Merits of Distance Reading?

[kiki1982]

1. I don't spend hours writing on this forum either, nor did I ever say it was a writing contest or you had to be "perfect." So, put that strawman down. However, if you want your reader to understand what you're trying to say, run-on after run-on just doesn't help.

2. Anything can be irrelevant to anything. That doesn't mean it's not useful, and literary theory is very useful in understanding literature.

3. Firstly, critics/scholars are not trying to "add" anything to the novel. Your thinking so is a big part of the problem. They are trying to understand/appreciate the novel, and/or part of its aspects, and communicate that understanding to others. Feminist criticisms are valid types of understandings particularly examining and elucidating aspects of the novel pertaining to women and female experience. So, they give a particular valid understanding of the novel we, ourselves, might not have had. The sharings of such understandings are a help for all of us better understanding the novel and literature itself, and those sharings have always been vital parts of cultures. You, clearly, think everyone should shut up and just read the book.

4. Your comment about "putting words into someone's mouth" was irrelevant because that's not what critics do. As I said in my last post, the good critic/scholar's intent is not to discern or decipher the artist's intent; it is to understand and evaluate the artist's art.

5. Firstly, I never said you "favoured" anything; so, calm down and read my post again. Secondly, there are many more things you can do to analyze a text besides studying historic context or "understand" the characters. Your saying otherwise shows both a limited knowledge of possible critical approaches and a solipsistic stance that your two approaches are the only ones anyone can take. It also shows you fail to realize that historicist reading is, itself, a theoretical approach; so you're a theoretical critic, yourself. Isn't that remarkable? Here are some approaches by your fellow theoretical critics:

A reader/critic can analyze the various narrators/narratives in a novel and see how they function, analyze the gender relations and gender positions in a novel, structurally analyze the various chapters and/or "acts" in a novel, analyze how race and particular racial positions affect the drama. I have read brilliant criticisms of all types. So, you have severely and mistakenly limited yourself.

6. Your flippant dismissal of race-oriented and gender-oriented criticism shows this is an emotional issue for you, which is probably why your views on the matter have been misguided and inaccurate. I suggest you dial that down if you want to formulate a more cogent view. Secondly, you again make the mistake that bad criticism means all criticism is invalid, and that is just wrong. No good critics focus on, or even care, whether Bronte was a racist or not; they focus on the text. And if you think Rochester's wife's race has nothing to do with the story, you need to read Jane Eyre again. Also, your "It's not a real man" comment is nonsensical. According to that thinking, nobody could judge or evaluate any literary character because they're not "real people." I'm sure you know that's ridiculous.

7. I said nothing about a warning. So, despite your frustrations, you can reel back the snark. I merely made a correct presumption; you just needed to read it better.

3. Good criticism would indeed do that, yes. I never said it's all bad. Where it becomes a problem to me is when generalised views about gender, for example, are applied to one novel in particular without further thinking. The truth of such generalisations is far greyer than even a historian dedicated to the subject could conceive and new insights are gathered every day. How is applying generalisations like this going to help 'evaluating the art' if they might not be true in the first place? What would that mean for your evaluation? Rochester in the beginning is domineering. Yes, he is. Is that because he is a Victorian man? Probably not. It is just like that. Just like we can meet a Christian Grey. There are people like that in the world. Pairing this up with the Victorian man is like saying that in Saudi Arabia women have no rights, therefore all men lock up their wives. Far from. If in our day and age we cannot draw such conclusions, how are we assigning such conclusions to historic works?

I never said everyone should shut up, I said critics should be careful not to impute things to characters or novels where there is no basis for them. That's all. Why is that a problem?

4. I'll answer that with your own argument that "anything can be irrelevant to anything." So my argument might be irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean it has to be dismissed.

6. I have read Jane Eyre, at length in fact, and other than the mention that Bertha happened to be Creole, it doesn't play a role. Obviously Rochester is ch**sed off that there turned out to be something wrong with his wife and that she turned violent, but how does that necessarily have anything to do with her being part black? This is what I mean by putting words into authors' or characters' mouths: by pulling the racism card, we are at least assigning certain views if not motives to Rochester which we cannot prove. There are only a few facts there: wife turns out to be mad/weird, man is saddled with a wife he can't get rid of because she's deemed to be non compus mentis, man is doomed to spend his life alone or with mistresses, man can never find the comfort of a wife and children until his first wife dies of her own accord. The Creole doesn't come into it. At all. The facts wouldn't change if the black genes were important, or would they. What are we actually presuming in that case? That Rochester despised her because she was part black? How would pinning views on a character help you to 'evaluate the art' in this case?

I didn't say you can't judge a character (if that is at all relevant) or evaluate it, I said it wasn't fair to assign any more to it than was clear from what the author gave you. And then, for characters who are part of several books, like the Barchester Chronicles of Trollope or the Musketeer books by Dumas, would it be fair to pin certain things on them that happened later, knowing full well that their creator might not have known about that particular aspect before he wrote it? Again you will say this is irrelevant because the critic doesn't look for the author's intent and evaluates the character. That might be true for them. However, how does that relate to authors like Kafka who clearly said their works meant nothing and they didn't like them to be interpreted in a particular way (The Metamorphosis as a reflection of the discrimination of the Jews or modern man, for instance)? Hope that sentence is not too long for you.

On a side note: it is because of this theory that rows have erupted about particular works and whether they are appropriate to sell or play. Last year, there was a row in Seattle about a Gilbert & Sullivan opera called The Mikado, which essentially makes fun of Victorian society but wrapped up in Japanese costumes so as to facilitate self-mockery in an 'artless Japanese way' (to quote one character). A columnist in The Seattle Times termed the opera racist because it had obviously a shoddy Japanese façade and faces painted yellow... What the content of the thing was, was entirely irrelevant. Cue death threats to the theatre company's manager. Ah, and now you will say 'but that is bad criticism'. I'm sure you could make a valid interpretation of the opera using racist/colonialist theory. And how would that elucidate our understanding?
Not to mention censured versions of Huckleberry Finn, protests about the performance of The Merchant of Venice and I'm sure I could go on for a while. All because racist, colonialist and post-colonialist theory was fashionable for a while.

7. You clearly misunderstood the meaning of 'warn' as a mere notification. You said that what I said about analytical models was not related to your arguments and I said it wasn't intended to be related to them. It's not because I quote a particular post that the rest of my post in that case will necessarily all be related to that quote. Hence the word 'warn'. Jeez.

[Pike Bishop]

3. Good criticism would indeed do that, yes. I never said it's all bad. Where it becomes a problem to me is when generalised views about gender, for example, are applied to one novel in particular without further thinking. The truth of such generalisations is far greyer than even a historian dedicated to the subject could conceive and new insights are gathered every day. How is applying generalisations like this going to help 'evaluating the art' if they might not be true in the first place? What would that mean for your evaluation? Rochester in the beginning is domineering. Yes, he is. Is that because he is a Victorian man? Probably not. It is just like that. Just like we can meet a Christian Grey. There are people like that in the world. Pairing this up with the Victorian man is like saying that in Saudi Arabia women have no rights, therefore all men lock up their wives. Far from. If in our day and age we cannot draw such conclusions, how are we assigning such conclusions to historic works?

I never said everyone should shut up, I said critics should be careful not to impute things to characters or novels where there is no basis for them. That's all. Why is that a problem?

4. I'll answer that with your own argument that "anything can be irrelevant to anything." So my argument might be irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean it has to be dismissed.

6. I have read Jane Eyre, at length in fact, and other than the mention that Bertha happened to be Creole, it doesn't play a role. Obviously Rochester is ch**sed off that there turned out to be something wrong with his wife and that she turned violent, but how does that necessarily have anything to do with her being part black? This is what I mean by putting words into authors' or characters' mouths: by pulling the racism card, we are at least assigning certain views if not motives to Rochester which we cannot prove. There are only a few facts there: wife turns out to be mad/weird, man is saddled with a wife he can't get rid of because she's deemed to be non compus mentis, man is doomed to spend his life alone or with mistresses, man can never find the comfort of a wife and children until his first wife dies of her own accord. The Creole doesn't come into it. At all. The facts wouldn't change if the black genes were important, or would they. What are we actually presuming in that case? That Rochester despised her because she was part black? How would pinning views on a character help you to 'evaluate the art' in this case?

I didn't say you can't judge a character (if that is at all relevant) or evaluate it, I said it wasn't fair to assign any more to it than was clear from what the author gave you. And then, for characters who are part of several books, like the Barchester Chronicles of Trollope or the Musketeer books by Dumas, would it be fair to pin certain things on them that happened later, knowing full well that their creator might not have known about that particular aspect before he wrote it? Again you will say this is irrelevant because the critic doesn't look for the author's intent and evaluates the character. That might be true for them. However, how does that relate to authors like Kafka who clearly said their works meant nothing and they didn't like them to be interpreted in a particular way (The Metamorphosis as a reflection of the discrimination of the Jews or modern man, for instance)? Hope that sentence is not too long for you.

On a side note: it is because of this theory that rows have erupted about particular works and whether they are appropriate to sell or play. Last year, there was a row in Seattle about a Gilbert & Sullivan opera called The Mikado, which essentially makes fun of Victorian society but wrapped up in Japanese costumes so as to facilitate self-mockery in an 'artless Japanese way' (to quote one character). A columnist in The Seattle Times termed the opera racist because it had obviously a shoddy Japanese façade and faces painted yellow... What the content of the thing was, was entirely irrelevant. Cue death threats to the theatre company's manager. Ah, and now you will say 'but that is bad criticism'. I'm sure you could make a valid interpretation of the opera using racist/colonialist theory. And how would that elucidate our understanding?
Not to mention censured versions of Huckleberry Finn, protests about the performance of The Merchant of Venice and I'm sure I could go on for a while. All because racist, colonialist and post-colonialist theory was fashionable for a while.

7. You clearly misunderstood the meaning of 'warn' as a mere notification. You said that what I said about analytical models was not related to your arguments and I said it wasn't intended to be related to them. It's not because I quote a particular post that the rest of my post in that case will necessarily all be related to that quote. Hence the word 'warn'. Jeez.

3. You had incorrectly said it's wrong for critics to "mistakenly apply" their theories to works that have "nothing to do with them." Since almost no, if any, text anticipates a theory that will be used to criticize their texts, that would be an indictment of all critics. You also erroneously implied critics are unnecessary because they didn't add anything to the text: "I don't see how applying particular theories to individual novels is going to add anything." So, you were indicting all critics, and you were suggesting they should shut up, since you suggested they had nothing to add.

4. I never said anything is irrelevant to anything; I correctly said anything can be irrelevant to anything, as in the context. So, your complaint about putting words into authors' mouths was irrelevant since that is not what critics do. It is the equivalent of complaining about politicians because they always teach bad dance steps.

6. Firstly, what was (and is) particularly flippant of your "criticism" of Race-oriented criticism and Feminist criticism is your falsely reducing it to simple "race and gender stuff" or "playing the race card;" it's not. Most race and/or gender-oriented criticism is complex and non-reductive, and your claiming otherwise is both wrong and indicative of a shallow reading of the criticism.

As to, Jane Eyre, as I said before, you need to read the novel again. Bertha's Creole racial standing, as well as her original Jamaican cultural environment, were huge factors in her descent into insanity and Rochester's treatment of her...and nobody claimed it was just an issue of her "Black" genes. Firstly, she was taken out of the country and culture she loved, where she was greatly admired and loved, to a foreign country where nobody loved her and nobody admired her because of her color...19th c. England was racist. So, while she did have a proclivity for mental illness, that change in environment certainly exacerbated it. Secondly, if Bertha had been an upper-class white woman, he could not so easily have imprisoned Bertha in such a way, nor would his 19th c. English mindset have allowed him to so easily do so. So, race was a factor in, and a vital element of, Jane Eyre,

And saying you can't "assign any more to it than was clear from what the author gave you" is the same thing as saying you can't judge a character or evaluate it. Since judging/evaluating/critiquing a character requires using words, thoughts, and theories beyond what the author "gave," one has no choice but to do so in their judgments/evaluations/critiques. And yes, I will correctly say you are incorrectly concerned with "author's intent." Author's intent is irrelevant to criticism/critique of the text because the author's intent is a separate phenomenon from the text, and the author himself/herself is never fully aware of what his or her intent is. Using the flawed logic of your Kafka anecdote, if Shakespeare had meant Macbeth to be a light-hearted comedy, we would have to critique it as such. Artists no more get to dictate the judgments of their work--except through the work itself--than people get to dictate the judgments of their actions.

Finally, your alarmist examples of excessive reactions to racial elements of The Mikado (which does have troubling racial aspects), Huckleberry Finn and TMOV (which does have anti-semitic aspects) have nothing to do with legitimate race-oriented and post-colonialist theory. Your use of such a specious anecdote is like claiming O.J. Simpson's actions prove all African-American athletes are homicidal. It's not sound logic.

So, I really have to ask. How much race-oriented, Feminist, and post-colonialist criticism have you actually read, and which critics/critiques have you read? Because it really doesn't seem like you have actually read much of it at all. Of course, once you share with us your actual knowledge, you could really prove me wrong.

7. Finally, you specifically wrote: "My little write-up about analytical models was indeed directed at the concept of using this in literature and why it was a bad idea. Was I supposed to warn anyone about that?" So, you did mean warning as actual warning, not just "mere notification." You can't use words clearly denoting their traditional meanings and then correct people for accurately interpreting them that way...geez.

[kiki1982]

As to, Jane Eyre, as I said before, you need to read the novel again. Bertha's Creole racial standing, as well as her original Jamaican cultural environment, were huge factors in her descent into insanity and Rochester's treatment of her...and nobody claimed it was just an issue of her "Black" genes. Firstly, she was taken out of the country and culture she loved, where she was greatly admired and loved, to a foreign country where nobody loved her and nobody admired her because of her color...19th c. England was racist. So, while she did have a proclivity for mental illness, that change in environment certainly exacerbated it. Secondly, if Bertha had been an upper-class white woman, he could not so easily have imprisoned Bertha in such a way, nor would his 19th c. English mindset have allowed him to so easily do so. So, race was a factor in, and a vital element of, Jane Eyre,

I will just say something very quick about this and then get on with work.

1. Bertha was already mad when Rochester brought her to England (probably with the express purpose of locking her up). At that point it hardly mattered whether England's racism actually exacerbated her madness or not. Here you presume that because overall England was racist, everyone in it was indeed racist. Far from. Only the abolitionists would be an argument against that.
2. As far as I can recall, you don't know what colour she might have had. True, Creoles have black blood, but that doesn't mean they have brown skin. The term 'Creole' has been debated at length and no-one knows what it really was. It also included white people with some black blood further up the generations. So the assumption that England was racist and they would have despised Bertha because she obviously had a tan, is again, an assumption only.
3. The idea that rich people were never locked up, even if they were insane, is a bit of a wild guess. George III of all people was locked up at Kew several times and sometimes also pretty badly cared for, as I recall. There were rich families who brought their mad or idiots to asylums where they slept on straw. Indeed, it didn't have to be this way and Victorians tried to do their best, but I suppose it depended on how much the family actually cared, how much money they had and what was available in the area. I believe that the way Bertha is portrayed is not so much a reflection of madness in itself but of the person Rochester is. However, I think that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her race per se.

By pulling the race card, you essentially illustrated very nicely how that warps Bertha's predicament in a way that is totally unfounded. It's interesting to debate, that is about all. The idea that the race thing has something to do with the story, presented as a general truth in the present simple, is then far-fetched. It is an interpretation and not a truth. That is exactly what I meant by presenting a theory as a truth and then proving it with quotes.

[Pike Bishop]

I will just say something very quick about this and then get on with work.

1. Bertha was already mad when Rochester brought her to England (probably with the express purpose of locking her up). At that point it hardly mattered whether England's racism actually exacerbated her madness or not. Here you presume that because overall England was racist, everyone in it was indeed racist. Far from. Only the abolitionists would be an argument against that.
2. As far as I can recall, you don't know what colour she might have had. True, Creoles have black blood, but that doesn't mean they have brown skin. The term 'Creole' has been debated at length and no-one knows what it really was. It also included white people with some black blood further up the generations. So the assumption that England was racist and they would have despised Bertha because she obviously had a tan, is again, an assumption only.
3. The idea that rich people were never locked up, even if they were insane, is a bit of a wild guess. George III of all people was locked up at Kew several times and sometimes also pretty badly cared for, as I recall. There were rich families who brought their mad or idiots to asylums where they slept on straw. Indeed, it didn't have to be this way and Victorians tried to do their best, but I suppose it depended on how much the family actually cared, how much money they had and what was available in the area. I believe that the way Bertha is portrayed is not so much a reflection of madness in itself but of the person Rochester is. However, I think that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her race per se.

By pulling the race card, you essentially illustrated very nicely how that warps Bertha's predicament in a way that is totally unfounded. It's interesting to debate, that is about all. The idea that the race thing has something to do with the story, presented as a general truth in the present simple, is then far-fetched. It is an interpretation and not a truth. That is exactly what I meant by presenting a theory as a truth and then proving it with quotes.

1. Actually, as I showed in my last post, her being Creole had a great deal to do with her treatment. Firstly, Rochester couldn't have, and wouldn't have, allowed himself to treat her in such a way if she had been a White English woman. Secondly, even you admit her treating her in such a way had something to do with her treatment. And I never said everyone in England was racist; you really need to read my posts better. I correctly said 19th c. England, like 19th c. America, was a racist country, so they didn't generally have kind views towards people of color...abolitionists were the exception.

2. Firstly, stating 19th century Englanders would have adverse reactions to people of color is not an assumption; it is an historical fact. Secondly, it is highly likely Bertha was swarthy in some way; most Creoles were. So, your supposition is erroneously based on an unlikelihood.

3. I never said rich people were never locked up. That's your second strawman, and you really need to read my posts better. I said Rochester could not have as easily imprisoned Bertha in such a way, nor would he have been so sanguine about doing so, had she been an upper-class English white woman...and that is absolutely correct. Her people wouldn't have allowed him to do it. They may have allowed her to be institutionalized in a hospital, but they certainly wouldn't have allowed her to be imprisoned in an attic.

Finally, I truly suggest you stop saying "pulling the race card." That's what Tea Partyers and racists say, and I'm sure you're not one of those. If you say or write that in a college English course, you will not only not be taken seriously, people will assume you have a bias against legitimate claims of racism. And, more importantly, I didn't play a "race card" at all. Everything I said about how race factored into Bertha's treatment was accurate and well-supported, and you didn't successfully show otherwise in any way. So, it was your arguments against my claims that were actually unfounded and far-fetched.

And your interpretation is also an interpretation based in theory. I'm sorry you don't see that clear irony. The only difference between your interpretation and mine is yours is inaccurate and unsupported by the text, while mine is accurate and well-supported...and I proved that with far more than quotes.

[kiki1982]

1. Actually, as I showed in my last post, her being Creole had a great deal to do with her treatment. Firstly, Rochester couldn't have, and wouldn't have, allowed himself to treat her in such a way if she had been a White English woman. Secondly, even you admit her treating her in such a way had something to do with her treatment. And I never said everyone in England was racist; you really need to read my posts better. I correctly said 19th c. England, like 19th c. America, was a racist country, so they didn't generally have kind views towards people of color...abolitionists were the exception.

You didn't show anything, you believed Bertha's race had 'a great deal' to do with her treatment. There is a great difference between that and 'showing'. I showed it was an assumption. Saying that you did show it, shows nothing, apart from the fact that you believe what you say, which is already obvious from the fact you said it in the first place.
You have to explain to me how statements like 'Rochester couldn't have, and wouldn't have, allowed himself to treat her in such a way if she had been a White English woman' are not an assumption. This is an assumption.

19th century England was far different from 19th century America. Even if we could deem both racist in general, England didn't usually mistreat people of a different colour after slavery had been abolished. Even before that under common law, beating and locking black people up was assault and false imprisonment. Precisely because slavery did not exist in England and therefore you couldn't treat black people the way they were treated in America. It is true, most blacks in the UK ended up poor and in servant jobs, BUT (big but) they were not barred from anything per se, they could not be owned (obviously not everyone believed this). Despite white people thinking at the time they were superior, aided by false interpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution or otherwise by the earlier stance that God made the world and therefore He made blacks inferior, there were black people who stood for election (first dark-skinned MP from India elected in 1892 after being defeated at the first attempt in 1886), became activists and rich circus owners, owned shops, and went about their business as white people, admittedly with the occasional abuse.

2. Firstly, stating 19th century Englanders would have adverse reactions to people of color is not an assumption; it is an historical fact. Secondly, it is highly likely Bertha was swarthy in some way; most Creoles were. So, your supposition is erroneously based on an unlikelihood.

It depends what that 'adverse reaction' was and how you define that. If you think beating was at all normal, I think you would be wrong. If you think it would be that people would not have wanted to associate themselves with her: maybe. There were those that were against mixed-race marriages, just as we have those that are against gay marriage. And there were obviously those that weren't against it, because after the abolition of slavery, the black population was amalgamated into the white population because not so many blacks came into the UK anymore.
If you presume that Victorian Englanders, as you term them, would inevitably have shown an adverse reaction, the first question that comes up is why Rochester's father would then have wanted him to marry Bertha, if she was clearly mixed race. Highly illogical. And then you will say 'He was after the money.' In that case, I think there were enough rich ladies available, particularly at that time, not to have to worry about finding one.
All Creoles are black in some way or other in the modern sense of the word. But what you are forgetting is that the term Creole was also used for descendents from black slaves maybe generations before that. Those people didn't even need to have black features even. So what are you basing your assumption on that 'she would have been swarthy in some way'. Not necessarily the case. How does the term Creole then prove that her treatment by Rochester necessarily derives from her having a tan and not maybe from just deep hatred?

3. I never said rich people were never locked up. That's your second strawman, and you really need to read my posts better. I said Rochester could not have as easily imprisoned Bertha in such a way, nor would he have been so sanguine about doing so, had she been an upper-class English white woman...and that is absolutely correct. Her people wouldn't have allowed him to do it. They may have allowed her to be institutionalized in a hospital, but they certainly wouldn't have allowed her to be imprisoned in an attic.

Oh, and where do you get the idea from that 'Rochester wouldn't have been so sanguine about doing so'? Assumption once again. Her people did lock up her brother and mother. Without mention of the conditions obviously, but conditions for mad people were being improved at the time, in some places (and I would venture to say in the colonies certainly) they were dire. Even in the more expensive places lunatics were treated badly. Not least the mention of the word 'Bedlam' in the charade scene in the novel was, to my mind, a nod towards Rochester's particular choice not to look for one of the scarce good places around. That though has nothing in particular to do with her being a Creole.
You clearly think hospitals, or asylums, were necessarily wonderful places. Think again or read up on it.

Finally, I truly suggest you stop saying "pulling the race card." That's what Tea Partyers and racists say, and I'm sure you're not one of those. If you say or write that in a college English course, you will not only not be taken seriously, people will assume you have a bias against legitimate claims of racism. And, more importantly, I didn't play a "race card" at all. Everything I said about how race factored into Bertha's treatment was accurate and well-supported, and you didn't successfully show otherwise in any way. So, it was your arguments against my claims that were actually unfounded and far-fetched.

You may suggest all you like. Thanks for your advice, I'll take the freedom to ignore it.

Everything you said about the race factor in Jane Eyre departed from the bias that Bertha's race necessarily and inevitably has something to do with her treatment by Rochester. It wasn't well-supported at all. It was supported by your particular theory that Rochester despised Bertha because she had a tan, not because he just hated her and you refuse to even acknowledge my opinion that it does not necessarily have anything to do with it. How is that not biased?

Had Bertha been white upper class and looney, he could have hated her, gone to another country where no-one knew she existed and locked her up (which is what Jane alludes to in their parting conversation). Bertha's being locked away is facilitated by only two things: by the fact that Rochester's marriage was not announced in The Times (precisely because the family was embarrassed once Rochester told them about how bad she was) and by the fact that his father and brother died. Therefore, nobody back home knew he was married, so he could lock her up without anyone noticing and consequently live as a bachelor (and potentially get another wife). Her family, I speculate, wanted to get rid of her, dangling the at the time huge sum of £30,000 in front of suitors and contacting an old friend overseas who couldn't evaluate the bride himself. They didn't have an interest in giving £30,000 away (which is on the level of a Georgina Darcy) other than merely getting rid of her because she is a burden, both financially and socially. With a brother and mother who are mentally deficient, they are trying to save their social bacon and condemn Rochester to a future of loneliness and unhappiness. And as English gentlemen, neither he nor his family will say anything about it because the embarrassment would be too great (for themselves and the Masons). They will do the honourable thing and keep their mouth shut.

And your interpretation is also an interpretation based in theory. I'm sorry you don't see that clear irony. The only difference between your interpretation and mine is yours is inaccurate and unsupported by the text, while mine is accurate and well-supported...and I proved that with far more than quotes.

I recognise historicism is also a theory. And like other academics, I typically think my approach is of course the single best one and that other ones, are either flawed or, particularly in the hands of the politically correct, rather dangerous. How funny you can't see that either. You also need to read my posts better, because I clearly said those anecdotes were 'on a side note', so they weren't my main point. But I firmly believe that racist and feminist readings have filtered down into mainstream, which means that novels like Huckleberry Finn are no longer taught in schools to teach children the basics of reading (dealing with themes, references, style features, motifs and things like this), but merely read for their racist content. It's a bit sad.

That approach of mine will be better supported by the text as I do not presume the term Creole means necessarily a black tan. Does it say anywhere that Bertha has a tan? No, so whose interpretation here is actually unsupported?

You didn't prove anything. I can't see how you did. You said stuff, that's about all you did.

[Poetaster]

That approach of mine will be better supported by the text as I do not presume the term Creole means necessarily a black tan. Does it say anywhere that Bertha has a tan? No, so whose interpretation here is actually unsupported?

Does it need to outright state Bertha had dark skin? She was born in Jamaica, and 'Creole' strongly implies she would have been considered a 'half-caste'.

Why doesn't someone put their money on the table and quote the relevant passages from the text? The full novel is freely available online.

[Pike Bishop]

1. You didn't show anything, you believed Bertha's race had 'a great deal' to do with her treatment. There is a great difference between that and 'showing'. I showed it was an assumption. Saying that you did show it, shows nothing, apart from the fact that you believe what you say, which is already obvious from the fact you said it in the first place. You have to explain to me how statements like 'Rochester couldn't have, and wouldn't have, allowed himself to treat her in such a way if she had been a White English woman' are not an assumption. This is an assumption.

2. 19th century England was far different from 19th century America. Even if we could deem both racist in general, England didn't usually mistreat people of a different colour after slavery had been abolished. Even before that under common law, beating and locking black people up was assault and false imprisonment. Precisely because slavery did not exist in England and therefore you couldn't treat black people the way they were treated in America. It is true, most blacks in the UK ended up poor and in servant jobs, BUT (big but) they were not barred from anything per se, they could not be owned (obviously not everyone believed this). Despite white people thinking at the time they were superior, aided by false interpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution or otherwise by the earlier stance that God made the world and therefore He made blacks inferior, there were black people who stood for election (first dark-skinned MP from India elected in 1892 after being defeated at the first attempt in 1886), became activists and rich circus owners, owned shops, and went about their business as white people, admittedly with the occasional abuse.

3. It depends what that 'adverse reaction' was and how you define that. If you think beating was at all normal, I think you would be wrong. If you think it would be that people would not have wanted to associate themselves with her: maybe. There were those that were against mixed-race marriages, just as we have those that are against gay marriage. And there were obviously those that weren't against it, because after the abolition of slavery, the black population was amalgamated into the white population because not so many blacks came into the UK anymore. If you presume that Victorian Englanders, as you term them, would inevitably have shown an adverse reaction, the first question that comes up is why Rochester's father would then have wanted him to marry Bertha, if she was clearly mixed race. Highly illogical. And then you will say 'He was after the money.' In that case, I think there were enough rich ladies available, particularly at that time, not to have to worry about finding one.
All Creoles are black in some way or other in the modern sense of the word. But what you are forgetting is that the term Creole was also used for descendents from black slaves maybe generations before that. Those people didn't even need to have black features even. So what are you basing your assumption on that 'she would have been swarthy in some way'. Not necessarily the case. How does the term Creole then prove that her treatment by Rochester necessarily derives from her having a tan and not maybe from just deep hatred?

4. Oh, and where do you get the idea from that 'Rochester wouldn't have been so sanguine about doing so'? Assumption once again. Her people did lock up her brother and mother. Without mention of the conditions obviously, but conditions for mad people were being improved at the time, in some places (and I would venture to say in the colonies certainly) they were dire. Even in the more expensive places lunatics were treated badly. Not least the mention of the word 'Bedlam' in the charade scene in the novel was, to my mind, a nod towards Rochester's particular choice not to look for one of the scarce good places around. That though has nothing in particular to do with her being a Creole.
You clearly think hospitals, or asylums, were necessarily wonderful places. Think again or read up on it.

5. You may suggest all you like. Thanks for your advice, I'll take the freedom to ignore it.

Everything you said about the race factor in Jane Eyre departed from the bias that Bertha's race necessarily and inevitably has something to do with her treatment by Rochester. It wasn't well-supported at all. It was supported by your particular theory that Rochester despised Bertha because she had a tan, not because he just hated her and you refuse to even acknowledge my opinion that it does not necessarily have anything to do with it. How is that not biased?

Had Bertha been white upper class and looney, he could have hated her, gone to another country where no-one knew she existed and locked her up (which is what Jane alludes to in their parting conversation). Bertha's being locked away is facilitated by only two things: by the fact that Rochester's marriage was not announced in The Times (precisely because the family was embarrassed once Rochester told them about how bad she was) and by the fact that his father and brother died. Therefore, nobody back home knew he was married, so he could lock her up without anyone noticing and consequently live as a bachelor (and potentially get another wife). Her family, I speculate, wanted to get rid of her, dangling the at the time huge sum of £30,000 in front of suitors and contacting an old friend overseas who couldn't evaluate the bride himself. They didn't have an interest in giving £30,000 away (which is on the level of a Georgina Darcy) other than merely getting rid of her because she is a burden, both financially and socially. With a brother and mother who are mentally deficient, they are trying to save their social bacon and condemn Rochester to a future of loneliness and unhappiness. And as English gentlemen, neither he nor his family will say anything about it because the embarrassment would be too great (for themselves and the Masons). They will do the honourable thing and keep their mouth shut.

6. I recognise historicism is also a theory. And like other academics, I typically think my approach is of course the single best one and that other ones, are either flawed or, particularly in the hands of the politically correct, rather dangerous. How funny you can't see that either. You also need to read my posts better, because I clearly said those anecdotes were 'on a side note', so they weren't my main point. But I firmly believe that racist and feminist readings have filtered down into mainstream, which means that novels like Huckleberry Finn are no longer taught in schools to teach children the basics of reading (dealing with themes, references, style features, motifs and things like this), but merely read for their racist content. It's a bit sad.

That approach of mine will be better supported by the text as I do not presume the term Creole means necessarily a black tan. Does it say anywhere that Bertha has a tan? No, so whose interpretation here is actually unsupported?

You didn't prove anything. I can't see how you did. You said stuff, that's about all you did.

That's funny, I thought you were going to just say something quick...

1. I showed a whole lot with arguments using syllogistic logic, historical reality, and textual evidence. It's not my fault they debunked everything you had said. So, I don't have to explain anything to you further about them, since my arguments were far more than assumptions.

2. Everything you said in that paragraph, true or false, is irrelevant to the fact 19th c. England was primarily racist, and people of color were given less consideration from its institutions than White people. So, everything I said about Rochester's treatment of Bertha being influenced by her race/color was correct. You need to read more about 19th c. England and read the novel again.

3. Nothing you said in that rambling paragraph counters my correct assertion 19th century Englanders would have adverse reactions to people of color. I never said they would have a specifically adverse reaction or that that reaction would be extreme. That's another strawman you've posted. They would, however, be generally more tolerant of poor treatment of a woman of color than they would of a White woman. So, they would have been less tolerant of Rochester's treatment of Bertha had she been white. That is historical fact; I'm sorry it vexes you.

4. Oh, I made no assumption about Rochester. I made the accurate statement an upper-class man in 19th c. England would not be so sanguine about mistreating a White woman as he would a woman of color. Firstly, he would most likely have a lower view of a woman of color. Secondly, even if he didn't, he would know his society would have a harsher view of him imprisoning a white woman in his attic as opposed to a woman of color. That, too, is historical fact, and nothing you have said has countered it. I also neither said nor implied mental hospitals were great places. Your erroneously saying I did shows you really needed to read my posts better.

5. That's too bad. It was good advice from someone with a lot of experience in the field. You, are, of course, free to proceed as recklessly as you choose.

The rest of your next two paragraphs are not very coherent, repeat what you said earlier, and/or are just wrong. I did correctly say and showed that race had something to do with Rochester's treatment of Bertha. I never said Rochester hated her for her color; so, now you've reduced yourself to actually lying...not impressive. The paragraph beginning with "Had Bertha" is particularly incoherent because of its many run-ons. The part of your "arguments" that are discernible are unsupported speculation that do not counter my actually supported arguments about Rochester and Bertha in any way.

6. Firstly, I don't believe you are an academic for one second. Nothing in your arguments shows the scholarship or education of someone with an advanced degree in literature. You help prove that in your next statement, because no academic would just say their approach is better than others without addressing the actual hermeneutic principles of those others. It's truly funny you can't see that. Also, if you were an actual academic you wouldn't dismiss race-oriented theory and post-colonialist theory because of one silly HucK Finn anecdote.

And you definitely prove you're no academic when you literally claim the definition of "creole" actually proves your theoretical approach is superior. That is truly funny.

And I never said I proved anything, nor sought to do so. True literary academics don't even try to do so. I did, however, well support all of my arguments with evidence and/or syllogistic logic. You failed to do either.

[kiki1982]

1. I showed a whole lot with arguments using syllogistic logic, historical reality, and textual evidence. It's not my fault they debunked everything you had said. So, I don't have to explain anything to you further about them, since my arguments were far more than assumptions.

That's truly funny, because particularly historical reality and textual evidence were totally lacking. Please elaborate. Everyone can arrive at a certain conclusion based on bias. Which you ironically accuse me of. But that doesn't make it more right than another conclusion, based on a different point of departure.

2. Everything you said in that paragraph, true or false, is irrelevant to the fact 19th c. England was primarily racist, and people of color were given less consideration from its institutions than White people. So, everything I said about Rochester's treatment of Bertha being influenced by her race/color was correct. You need to read more about 19th c. England and read the novel again.

Racist in a totally different way. As shown by the willingness of Rochester's father to have him marry someone with black blood (whether dark-skinned or not). If you can't see the difference between that and a decided inferior place in humankind (based primarily on the misapplication of Darwin in the second half of the 1800s), then you should read up on some history. Quite surprising.

3. Nothing you said in that rambling paragraph counters my correct assertion 19th century Englanders would have adverse reactions to people of color. I never said they would have a specifically adverse reaction or that that reaction would be extreme. That's another strawman you've posted. They would, however, be generally more tolerant of poor treatment of a woman of color than they would of a White woman. So, they would have been less tolerant of Rochester's treatment of Bertha had she been white. That is historical fact; I'm sorry it vexes you.

They would have been tolerant in most cases of bad treatment for lunatics, regardless of whether that person were white, tanned or black. I can't see how you have proven that to be true. There again you are biased towards the racist aspect of it. And that is a correct statement.
The fact that they would have found it intolerable if she had been white is irrelevant, as no-one knew of her exitenec in the first place. So no-one really cared.

4. Oh, I made no assumption about Rochester. I made the accurate statement an upper-class man in 19th c. England would not be so sanguine about mistreating a White woman as he would a woman of color. Firstly, he would most likely have a lower view of a woman of color. Secondly, even if he didn't, he would know his society would have a harsher view of him imprisoning a white woman in his attic as opposed to a woman of color. That, too, is historical fact, and nothing you have said has countered it. I also neither said nor implied mental hospitals were great places. Your erroneously saying I did shows you really needed to read my posts better.

1. Ah, he would 'naturally' have a lower view of a 'woman of color' yet he would marry her... Hmm, there seems to be a little issue there. If all Victorian upper-class Englanders as you term them were to have that view, then how is it that Rochester's father freely asked him to marry her and that Rochester himself married her without really being forced (he admits himself that he thought he loved her). You really have to explain this to me. Or are you inferring that it was only about the money? As I said, that's quite impossible. Historic fact: there were more heiresses than Creoles in Jamaica to got £30,000 from.
Conversely in the US, even if it had been possible, whites would rather have died than marry a black person.

2. Locking mad people up was briefly outlawed thanks to the Enlightenment. Thanks to Darwin and the seeming ineffectiveness of well-meant treatments, this descended into wholesale imprisonment in asylums in the second half of the 19th century until about the 1950s. At the time Jane Eyre was written though, locking up mad people was not done, as evidenced by an article in The Lancet. Whether white or black, mad people were not treated like beasts any longer if it could be helped.
It is not because people had ambivalent feelings towards black people a bit like to gay marriage nowadays, that they wouldn't have been treated roughly the same. It is not the same kind of racism as in the US, as I suspect you are biased to think about.

5. That's too bad. It was good advice from someone with a lot of experience in the field. You, are, of course, free to proceed as recklessly as you choose.

You are also free to proceed as recklessly as you like. I'll enjoy the show.

The rest of your next two paragraphs are not very coherent, repeat what you said earlier, and/or are just wrong. I did correctly say and showed that race had something to do with Rochester's treatment of Bertha. I never said Rochester hated her for her color; so, now you've reduced yourself to actually lying...not impressive.

By pulling the race card you inferred that exactly: that Rochester treated Bertha badly because she has black blood. After all you said he couldn't and wouldn't have been so sanguine about mistreating a white woman. What does that imply? You need to read your own posts better or think better, take your pick.

The paragraph beginning with "Had Bertha" is particularly incoherent because of its many run-ons. The part of your "arguments" that are discernible are unsupported speculation that do not counter by actually supported arguments about Rochester and Bertha in any way.

I knew it, too long sentences... Too bad then. Read them again. They're quite alright when you get the hang of them.
Unsupported speculation. Exactly the same as what you said about 19th century Englanders (sic.). The difference here of course is that the latter you deem to be correct and the former not, because it isn't conceived by you. Solipsistic too, I reckon. The pot calling the kettle black, eh?

6. Firstly, I don't believe you are an academic for one second. Nothing in your arguments shows the scholarship or education of someone with an advanced degree in literature. You help prove that in your next statement, because no academic would just say their approach is better than others without addressing the actual hermeneutic principles of those others. It's truly funny you can't see that. Also, if you were an actual academic you wouldn't dismiss race-oriented theory and post-colonialist theory because of one silly HucK Finn anecdote.

I probably wouldn't dismiss any of it, because I would be too busy with the latest fashionable craze, were I an academic. If I do, it is because I feel that it adds little to no understanding to a novel. I can't see why that makes you so angry...

I don't believe you have a lot of experience either. You think you have. That's all.
Using clever words is not making an impression. At least not on me, I can assure you.

And you definitely prove you're no academic when you literally claim the definition of "creole" actually proves your theoretical approach is superior.

I never said in that respect my approach was superior, I said there was no proof of the fact that she was black through the word Creole, so that therefore you interpretation was unsupported. That's very different to what you erroneously claimed was my stance.

I did, however, well support all of my arguments with evidence and/or syllogistic logic. You failed to do either.

The evidence must have got lost in the server in that case. There was no evidence apart from assumptions. 'All Englanders (sic.) in the 19th century were racist, therefore Rochester treated Bertha badly. Had Bertha been a white woman, he wouldn't have mistreated her.' How was that supported by evidence? Logic maybe. Your logic that is.

[Pike Bishop]

1. That's truly funny, because particularly historical reality and textual evidence were totally lacking. Please elaborate. Everyone can arrive at a certain conclusion based on bias. Which you ironically accuse me of. But that doesn't make it more right than another conclusion, based on a different point of departure.

2. Racist in a totally different way. As shown by the willingness of Rochester's father to have him marry someone with black blood (whether dark-skinned or not). If you can't see the difference between that and a decided inferior place in humankind (based primarily on the misapplication of Darwin in the second half of the 1800s), then you should read up on some history. Quite surprising.

3.They would have been tolerant in most cases of bad treatment for lunatics, regardless of whether that person were white, tanned or black. I can't see how you have proven that to be true. There again you are biased towards the racist aspect of it. And that is a correct statement. The fact that they would have found it intolerable if she had been white is irrelevant, as no-one knew of her exitenec in the first place. So no-one really cared.

4. Ah, he would 'naturally' have a lower view of a 'woman of color' yet he would marry her... Hmm, there seems to be a little issue there. If all Victorian upper-class Englanders as you term them were to have that view, then how is it that Rochester's father freely asked him to marry her and that Rochester himself married her without really being forced (he admits himself that he thought he loved her). You really have to explain this to me. Or are you inferring that it was only about the money? As I said, that's quite impossible. Historic fact: there were more heiresses than Creoles in Jamaica to got £30,000 from. Conversely in the US, even if it had been possible, whites would rather have died than marry a black person.

5. Locking mad people up was briefly outlawed thanks to the Enlightenment. Thanks to Darwin and the seeming ineffectiveness of well-meant treatments, this descended into wholesale imprisonment in asylums in the second half of the 19th century until about the 1950s. At the time Jane Eyre was written though, locking up mad people was not done, as evidenced by an article in The Lancet. Whether white or black, mad people were not treated like beasts any longer if it could be helped. It is not because people had ambivalent feelings towards black people a bit like to gay marriage nowadays, that they wouldn't have been treated roughly the same. It is not the same kind of racism as in the US, as I suspect you are biased to think about.

6.By pulling the race card you inferred that exactly: that Rochester treated Bertha badly because she has black blood. After all you said he couldn't and wouldn't have been so sanguine about mistreating a white woman. What does that imply? You need to read your own posts better or think better, take your pick.

7.I knew it, too long sentences... Too bad then. Read them again. They're quite alright when you get the hang of them.
Unsupported speculation. Exactly the same as what you said about 19th century Englanders (sic.). The difference here of course is that the latter you deem to be correct and the former not, because it isn't conceived by you. Solipsistic too, I reckon. The pot calling the kettle black, eh?

8. I probably wouldn't dismiss any of it, because I would be too busy with the latest fashionable craze, were I an academic. If I do, it is because I feel that it adds little to no understanding to a novel. I can't see why that makes you so angry...I don't believe you have a lot of experience either. You think you have. That's all.
Using clever words is not making an impression. At least not on me, I can assure you. I never said in that respect my approach was superior, I said there was no proof of the fact that she was black through the word Creole, so that therefore you interpretation was unsupported. That's very different to what you erroneously claimed was my stance.

9.The evidence must have got lost in the server in that case. There was no evidence apart from assumptions. 'All Englanders (sic.) in the 19th century were racist, therefore Rochester treated Bertha badly. Had Bertha been a white woman, he wouldn't have mistreated her.' How was that supported by evidence? Logic maybe. Your logic that is.

1. No, you are truly funny. I gave many passages with sound arguments backed by historical reality and textual evidence. You are just unable to counter them, so you just childishly chant "no you didn't" without adequately addressing my arguments at all. Here's such a passage to refresh your memory:

"As to, Jane Eyre, as I said before, you need to read the novel again. Bertha's Creole racial standing, as well as her original Jamaican cultural environment, were huge factors in her descent into insanity and Rochester's treatment of her...and nobody claimed it was just an issue of her "Black" genes. Firstly, she was taken out of the country and culture she loved, where she was greatly admired and loved, to a foreign country where nobody loved her and nobody admired her because of her color...19th c. England was racist. So, while she did have a proclivity for mental illness, that change in environment certainly exacerbated it. Secondly, if Bertha had been an upper-class white woman, he could not so easily have imprisoned Bertha in such a way, nor would his 19th c. English mindset have allowed him to so easily do so. So, race was a factor in, and a vital element of, Jane Eyre."

2. I never said the English racists weren't different in a different way. Again, that's a another strawman showing you barely read my posts at all. I correctly said the 19th c. English were generally racist, and I showed how that was a factor in the novel. And many of them did consider Blacks inferior. If you can't see that truth, then you need to re-read the novel and read more 19th c. English history. That's not surprising at all.

3. Just because you have a prejudiced bias against race-oriented criticism doesn't mean I have a race bias, and I don't. That's a correct statement. Another correct statement, is, I never claimed to prove anything--again, your reading--I correctly claimed I showed that people in 19th c. England would not be as sanguine about a White woman locked in the attic as a black woman. That, too is historical fact. So, your ranting about lunatics in asylums is as irrelevant as most of your other points.

4. People marry people of whom they have lower views every day. So, you need to read up on marriage, as well as Jane Eyre and 19th. c. England. So, your irrelevant point in no way changes the textual and historical facts that Rochester did think less of Bertha because of her color.

5. Your ramble about the Enlightenment, asylums, and Darwin is irrelevant to, and fails to counter, any of my arguments. My arguments addressed Rochester's locking Bertha in the attic; no asylum was involved. Try to stay focused.

6. I played no "race card;" I made sound; well-supported arguments about racial aspects in the text. The fact you can't grasp that says you don't understand what "the race card" means or what literary criticism is. Of course, I already knew that.

7. Your run-on sentences weren't "too long," they were incoherent because they were run-on's. I am truly sorry you don't know the difference between grammatically correct long sentences and grammatically incorrect run-on's. I can promise you one thing, your readers sure know the difference. And, unlike you, I provided supporting evidence for all of my arguments. Just as I learned to avoid run-ons, I--unlike you--learned to support my arguments long ago.

8. Firstly, thanks for admitting you were lying about being an academic. Of course, that was already abundantly clear. And I assure you, nothing you have written has made me angry at all. In fact you have provided me a great degree of jocularity. And you can believe anything you like about my experience with literature and literary criticism. That doesn't change the fact I know I have significant knowledge in the area...and you know you don't. And you absolutely implied the Creole definition made your historicist approach the superior one. It's right there in your previous post. Apparently, you need to read your own posts better as well.

9. Finally, now you are just lying. As I showed in answer #1 in this post, and in many arguments in my other posts, I gave much more support than your dishonest misrepresentation of my arguments claim. Anyone reading this post and my previous posts can see that to be true. So, your deceit just looks foolish. And that's only one of the many reasons you and I are done. You have misread and misrepresented my valid arguments, you have failed to support any of your arguments you have continually repeated, and you have actually even lied about being an academic. So, I have no reason to converse with you further, and I am putting you on my ignore list.


Good luck with your future endeavors.

[kiki1982]

"Good luck with your future endeavors". It's music to my ears.

Defeat is sweet. Mind you, I had a lot more. I never knew it would be that easy.

[kiki1982]

Does it need to outright state Bertha had dark skin? She was born in Jamaica, and 'Creole' strongly implies she would have been considered a 'half-caste'.

Why doesn't someone put their money on the table and quote the relevant passages from the text? The full novel is freely available online.

Actually it turned out her mother was a Creole, not even Bertha herself. As I said the definition of Creole was a very broad one, I think I read somewhere long ago that it even included people just born overseas in the colonies, irrespective of whether they were mixed in any way or not. For those who are doing racist interpretations of the novel, I'd think it is important for the novel to clearly mention that she was tanned. Otherwise the whole thing falls a bit flat on its face for lack of conclusive evidence that the racial factor is not wishful thinking, but real. To me at least.

That about the quoting, that's what I thought, but he didn't. I tell you why in a PM.

[mona amon]

Does it need to outright state Bertha had dark skin? She was born in Jamaica, and 'Creole' strongly implies she would have been considered a 'half-caste'.

Why doesn't someone put their money on the table and quote the relevant passages from the text? The full novel is freely available online.

I don't think the skin colour itself is an issue in Bertha's case. By the time we meet her she's purple , but when Rochester first sees her -

My father said nothing about her money; but he told me Miss Mason was the boast of Spanish Town for her beauty: and this was no lie. I found her a fine woman, in the style of Blanche Ingram: tall, dark, and majestic. Her family wished to secure me because I was of a good race; and so did she.

Whatever the meaning of 'dark' here, I doubt if it carried any racial imputation. Both Blanche Ingram and Bertha are considered by everyone to be suitable marriage material for an Englishman 'of good race'. Bertha's mixed race did not show in her face and was therefore not outwardly important. However, there's no getting away from Charlotte's unconsciously and casually racist (and often xenophobic) attitudes which get revealed in the text.

“My bride’s mother I had never seen: I understood she was dead. The honeymoon over, I learned my mistake; she was only mad, and shut up in a lunatic asylum. There was a younger brother, too—a complete dumb idiot. The elder one, whom you have seen (and whom I cannot hate, whilst I abhor all his kindred, because he has some grains of affection in his feeble mind, shown in the continued interest he takes in his wretched sister, and also in a dog-like attachment he once bore me), will probably be in the same state one day.

Bertha Mason, the true daughter of an infamous mother, dragged me through all the hideous and degrading agonies which must attend a man bound to a wife at once intemperate and unchaste.

Everything that is said about Bertha implies a faulty genetic inheritance from her mother, 'the Creole'. From her she gets her alcoholism, her excessive sexual appetite, her insanity. There is really no point in making the mother a 'Creole' unless she was unconsciously linking her race with the other vices which she ascribes to her.

This attitude can be found again a few paragraphs later -

“One night I had been awakened by her yells—(since the medical men had pronounced her mad, she had, of course, been shut up)—it was a fiery West Indian night; one of the description that frequently precede the hurricanes of those climates. Being unable to sleep in bed, I got up and opened the window. The air was like sulphur-steams—I could find no refreshment anywhere. Mosquitoes came buzzing in and hummed sullenly round the room; the sea, which I could hear from thence, rumbled dull like an earthquake—black clouds were casting up over it; the moon was setting in the waves, broad and red, like a hot cannon-ball—she threw her last bloody glance over a world quivering with the ferment of tempest. I was physically influenced by the atmosphere and scene, and my ears were filled with the curses the maniac still shrieked out; wherein she momentarily mingled my name with such a tone of demon-hate, with such language!—no professed harlot ever had a fouler vocabulary than she: though two rooms off, I heard every word—the thin partitions of the West India house opposing but slight obstruction to her wolfish cries.

“‘This life,’ said I at last, ‘is hell: this is the air—those are the sounds of the bottomless pit! I have a right to deliver myself from it if I can. The sufferings of this mortal state will leave me with the heavy flesh that now cumbers my soul. Of the fanatic’s burning eternity I have no fear: there is not a future state worse than this present one—let me break away, and go home to God!’

“I said this whilst I knelt down at, and unlocked a trunk which contained a brace of loaded pistols: I mean to shoot myself. I only entertained the intention for a moment; for, not being insane, the crisis of exquisite and unalloyed despair, which had originated the wish and design of self-destruction, was past in a second.

“A wind fresh from Europe blew over the ocean and rushed through the open casement: the storm broke, streamed, thundered, blazed, and the air grew pure.

The West Indies - sulphur steam, bloody, mosquitoes, screams - a hellish atmosphere which is cleansed and refreshed by a fresh wind blowing from Europe.

Rochester may not have despised Bertha because of her race, but it seems like Charlotte did.

EDIT: All the Jane Eyre Quotes are from Chapter 27.

[Poetaster]

I don't think the skin colour itself is an issue in Bertha's case. By the time we meet her she's purple , but when Rochester first sees her -



Whatever the meaning of 'dark' here, I doubt if it carried any racial imputation. Both Blanche Ingram and Bertha are considered by everyone to be suitable marriage material for an Englishman 'of good race'. Bertha's mixed race did not show in her face and was therefore not outwardly important. However, there's no getting away from Charlotte's unconsciously and casually racist (and often xenophobic) attitudes which get revealed in the text.




Everything that is said about Bertha implies a faulty genetic inheritance from her mother, 'the Creole'. From her she gets her alcoholism, her excessive sexual appetite, her insanity. There is really no point in making the mother a 'Creole' unless she was unconsciously linking her race with the other vices which she ascribes to her.

This attitude can be found again a few paragraphs later -



The West Indies - sulphur steam, bloody, mosquitoes, screams - a hellish atmosphere which is cleansed and refreshed by a fresh wind blowing from Europe.

EDIT: All the Jane Eyre Quotes are from Chapter 27.

Mona amon, you are a star. I kept thinking that if Bertha was from a wealthy background, in Rochester's society, wouldn't that imply she was white? Simply because even on the colonies, people of mixed races or dark pigmentation would not be so formally presented to someone new, like Rochester, as a matter of racial respectability in those days?

[mona amon]

Thanks, Poetaster!

[Pike Bishop]

1. I don't think the skin colour itself is an issue in Bertha's case. By the time we meet her she's purple , but when Rochester first sees her -

2. Whatever the meaning of 'dark' here, I doubt if it carried any racial imputation. Both Blanche Ingram and Bertha are considered by everyone to be suitable marriage material for an Englishman 'of good race'. Bertha's mixed race did not show in her face and was therefore not outwardly important. However, there's no getting away from Charlotte's unconsciously and casually racist (and often xenophobic) attitudes which get revealed in the text.

3. The West Indies - sulphur steam, bloody, mosquitoes, screams - a hellish atmosphere which is cleansed and refreshed by a fresh wind blowing from Europe.

Rochester may not have despised Bertha because of her race, but it seems like Charlotte did.

1. This is just friendly advice. If you want your arguments about serious issues in literature to be taken seriously, try to avoid being glib about them. And, racial treatment was never a literal reaction to one's literal pigment. That's why, in 19th c. England and America, White people who were proven to have Black "blood" in them were immediately treated as people of color, despite no actual change in pigment. So, it wasn't just a case of her skin tone; it was a case of what it might have signified.

2. Again, saying "I doubt" something isn't actually an argument. It doesn't support your argument in any way. As I showed in my earlier posts, Creoles of darker pigment weren't considered suitable material for Englishmen of "good race" by everyone in England. There were many who frowned upon such marriages. Whether or not the color showed in Bertha's face, people in England would have looked at Rochester's treatment of her if they knew she was "tainted" by Black blood. To deny that is to deny historical reality.

3. I'm not disputing the probability Bronte had racial prejudices; she most likely did. However, those prejudicial views of Bertha's Creole lineage, birthplace, language, and culture were Rochester's, not Bronte's...you can't automatically blame an author for his or her's character's views. So, it's very clear Rochester judged Bertha differently because of her race--although he didn't "despise" her for it--and amended his less-than-humane treatment of her because of that judgment.