i really dont know how i feel...

[imxsilly]

im reading Jane Eyre and though the imagery was splendid i kind of think that Jane wastes her breath in a lot of the book. her desciptions could have stopped after the first 5 sentences rather than continue for the next 5 paragraphs. i think we all get the picture that her heart is broken when she finds out that Mr. Rochester is married to a mad woman who attacks people. but then again it isnt like mr rochester doesnt have some mental issues as well. *sigh* this book is interesting and all but not very to the point.

[jane-charlotte]

19th century novels tend to be heavy on the descriptive side. However, a prof once asked "why do we immediately assume that plot and description are separate?" I agree particularly in Jane Eyre's case. The Symbolic nature of landscape and setting in Jane Eyre, if examined carefully, really mirrors much of what happens in the plot itself. For example, all the seemingly superfluous descriptions of say Blanche Ingram reveal Jane's (& thereby also Bronte's) intuitions surrounding class arrogance. Her descriptions encode a particular point of view. Or for say the gardens of Thornfield, Jane's words to excessively describe her surroundings speaks to her own inner garden as she grows from girl to young woman to mature woman.
Ah I ramble.... Glad you like the novel though...
p.s. the psychology of the book is also interesting

[Jane's Nemesis]

Yes, I agree (with Jane-Charlotte). The realist tradition relies on heavy description. And Bronte does use the physical surroundings to reflect the action taking place, hence all the fire and ice imagery and other motifs you've probably noticed.

Besides...wouldn't you go on and on about it if you'd just experienced the shock of your life when you found out that you were about to marry a man who had lied to you and kept a huge secret from you? Not that I liked Rochester to be honest, but I can understand why Bronte goes into detail when describing Jane's inner turmoil.

Sarah Waters, the author of Tipping the Velvet and Fingersmith, said something along the lines of "you have to be a grown up to get [Jane Eyre]"...and to a degree I agree with that. I think it's one of those books that I may not necessarily love, but I respect in some ways.

[malwethien]

Sarah Waters, the author of Tipping the Velvet and Fingersmith, said something along the lines of "you have to be a grown up to get [Jane Eyre]"...and to a degree I agree with that. I think it's one of those books that I may not necessarily love, but I respect in some ways.

YEs I agree with that....I really don't understand why Jane Eyre is required reading in high school or grade school. I think it is beyond their grasp don't you think?


this book is interesting and all but not very to the point.


Well you gotta ask yourself...WHAT IS THE POINT anyway??

[janel34]

I can't agree with this. I read Jane Eyre as a girl (early teens), again as a young woman, and lately as a wife/mother (late twenties). Each time I read it, I enjoyed it differently. As a young girl, I enjoyed it as a story of a girl's struggle through life and eventual happy ending; and recently, I relished the relationship/passion between Jane and Mr. Rochester and pondered over her submission to Saint John. I think the book changes for you as you grow - I recommend that readers take it down from the shelf every few years, it will really amaze you.

[sciencefan]

im reading Jane Eyre and though the imagery was splendid i kind of think that Jane wastes her breath in a lot of the book. her desciptions could have stopped after the first 5 sentences rather than continue for the next 5 paragraphs. i think we all get the picture that her heart is broken when she finds out that Mr. Rochester is married to a mad woman who attacks people. but then again it isnt like mr rochester doesnt have some mental issues as well. *sigh* this book is interesting and all but not very to the point.
If you think SHE'S bad,
don't read Tess of the D'Urbervilles!
I never knew I hated adjectives so much!
Besides it's dark and depressing.
And in my opinion, doesn't have a happy ending.

I didn't think Jane Eyre was over-described, but I guess it all depends on the person reading the book.
I'm sure someone will come along and say they liked the amount of imagery in Tess.

[nps_marina]

Each time I read it, I enjoyed it differently. (...) I think the book changes for you as you grow - I recommend that readers take it down from the shelf every few years, it will really amaze you.

I so completely agree- I read it first when I was tewlve, and liked it but found it hard (the descriptions did tend to be tedious, when I was fresh out of the Baby-sitter's Club and 8-word sentences)- as you said, I liked how the good people got what they deserved, and all that, in the end.

I reda it again some years back, with a slight apprehension, and was really glad to discover that my initial dislike for Jane (not big dislike, but my struggle with the writing) was over: I really liked the book this second time, and understood it differently.

I think that when you are reading classic literature, you have to assume that different pace, and those descriptions. It was what these people did for a living- life wasn't so fast as it is nowadays. So gardening mattered.

Besides, what would Heathcliff be without all his angsty surroundings?

[staticgirl]

I read it when I was 8. I didn't understand even half of it, of course (I'd skip the 'boring' bit in the middle), but I immediately loved it and soon read Wuthering Heights too. Every time I read them I get a different charge from them. My understanding alters and re-shapes the narrative. It's almost as if the books grow with me.

I partially agree with Sarah Walters but I think as a child of 8 I read a different book - an adventure story starring an ill-treated and rebellious young girl.

It's good to compare them to Rebecca and Jamaica Inn by Daphne Du Maurier too - more books that makes more sense as you get older. And they bear a strange resemblance... But that's a different thought for a different thread!

[suju]

I absolutely love that book. But I don't like how there is 20 years age difference between Mr. Rochester and Jane.. Even 10 would have been good enough. 20 years?? It's almost like a relationship between father and daughter.. No offense to anyone. I am just telling the bad side of it.. It's still a great novel. I almost cried when her friend dies early in the book. I would like to read it again soon.. I read it last summer and I almost forgot the touch of it.

[sciencefan]

I absolutely love that book. But I don't like how there is 20 years age difference between Mr. Rochester and Jane.. Even 10 would have been good enough. 20 years?? It's almost like a relationship between father and daughter.. No offense to anyone. I am just telling the bad side of it.. It's still a great novel. I almost cried when her friend dies early in the book. I would like to read it again soon.. I read it last summer and I almost forgot the touch of it.I agree with you.
I guess I never did the math before.
From the marriages I have seen, a 10 year difference is the largest span I have ever seen as "socially acceptable".

[Newcomer]

From the marriages I have seen, a 10 year difference is the largest span I have ever seen as "socially acceptable".

What about Charlie Chaplin?
Us old men do have to have some fun!

[kiki1982]

From the marriages I have seen, a 10 year difference is the largest span I have ever seen as "socially acceptable".


It is interesting you say that, because even in 1847, when the book was published, apparently the relationship between Jane and Rochester was looked upon as rather strange. Firstly because of their 'stations' but also because of their age. (As also the opinion of Mrs Fairfax in the book makes apparent)

The appropriate age of marriage for a woman was from 20 to 25 and for a man between 30 and 35. Although girls also married before that and men after that, matches of more than 10 years difference were rather not made...

(I can't remember where I read this, but I was quite astonished. If it is not right though, don't shoot me...)

I think that Jane's age contributes to her being so naive and inexperienced (about the laughs certainly, the fact that she never asks Rochester seriously what's up in the attic or just takes his word for it when he says it is not important). If she would have been a woman in her 20s she would have/dared to (?) ask(ed) a lot more questions. Rochester on the other hand had to be an experienced man. Men of 30 were not considered as extremely experienced... At 30 they were merely ready for marriage. So 40 was more to the point.
In adaptations this is mostly overlooked. Nowadays men look a lot younger (like in the newest adaptation), so the 'father'-thing is kind of lost. And girls of 19 are a lot less inexperienced and so cannot imagine what they have to be. It did come well on the screen in the 1997 version (father-daughter, iewy feeling) and certainly in the 1983 version (in a kind of softer way). It was a shame though that Zelah Clarke was about 10 years too old for the role, but she played her character so well that you didn't really notice until Mrs Fairfax makes the comment about the age-difference. Then there is a breef moment of 'Iiew woman, where the hell are you looking when you say she's 19 years old?'. On the whole Jane was very naive/inexperienced as she should be. In 1997, Samantha Morton even treated her Rochester (Ciaran Hinds) off set as a father figure, he said afterwards in an interview.

[sciencefan]

What about Charlie Chaplin?
Us old men do have to have some fun!I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Chaplin's marriage.
It was considered socially acceptable in his day?
What was the age difference?

How much older was Woody Allen than his adopted daughter?
That was thought of as unacceptable in the circles I heard from.

[Newcomer]

It was considered socially acceptable in his day?
What was the age difference?

I was being a bit sarcastic since I consider the suitability of marriage as between the two people and none of societies business. I wonder how Austin would have replied?
Chaplin met Oona O'Neill, daughter of Eugene O'Neill, and married her on June 16, 1943. He was fifty-four; she had just turned eighteen. The marriage was a long and happy one, with eight children.

[sciencefan]

I was being a bit sarcastic since I consider the suitability of marriage as between the two people and none of societies business. I wonder how Austin would have replied?
Chaplin met Oona O'Neill, daughter of Eugene O'Neill, and married her on June 16, 1943. He was fifty-four; she had just turned eighteen. The marriage was a long and happy one, with eight children.Hmm.
Wow.

Having been a social outcast most of my young life, and not liking it,
I have learned to care too much what society finds acceptable.
I'm afraid it's a concern that haunts me.