criticism & Bertha Mason

[drunkenKOALA]

I enjoyed reading the novel: it's very well written, passionate, and definitely has its merits. However, I will focus on the faults, or what seemed to me to be faults, in this brief review.

The language is brilliant and beautiful, but the ideas it expresses, or rather the thoughts it betrays, are narrow-visioned and selfish. The characters, under the author's pen, are often made to say and do unnatural, unrealistic things, which would not be the subject of objection were they not done mainly, if not solely, for the sake of sulf-indulging melodrama.

Take for example the author's treatment of Bertha Mason. Her purpose in the story is not to provide material for the examination of the human condition, not to act as means for attaining insight into the distraught, feminine mind, nor is it to make a statement regarding the society's treatment of women or the insane in her period; but rather to act as an instrument for Jane's sufferings, have our heroine overcome said sufferings, and ultimately make for a more dramatic, more interesting, and (thinking only of Jane) more satisfying plot. While not entirely unsympathetic, the author doesn't show much compassion for the madwoman's feelings, or any attempt at understanding her state of mind. In short, readers are encouraged to consider Bertha, not as a symbol of human suffering, but simply as an obstacle to Jane's happiness. The novel focuses with a child-like narrowness of vision, but an adult-like intensity of passion and genius-like power of expression, on Jane's feelings: Jane's sufferings, Janes happiness, Jane's vehemence, Jane's loves, to the point of, if you will allow me, selfish disregard to the conditions of others.

It also seems that the speaker shares many prejudices of an Englishmen of her period against people of other races, many of which are quite unfounded and ignorant: Creoles, Irish, French, Indian, etc.

To conclude, I quote Virginia Woolf:
The drawbacks of being Jane Eyre are not far to seek. Always to be a governess and wlays to be in love is a serious limitation in a world which is full, after all, of people who are nither one nor the other. The characters of a Jane Austen or of a Tolstoi have a million facets compared with these...[Charlotte Bronte] does not attempt to solve the problems of human life; she is even unaware that such problems exist; all her force, and it is the more tremendous for being constricted, goes into the assertion, "I love," "I hate," "I suffer."...In other words, we read Charlotte Bronte not for exquisite observation of character--her characters are vigorous and elementary; not for comedy--hers is grim and crude; not for a philosophic view of life--hers is that of a country parson's daughter; but for her poetry...

[Newcomer]

The language is brilliant and beautiful, but the ideas it expresses, or rather the thoughts it betrays, are narrow-visioned and selfish. The characters, under the author's pen, are often made to say and do unnatural, unrealistic things, which would not be the subject of objection were they not done mainly, if not solely, for the sake of sulf-indulging melodrama.
[/I]

MARK but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which thou deniest me is ;
It suck'd me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be.
Thou know'st that this cannot be said
A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead ;
Yet this enjoys before it woo,
And pamper'd swells with one blood made of two ;
And this, alas ! is more than we would do.

O stay, three lives in one flea spare,
Where we almost, yea, more than married are.
This flea is you and I, and this
Our marriage bed, and marriage temple is.
Though parents grudge, and you, we're met,
And cloister'd in these living walls of jet.
Though use make you apt to kill me,
Let not to that self-murder added be,
And sacrilege, three sins in killing three.

Cruel and sudden, hast thou since
Purpled thy nail in blood of innocence?
Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?
Yet thou triumph'st, and say'st that thou
Find'st not thyself nor me the weaker now.
'Tis true ; then learn how false fears be ;
Just so much honour, when thou yield'st to me,
Will waste, as this flea's death took life from thee.

There is beauty in the microscopic view as well. Bronte is not about the philosophical but rather the particular, expressed with great skill.

[malwethien]

DrunkenKoala, you are not the first to think this about Bronte's treatment of Bertha....Have you heard of or read Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea? It is sort of a prequel to Jane Eyre and tells the story of Bertha from her and Mr. Rochester's perspective. You might find it very interesting....I highly recommend you read it....

[drunkenKOALA]

Thanks Malwethian. I have heard of the title, but nothing specific on what the book was about. I'll keep an eye on it.

[malwethien]

DrunkenKoala...Wide Sargasso Sea tells about what happened 15 years before Jane Eyre...when Rochester married Bertha Mason. the novel is divided in 3 parts...part 1 is from the point of view of Bertha and she talks about her childhood. Part 2 is told by Rochester and he narrates what happens during their honeymoon and their relationship. Part 3 is told again by Bertha and she is then living in Thornfield....it is quite fascinating...you should really read it if you want some answers to the Bertha enigma! Trust me...you'll never veiw Jane Eyre the same way again....

[sciencefan]

DrunkenKoala...Wide Sargasso Sea tells about what happened 15 years before Jane Eyre...when Rochester married Bertha Mason. the novel is divided in 3 parts...part 1 is from the point of view of Bertha and she talks about her childhood. Part 2 is told by Rochester and he narrates what happens during their honeymoon and their relationship. Part 3 is told again by Bertha and she is then living in Thornfield....it is quite fascinating...you should really read it if you want some answers to the Bertha enigma! Trust me...you'll never veiw Jane Eyre the same way again....

I would be a lot more interested in reading that work if it had been written by Charlotte Bronte. What good can someone else's opinion of Bertha and Rochester do me? It is only a fantasy, a commentary.

And from the tiny particles I have already read from it, seems to be a strongly biased feminist opinion, not even close to the original author's. I think it skews one's opinion of Bronte's work rather than enhances it.

[drunkenKOALA]

I would be a lot more interested in reading that work if it had been written by Charlotte Bronte. What good can someone else's opinion of Bertha and Rochester do me?
As much good as Charlotte's opinion of Bertha can do one? At least certainly as valid?


It is only a fantasy, a commentary...And from the tiny particles I have already read from it, seems to be a strongly biased feminist opinion, not even close to the original author's. I think it skews one's opinion of Bronte's work rather than enhances it.
And Jane Eyre is without bias and less fantastical?

[Newcomer]

And Jane Eyre is without bias and less fantastical?

Apparently you can not differentiate between a work of art and your own opinion.
Jean Eyre is what Charlotte Bronte wrote, like it or hate it,. it's all a matter of your sensibility, of your powers of discrimination. Until you write a novel as good as Jane Eyre I will take Sciencefan's opinion as more interesting.

[sciencefan]

As much good as Charlotte's opinion of Bertha can do one? At least certainly as valid?

And Jane Eyre is without bias and less fantastical?
Charlotte invented/created Bertha.
Her opinion matters most, above all else.

Whose opinion of you is more valid and accurate,
the opinion of someone who knows you personally, such as a parent or sibling,
or the opinion of someone who knows you little, such as myself?

I do not begrudge you for loving the book,
but I do not agree that it harmonizes with Bronte.

I would love to read a sequel to Pride and Prejudice.
A few have even attempted to write one,
but there's no way we can assume that is what Austen would have written had she lived longer.

[malwethien]

I would be a lot more interested in reading that work if it had been written by Charlotte Bronte. What good can someone else's opinion of Bertha and Rochester do me? It is only a fantasy, a commentary.

And from the tiny particles I have already read from it, seems to be a strongly biased feminist opinion, not even close to the original author's. I think it skews one's opinion of Bronte's work rather than enhances it.

Sciencefan I understand what you're saying about WSS having more "validity" if it was written by Bronte herself, but I think Jean Rhys did not mean to write her novel like Bronte - as a matter of fact I think that was the one thing she did NOT want to do. I think her purpose of writing WSS is not to ruin Jane Eyre but to offer another view of a character which she thought was treated unjustly in the original novel. Rhys in no way contradicted anything in Jane Eyre. As far as feminist opinion goes, I think it is less an issue of feminism as it is an issue of colonialism...



I would love to read a sequel to Pride and Prejudice.
A few have even attempted to write one,
but there's no way we can assume that is what Austen would have written had she lived longer.

There are LOTS of Pride and Prejudice sequels out there...but I think that WSS differs from sequels of P&P in that Jean Rhys didn't try to continue "what might have been" - she just tried to shed some light on an obscure, but very important aspect of Jane Eyre.

[drunkenKOALA]

Charlotte invented/created Bertha.
Her opinion matters most, above all else.

Whose opinion of you is more valid and accurate,
the opinion of someone who knows you personally, such as a parent or sibling,
or the opinion of someone who knows you little, such as myself?

I do not begrudge you for loving the book,
but I do not agree that it harmonizes with Bronte.

I would love to read a sequel to Pride and Prejudice.
A few have even attempted to write one,
but there's no way we can assume that is what Austen would have written had she lived longer.

By no means am I saying that Wide Sargasso Sea is what Charlotte Bronte would have written, or enhances and furthers what Charlotte Bronte wrote; on the contrary, it's quite the opposite, as it is meant to be. I agree with you perfectly that Jean Rhy's opinion does not harmonize (and no less to her credit) with those of Bronte's; but contrary to your opinion, I hardly find this point, in and of itself, as a reason for disapproval and demerit. The book's purpose is to provide an alternative understanding of Bertha Mason, and just because some, satisfied and content with the views and understandings provided by the original author, does not see any necessity for such an attempt, does not signify that such an attempt is not worthwile, or that the alternative understanding it aims to elucidate does not exist.

And when I say "alternative understanding of Bertha Mason", I do not mean an understanding of what Charlotte Bronte would have Bertha Mason do, say, and behave. I believe we all understand too well what Bertha Mason is to Charlotte Bronte. By "understanding", I mean what Charlotte Bronte understood of universal human conditions, and more specifically Creoles from Jamaica, through her treatment of a lunatic Creole character; and what Jean Rhys understood of universal human conditions and Creoles through her treatment of the same character in Wide Sargasso Sea. Just because someone created a character who is a Creole, does not mean that her views of Creoles is the most accurate. And it is on this type of understanding that Wide Sargasso Sea bases its merits on, not on its craftiness to replicate accurately the language and method, good and bad, of Jane Eyre. As such, if you are looking for Jane Eyre II, then as you rightly observed, it can do you no good. But there are more reasons than one to read a book, and more valid motivations than one to write a prequel to Jane Eyre. Wide Sargasso Sea can do one "good" not in spite, but because, of its disharmony with Jane Eyre--no less than how another prequel of Jane Eyre can do one "good" because of its harmony with the same.

"Whose opinion of you is more valid and accurate, the opinion of someone who knows you personally, such as a parent or sibling, or the opinion of someone who knows you little, such as myself?" Someone who knows me personally, of course. And even if you were to write a novel, and base a character off of me, it would not do a thing to further your understanding of me.

Indeed, whose understanding of Bertha Mason--not the Bertha Mason who is merely an instrument to Jane's suffering and an obstacle to Jane's happiness, but the Bertha Mason who embodies the plight of the subjects of colonialism, the Bertha Mason who is representative of the Carribean culture and heritage, the Bertha Mason who encompasses universal human suffering--would be more accurate? An author who lived all her life in England. Or an author who was born and raised in Dominicana until the age of sixteen, and whose mother is a Creole?

Yes, I understand that it is never Bronte's intention to understand a lunatic Creole on any deep level. And that is why Jean Rhys wrote Wide Sargasso Sea, because she felt, as I do, that Bertha, not as a creation of its author, but as a Creole turned lunatic in England, is treated unfairly in Jane Eyre.

[drunkenKOALA]

Apparently you can not differentiate between a work of art and your own opinion.
Jean Eyre is what Charlotte Bronte wrote, like it or hate it,. it's all a matter of your sensibility, of your powers of discrimination. Until you write a novel as good as Jane Eyre I will take Sciencefan's opinion as more interesting.

Are you saying that one cannot have an opinion on a work of art? Sciencefan pointed out that Wide Sargasso Sea is fantastical and biased; I consequently pointed out that Jane Eyre is also fantastical and biased. Come now, why lash out at one and not the other? why the double standard?

[sciencefan]

Sciencefan I understand what you're saying about WSS having more "validity" if it was written by Bronte herself, but I think Jean Rhys did not mean to write her novel like Bronte - as a matter of fact I think that was the one thing she did NOT want to do. I think her purpose of writing WSS is not to ruin Jane Eyre but to offer another view of a character which she thought was treated unjustly in the original novel. Rhys in no way contradicted anything in Jane Eyre. As far as feminist opinion goes, I think it is less an issue of feminism as it is an issue of colonialism...

There are LOTS of Pride and Prejudice sequels out there...but I think that WSS differs from sequels of P&P in that Jean Rhys didn't try to continue "what might have been" - she just tried to shed some light on an obscure, but very important aspect of Jane Eyre.And in that light, her opinion is at least interesting, I'm sure.
I do not care for her opinion myself, but I understand that others do.
I only cringe at the thought of people taking it as an authoritative pre-quel to Jane Eyre.

[sciencefan]

By no means am I saying that Wide Sargasso Sea is what Charlotte Bronte would have written, or enhances and furthers what Charlotte Bronte wrote; on the contrary, it's quite the opposite, as it is meant to be. I agree with you perfectly that Jean Rhy's opinion does not harmonize (and no less to her credit) with those of Bronte's; but contrary to your opinion, I hardly find this point, in and of itself, as a reason for disapproval and demerit. The book's purpose is to provide an alternative understanding of Bertha Mason, and just because some, satisfied and content with the views and understandings provided by the original author, does not see any necessity for such an attempt, does not signify that such an attempt is not worthwile, or that the alternative understanding it aims to elucidate does not exist.

And when I say "alternative understanding of Bertha Mason", I do not mean an understanding of what Charlotte Bronte would have Bertha Mason do, say, and behave. I believe we all understand too well what Bertha Mason is to Charlotte Bronte. By "understanding", I mean what Charlotte Bronte understood of universal human conditions, and more specifically Creoles from Jamaica, through her treatment of a lunatic Creole character; and what Jean Rhys understood of universal human conditions and Creoles through her treatment of the same character in Wide Sargasso Sea. Just because someone created a character who is a Creole, does not mean that her views of Creoles is the most accurate. And it is on this type of understanding that Wide Sargasso Sea bases its merits on, not on its craftiness to replicate accurately the language and method, good and bad, of Jane Eyre. As such, if you are looking for Jane Eyre II, then as you rightly observed, it can do you no good. But there are more reasons than one to read a book, and more valid motivations than one to write a prequel to Jane Eyre. Wide Sargasso Sea can do one "good" not in spite, but because, of its disharmony with Jane Eyre--no less than how another prequel of Jane Eyre can do one "good" because of its harmony with the same.

"Whose opinion of you is more valid and accurate, the opinion of someone who knows you personally, such as a parent or sibling, or the opinion of someone who knows you little, such as myself?" Someone who knows me personally, of course. And even if you were to write a novel, and base a character off of me, it would not do a thing to further your understanding of me.

Indeed, whose understanding of Bertha Mason--not the Bertha Mason who is merely an instrument to Jane's suffering and an obstacle to Jane's happiness, but the Bertha Mason who embodies the plight of the subjects of colonialism, the Bertha Mason who is representative of the Carribean culture and heritage, the Bertha Mason who encompasses universal human suffering--would be more accurate? An author who lived all her life in England. Or an author who was born and raised in Dominicana until the age of sixteen, and whose mother is a Creole?

Yes, I understand that it is never Bronte's intention to understand a lunatic Creole on any deep level. And that is why Jean Rhys wrote Wide Sargasso Sea, because she felt, as I do, that Bertha, not as a creation of its author, but as a Creole turned lunatic in England, is treated unfairly in Jane Eyre.

Well said.
Point taken.

[Newcomer]

Are you saying that one cannot have an opinion on a work of art? Sciencefan pointed out that Wide Sargasso Sea is fantastical and biased; I consequently pointed out that Jane Eyre is also fantastical and biased. Come now, why lash out at one and not the other? why the double standard?

I was unnecessarily harsh, abrupt and therefore not clear in the distinction that I wished to make of literature as a work of art that is objective, in that it is frozen in time and opinion that is current, subjective and changeable. Foremost I respect your opinion and wish that more would engage in debate, for that is my understanding of the Forum.
If you are raising the issue that in Jane Eyre, Charlotte is not interested in colonialism or women's equality, then I have no disagreement with you. Whatever Bronte's opinion was, she certainly is not concern with social justice in Jane Eyre. On the other hand if you are proposing that Bertha Mason in the novel should be considered as representing a moral inadequacy in Jane Eyre, composition, then we disagree.
I consider Jane Eyre as literature and the debate should be on its merits as literature. While many feminists admire Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea , it is but modern fiction, not held by academia in the same esteem as Bronte's work. I view it as a polemicist tract hoping for a free ride on a classic in that it uses characters created by Bronte, and suggesting that Bronte's characterization is inadequate while Jean Reys can expand, rectify, the shortcomings. If Wide Sargasso Sea is debated as a work of anti colonialism, as advocacy of women's rights, as an illustration of shortcomings in mental health in the 19th. century, then fine, no problem. The problem is when it is suggested that it is a sequel or prequel to Jane Eyre.

"In other words, we read Charlotte Bronte not for exquisite observation of character--her characters are vigorous and elementary; not for comedy--hers is grim and crude; not for a philosophic view of life--hers is that of a country parson's daughter; but for her poetry..." - Virginia Woolf

Hope that I have rectified the badly phrased previous post as I did not mean to offend.

[malwethien]

And in that light, her opinion is at least interesting, I'm sure.
I do not care for her opinion myself, but I understand that others do.
I only cringe at the thought of people taking it as an authoritative pre-quel to Jane Eyre.

I don't think that people are necessarily taking it as an "authoritative prequel to Jane Eyre" - it's just that I think that WSS has made quite a reputation for itself - not just because of the story, but because of the way it was written -the style of writing, the mood it set, the descriptions....And also it might be the only book of it's kind (in terms of subject matter). It has been included in a lot of notable book lists - I'm not saying those are authoratative either, but I guess a lot of 'experts' in the world of literature saw somthing in the novel which made it 'worthy' - and not just because it is about a character in a classic piece of literature. I can even understand how it might be a disadvantage for WSS to be seen as a 'prequel' to Jane Eyre...because it is branded thus, WSS can never stand alone on it's own and will never get the praise it deserves - without being linked to Jane Eyre...

[Newcomer]

It also seems that the speaker shares many prejudices of an Englishmen of her period against people of other races, many of which are quite unfounded and ignorant: Creoles, Irish, French, Indian, etc.



As far as feminist opinion goes, I think it is less an issue of feminism as it is an issue of colonialism...

I would like tp provide some specifics of how Jean Reys is viewed. The opinions of drunkenKOALA and Malwethienare interesting but lacking specifics. “Etc”. Is not a detailed argument and the specifics cited should clarify the argument.

Wide Sargasso Sea (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Wide Sargasso Sea is usually taught as a postmodern and postcolonial response to Jane Eyre. One particularly postmodern innovation is the use of multiple voices (Antoinette's and her husband's—although we assume it's Mr Rochester, he is never given a name) to tell the story; another is the novel's dense intertextual relationship to Jane Eyre. In addition, Rhys makes a postcolonial argument when she ties Antoinette's husband's eventual rejection of Antoinette to her Creole heritage (a large factor in Antoinette's descent into madness). As postmodern and postcolonial literature have taken a greater place in university curricula, the novel has been taught to literature students more often in recent years.
The world in which Antoinette lives is a patriarchal society. The convent where Antoinette is sent by her Aunt Cora represents a matriarchal bubble within this patriarchal world. Her demise can be seen as her spirit being crushed by the oppressive male world around her as her identity is taken away from her by her husband. Her individuality, i.e. her name Antoinette Mason, nee Cosway, is taken away from her: first her surname is taken—she has to take her stepfather's, then her husband's name—then her given name is taken when he renames her 'Bertha'. (underline is mine)

The Wikipedia excerpt,with the important qualification - not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article- clearly identifies the contemporary perception of Wide Sargaso Sea, as a feminist tract. While Jean Rey's emphasis might be construed as critique of Colonialism, for the predominant female readers the critique is sexual politics.

World of Penguin - http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/worldlit/caribbean/rhys.htm
Jean Rhys as a creole writer--
Europeans born or living in the West Indies, educated to conceive of England as "home," they were also culturally marked and excluded as inferior colonials. At the same time, they were racially and institutionally privileged in relation to the African people who existed as bound labor and subalterns....
Toward the metropolitan Subject, the Creole often articulates a position of liminality and a poetics of ressentiment.
Toward the West Indian mulatto and Black Others, the Creole demonstrates a sense of proprietorship that allows for the appropriation and recruitment of "race" as an accessory of power and a trope of otherness.

Racial relationship: Tia and Antoinette treatments of blacks
An unidentified black is a source of menace and a threat to Antoinette.. . .in much of Rhys's writing there exists only the Manichaean division of "good blacks"--those who serve--and "bad blacks"--those who are hostile, threatening, unknown. . .. the relationship [between Tia and Antoinette] is based on the production of difference through the racialist stereotypes of the hardy, physically superior, animallike, lazy negro. . .[lazy black--sleep after eating] and the sensitive whilet child, on the other hand, contemplates nature, seduced by the "reve exotique."

DrunkenKOALA writes ”It also seems that the speaker shares many prejudices of an Englishmen of her period against people of other races, many of which are quite unfounded and ignorant: Creoles, Irish, French, Indian, etc.”, however it would seem that Jean Reys views of Colonialism are limited to Creoles and she shares the prejudices and hieratic views that literary deconstructivist of Jane Eyre impute to Bronte.

Postcolonial Discourse in Wide Sargasso Sea (This project was completed under the direction of Dr Leon Litvack as a requirement for the MA degree in Modern Literary Studies in the School of English at the Queen's University of Belfast.)
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/carib/sargasso.htm
In Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys confronts the possibility of another side to Jane Eyre. The story of Bertha, the first Mrs Rochester, Wide Sargasso Sea is not only a brilliant deconstruction of Brontë's legacy, but is also a damning history of colonialism in the Caribbean......
Rhys negotiates with Bronte's text. As an already canonical text, the merging of Antoinette's fate into that of Bertha's is inevitable, but Rhys allows us to interpret the fate of Antoinette differently by having the ending open......
The desire to rewrite the master narratives of Western discourse is a common colonial practice, with texts like The Tempest, Robinson Crusoe and Great Expectations being given the same scrutiny that Rhys affords to Bronte's text. The telling of a story from another point of view can be seen as an extension of the deconstructive project to explore the gaps and silences in a text.

[kiki1982]

Ok, some people will me hate for this, but here goes. To be clear I didn't read the book (WSS) but I'll just comment on the principle.

I strongly believe writing a book about a certain character in a certain book is missing the whole point of the first book. Authors create certain characters to actually tell a story, and to bring forward a world view/opinion of something/philisophy etc. What (could have) happened with/to the character before or after the book is absolutely not important. Characters in books are not real people and consequently don't have a life as such. Their lives stop when they stop appearing in the book. We also don't ask ourselves what happened to red ridinghood after she was taken out of the belly of the big bad wolf, do we? If the author thinks that there is something more to tell, then he will do so. Like Dumas wrote a sequel about the three musketeers (I think), or like Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a study for The Lord of the Rings. Certainly for another author to use a character from another book by another writer is actually committing plagery. One can also call it fan fiction. If people are interested in anything concerning lunatics/madness/women/Creoles/marriage etc in those days then there are enough books to educate them, so that they don't have to read fiction based on true findings, but interpreted. It is not true to start with, and by interpreting, it is even more corrupted.

On this particular case: What was actually the use of Bertha in the book??? She only appeared in it 4 times, if you count the laughs 5. She didn't speak. 4 times Jane didn't even see her, only heard laughing. She saw her face once, as far as she could through the grey hair, and also her behaviour. For the rest we know she caused the fire that burnt Thornfield and she committed suicide. Now what is there to write about Bertha? Taking this into account we would be able to write a lot about Mrs Reed, John Reed, Eliza and Georgeana, about Adèle and her mother Céline, Miss Ingram (who did she marry?), the sisters Eshton, Grace Poole, St John (how did he get on in India?) etc. Bertha was only used in the book for the purpose of structure, gothic element, excitement and as a reason to burn down Thornfield. She was as important as the weather was in the story. Nothing more. Discussing Bertha is good, as far as it concerns the book Jane Eyre, but as soon as the discussion is about anything else than something in connection with the book, it is not to the point.

Of course the image of Bertha is biased, as are the images of the Ingramms, the Eshtons, St John, even of her aunt, but that is not important, because it is the opinion of author. A book should be appreciated for what it is and should be discussed in the light of the time and opinion of the author. The reader's opinion is of no concern. You can read a book without agreeing with the opinion of the author. The reader's opinion does not change the quality of the literature.

[Newcomer]

... Bertha was only used in the book for the purpose of structure, gothic element, excitement and as a reason to burn down Thornfield. She was as important as the weather was in the story. Nothing more. Discussing Bertha is good, as far as it concerns the book Jane Eyre, but as soon as the discussion is about anything else than something in connection with the book, it is not to the point.
..... A book should be appreciated for what it is and should be discussed in the light of the time and opinion of the author. The reader's opinion is of no concern. You can read a book without agreeing with the opinion of the author. The reader's opinion does not change the quality of the literature.

Very good and to the point!