wouldn't last three months. This is another aspect I was slightly surprised about. Pip spent some time considering whether to take a commision in the army, presumably with the The East India. He didn't in the end, but did emigrate to Eygpt with Herbert and his wife, where they all seemed to thrive. Angel Clare from Tess OTOH, emigrates to Brazil for a while, catches Yellow Fever and is very ill. Angel's friend in Brazil also catches fever and sadly dies.
Jane Eyre has at least cast light on something I have been wondering about for a while: what was it like to travel about England by horse-drawn travel? I imagined it would be very tedious and take a long time. Jane Eyre confirms that it was, although I never got that impression from other 19th century literature. In Pride & Prejudice, Lizzie Bennet, Darcy and others travel fairly long distances, but never seem to complain about it. In Tom Brown's School Days, I think it takes the boys a day or so to travel to Rugby. I cannot remember where they started from, but I remember being surprised it did not take longer. In Great Expectations, Pip seemed to be constantly going up and down from Rochester to Kent, although that's only about twenty odd miles, which he walked once. I did wonder after reading the original ending of Great Expectations, that Estella may as well live in America as Shropshire, as it was just too far to get down to London very often. The Patrick O'Brien Aubrey/Maturin series were written in the 20th century but set in the early 19th century. Their coach journeys were generally from Portsmouth to London and back, which is less than a hundred miles. The journeys always seemed to take a matter of hours. They never complained about them, but then I suppose they would be used to ship journeys taking months. The journeys in Tess of the d'Urbervilles seemed to be mostly in the order of twenty miles or so. Tess is setting off from her village Marlott to go to her new employers in Trantridge by cart when Alec d'Urberville appears and offers to drive her there in his gig. He then proceeds to drive so fast that Tess eventually gets off and walks. So how fast was the cart and how fast was the gig? I am no expert in horses, but I gather they can gallop fast for several miles, but then have to slow to a canter. At a canter, I don't think they're much faster than a fast human runner. In fact, there's a horse v man race that takes place in Wales every year over twenty-four miles. One year, a few years back, a man won it, although he was one of the fastest runners in the country. Presumably, a team of horses harnessed to a coach would be much slower. When I cycled from Lands End to John O' Groats (SW tip of England to NE tip of Scotland) a few years ago, it took me ten days to cover about a thousand miles. I would travel about ten hours a day, including stops to read the map and to eat. That averages about 10mph, but would a horse-drawn coach go as fast. In the books, they often referred to 'turnpikes'. This confused me a bit, but I gather turnpikes were toll roads. I suppose you had to turn a pike (a gate of some sort) to get on them. In Jane Eyre Volume 3, Chapter 1, Jane spends all she has, twenty shillings, on coach fare away from Thornfield. Two days later she is dropped off at Whitcross, probably some miles west of Sheffield. Thornfield is near Millcote (probably Leeds). This is only about fifty miles, so I don't know why it took so long. The fact the journey cost twenty shillings is astounding, especially as the coachman originally said thirty. Jane was only paid £30 a year at Thornfield Hall. £50 a year seems to have been the bare minimum you would need if you had to pay for your own food and accommodation. At a strict 80x inflation indexed equivalent, that journey would have cost £80, but at a more realistic 250x equivalent, it's £250 for a relatively short journey. These days, you could easily buy an airline ticket somewhere nice for that money. Going back to volume 1, chapter 5, Jane is picked up by the coach at 6am for the fifty mile journey to Lowood. She says the journey seemed to be of a preternatural length over hundreds of miles of roads. It was dark when she arrived at Lowood, but it was January she maybe got there about 6pm. They had a long stop at a coaching inn, so I suppose that is an average speed of about 5mph. Sounds plausible.
Here is where you find links to related content on this site or other sites, possibly including full books or essays about Charlotte Bronte written by other authors featured on this site.
Sorry, no summary available yet.