Merits of Distance Reading?

[Bartlebooth]

In one of my classes, our professor had us analyze Middlemarch using a technique called distant reading. We constructed models of different aspects of the novel and used these models as the basis for our class discussions. I appreciated the approach as a way of looking at literary works through a new lens, but an article in the New York Times seems to imply that the pioneers of distant reading want their models to replace other critical approaches like close readings of the text. Does anyone here agree with the idea that distant reading should be the dominant approach to literary criticism? As a first-year student at my university, I really have no idea how popular this approach is or how often it is used in academic writing on literature.

[Pike Bishop]

I really have no idea what you mean by distance reading. Can you give an example of a distant reading of part of the text? Also, what do you mean by "constructed models of different aspects of the novel"? Could you elaborate on that as well? Finally, I don't see any new fad/mode of reading coming along and revolutionizing the way we read or teach our students to read. That being said, while one can read a novel closely, one can't really give it the same kind of close reading one gives a poem. They're just too long; so, even close reading isn't the ultimately accepted way to closely read a novel.

[Bartlebooth]

One example of a distant reading approach was how we looked at the Act V in Macbeth. We made a diagram with characters as the different nodes and placed lines between characters who spoke to each other. Using that diagram, we found out that Macbeth's conversations in Act V seemed to consist of separate interactions with various servants or enemies, creating a sort of hub-and-spoke visual in our diagram. On the other hand, the characters in the army that defeats Macbeth are more closely interconnected, creating more of a web-like pattern. Another approach to Macbeth involved looking at where the word "bloody" appeared and in what context. Additionally, we made a graph charting the frequency of bloody over each act of the play. And if you're interested in seeing the article I referred to in my first post, the title is "What is Distant Reading?" For some reason, the site isn't allowing me to directly link to the article.

[Pike Bishop]

I'm sure your professor is a smart guy, or woman, and I don't want to take away from his attempts to be innovative. However, I can't say I like it, nor would I ever do this with my own students. The problem with this "approach" is it avoids doing the most important thing in understanding the text, reading the language...particularly with a writer with language as exquisite as Shakespeare. I think the modeling and analysis you are doing could help supplement and enrich the reading of the text, but it could never replace it. Anyway, I hope it was fulfilling and enjoyable for you.

[kiki1982]

All literary theory is like Bach numbers: it provides no additional understanding because it applies a pre-conceived thought deemed to be 'the truth' to a text, which is then 'proven' through quotes. It either states the obvious or otherwise claims something so outlandish that even if it can be 'proven' with quotes, it is still untrue. The misogynist nature of Hardy, for example, purely because his plots are miserable is so outlandish that the average clued up person would start laughing very hard.

Maybe some of this modelling would give you some interesting patterns in addition to close reading (to help you interpret), but I fail to see how it could give you more understanding of any work. Also, computer models are still written by people, so therefore the criteria the model uses to analyse are still pre-defined by people, so therefore the outcome of any analysis is still going to be pre-defined, again, by people. OK, maybe you could identify the hero of Vanity Fair, despite its author saying it didn't have a hero, but then how does that give you more understanding of the novel in the first place? It's all very interesting and fun, but what's the use of knowing who the real hero of VF is exactly? Or how does the status of a book being either Gothic or Victorian affect its understanding? Irish or American, or both?
I can't imagine that discounting the content of any contact would i any way improve your understanding. Let's say an author were to write a book about a married couple where the man was leading a double life, but the man would have more conversations with his wife than with anyone else, what would the model conclude? Come to think of it: what conclusion does the model draw from Pride and Prejudice?

[YesNo]

All literary theory is like Bach numbers: it provides no additional understanding because it applies a pre-conceived thought deemed to be 'the truth' to a text, which is then 'proven' through quotes. It either states the obvious or otherwise claims something so outlandish that even if it can be 'proven' with quotes, it is still untrue.

That is how I see most theories being used. They are not set out as falsifiable statements, but as doctrines to be believed.

I had not heard of "distant reading" before but this link connects it with "close reading": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_reading

[Bartlebooth]

Maybe some of this modelling would give you some interesting patterns in addition to close reading (to help you interpret), but I fail to see how it could give you more understanding of any work. Also, computer models are still written by people, so therefore the criteria the model uses to analyse are still pre-defined by people, so therefore the outcome of any analysis is still going to be pre-defined, again, by people. OK, maybe you could identify the hero of Vanity Fair, despite its author saying it didn't have a hero, but then how does that give you more understanding of the novel in the first place? It's all very interesting and fun, but what's the use of knowing who the real hero of VF is exactly? Or how does the status of a book being either Gothic or Victorian affect its understanding? Irish or American, or both?
I can't imagine that discounting the content of any contact would i any way improve your understanding. Let's say an author were to write a book about a married couple where the man was leading a double life, but the man would have more conversations with his wife than with anyone else, what would the model conclude? Come to think of it: what conclusion does the model draw from Pride and Prejudice?

I definitely agree that distant reading could never replace other forms like close reading, but I do think that it could be a valuable supplementary method. In the example you're giving, I can imagine that there could be some use in knowing that the man spends more time talking with his wife than anyone else. Suppose the book was so crowded with other conversations that it was difficult to know who spent more time with whom. I think that knowing who characters interact with more could be useful to know. Maybe this would be harder to model in a novel, but it might be more useful in something like a play or film.

[Pike Bishop]

All literary theory is like Bach numbers: it provides no additional understanding because it applies a pre-conceived thought deemed to be 'the truth' to a text, which is then 'proven' through quotes. It either states the obvious or otherwise claims something so outlandish that even if it can be 'proven' with quotes, it is still untrue. The misogynist nature of Hardy, for example, purely because his plots are miserable is so outlandish that the average clued up person would start laughing very hard.

First of all, your statement is, itself, one of literary theory since you assert a theoretical stance on understanding literature. So, your statement is effectively self-negating. Secondly, there is no way of understanding art in any discursive or comprehensive way without some informed "theory." Otherwise, any random observation--like "dogs are nice, therefore pictures of dogs playing cards is the highest art"--could be true, and there could be no effective discussions about art since no statement could be more legitimate or effective than the other.

Also, critical theory/aesthetic criticism does not claim to be "true;" no non-scientific aesthetic or philosophical statement can be fully true. It attempts to elucidate comprehension of and/or evaluate an art medium or art form. As to all critical theory statements being outlandish, that is entirely inaccurate and unsupported in any way and shows a lack of understanding of such substantial modern theorists as: Barthes, Derrida, Moi, Morrison, Kristeva, Butler, and Zizek. If you could make an actual criticism of one of these--or other--modern literary theorists, I would love to read it.

Finally, literary theory is a long tradition, including excellent works by brilliant authors, works I doubt you would consider "outlandish." Here are some.

Aristotle's Poetics
On the Beautiful and the Sublime by Immanuel Kant
The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche
"On the Sublime and Beautiful" by Edmund Burke
Biographica Literaria by Samuel Coleridge
Poetry, Language, and Thought by Martin Heidegger
Essays in Criticism by Matthew Arnold
The Dialogic Imagination by Mikhail Bakhtin...and many more

So, by mistakenly dismissing theory, you're not only dismissing brilliant, useful works of modern theory/theoretical criticism, you are dismissing a long, rich tradition of theoretical criticism. Anyway, I'm looking forward to some of your criticisms of some theorists; I'm sure they will be interesting.

[YesNo]

I definitely agree that distant reading could never replace other forms like close reading, but I do think that it could be a valuable supplementary method. In the example you're giving, I can imagine that there could be some use in knowing that the man spends more time talking with his wife than anyone else. Suppose the book was so crowded with other conversations that it was difficult to know who spent more time with whom. I think that knowing who characters interact with more could be useful to know. Maybe this would be harder to model in a novel, but it might be more useful in something like a play or film.

I am no expert in this, but in looking more carefully at "distant reading" (in particular this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/books/review/the-mechanic-muse-what-is-distant-reading.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), I suspect that distant reading and close reading are the same technique from different perspectives which have been used by commentators on religious texts for some time.

For example, the close reader will select a few verses from Genesis and write a commentary or sermon that is supplemented with "distant" data about the entire book. The close part focuses on the few verses. The distant part focuses on data about the language used or how this section fits into the general flow of the text or how the few verses support a larger theological perspective.

As someone who enjoys reading different sacred texts, I look for a believer, a close/distant reader who can comment of that text to guide me through it. For example, I did not understand the Bhagavad Gita until I read Eknath Easwaran's three volume commentary on it. Nor did I understand Genesis until I read Kent Hughes' commentary. In both cases Easwaran and Hughes were believers (the "distant" part) who commented on short passages (the "close" part) and that is what I was looking for.

[Bartlebooth]

As someone who enjoys reading different sacred texts, I look for a believer, a close/distant reader who can comment of that text to guide me through it. For example, I did not understand the Bhagavad Gita until I read Eknath Easwaran's three volume commentary on it. Nor did I understand Genesis until I read Kent Hughes' commentary. In both cases Easwaran and Hughes were believers (the "distant" part) who commented on short passages (the "close" part) and that is what I was looking for.

That certainly seems like a valuable use of the technique. But how does being a believer fulfill the "distant" aspect of reading a religious text? Do you mean that a believer would have a more comprehensive understanding of the work's religious context and would be able to apply the findings of closer readings to the text as a whole through this knowledge?

[YesNo]

Yes, and a believer has more commitment to bring to the short text. Just like the person who enjoyed, say, Pride and Prejudice has more commitment to that text than one who did not enjoy it.

I hope the believers would also use any computer generated data to help them just as the distant readers of literary texts would do. The religious belief compares to the literary theory the distant readers use to guide them in interpreting whatever data is available.

[Pike Bishop]

Yes, and a believer has more commitment to bring to the short text. Just like the person who enjoyed, say, Pride and Prejudice has more commitment to that text.

I disagree. Some of the best and most renowned biblical readers/scholars are non-believers. Some of the most renowned scholars of Buddhist and Hindu texts are also non-believers. Excellent close reading demands just that: the close reading of the text. While some believers can bring their valuable perspective of the believer to sacred texts, many others cannot keep their belief from prejudicing their readings. That's why the more objective readings of non-believer can be particularly valuable. Either way, all close readers still need some knowledge of the cultural and historical background of the sacred text to make those close readings complete.

[YesNo]

I partially agree. I agree that all close readers need that distant reading knowledge of the cultural and historical background of the text.

However, I don't trust non-believers. I want to understand why someone values this text. I am not interested in a polemic against the religious or literary belief. This is not to say that anything that a believer says is better than what a non-believer has to say.

You mentioned, "Some of the best and most renowned biblical readers/scholars are non-believers." What are some examples?

[Bartlebooth]

However, I don't trust non-believers. I want to understand why someone values this text. I am not interested in a polemic against the religious or literary belief. This is not to say that anything that a believer says is better than what a non-believer has to say.

But couldn't non-believers also value the text? They might not necessary follow its religion, but they could certainly appreciate its intellectual and aesthetic value.

Also, if anyone is interested, here (http://thepointmag.com/2014/reviews_type/distant-reading) is another article which goes into more detail about how distant reading addresses texts.

[Pike Bishop]

I partially agree. I agree that all close readers need that distant reading knowledge of the cultural and historical background of the text.

However, I don't trust non-believers. I want to understand why someone values this text. I am not interested in a polemic against the religious or literary belief. This is not to say that anything that a believer says is better than what a non-believer has to say.

You mentioned, "Some of the best and most renowned biblical readers/scholars are non-believers." What are some examples?

Your not trusting non-believers to well read religious texts is like non-believers not believing religious people can comprehend secular atheist texts by authors like Freud, Marx, Camus, Sartre, Derrida, and McCarthy. It mistakenly presumes belief in a particular ideological element of a text is required for understanding, and it's not. As Bartelbooth mentioned, one doesn't have to accept that ideology to appreciate and understand the text's aesthetic, intellectual, and philosophical value. Also, your presumption that non-believers would all make polemics against the religious text is also incorrect. Many, if not most, non-believing serious readers of religious texts are as respectful of those texts they read as they are of non-religious texts, as they legitimately value those texts as much. I, myself, am a atheist, non-believer literary scholar who has greatly valued the religious texts I have read. Some of them have been:

The Bible
St. Anselm's Basic Writings
St. Augustine's Confessions
Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica
Martin Buber's I and Thou
Soren Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death
The novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky...and many more

As to outstanding scholars of religious texts in which they didn't believe:

John Hillis Miller
Harold Bloom
Jacques Derrida
Martin Buber
Friedrich Nietzsche
Arthur Schopenhauer
GWF Hegel
Sigmund Freud
John D. Caputo
Thomas Aquinas
Mark C. Taylor and many more.

[YesNo]

The article by Scott Esposito that you linked to, Bartlebooth, makes me see parallels between the use of textual data analysis in traditional texts to analysis of any text that a human being types into a computer. In that broader case, one is looking to solve more pragmatic problems like who is likely to be the next terrorist or what stock should one buy/short or when will the market crash.

This data is something that both a believer or non-believer can take advantage of. I expect the believer to incorporate that data into their analysis and I am aware that not all believers provide value when reading their own texts.

From my perspective, suppose I make a time and attention commitment to read the text, say, a Hindu spiritual text. I have limited time. I know I won't understand the text at face value, but do I really want a Christian perspective on that text? Do I really want an atheistic perspective on that text? Sure, they might provide value, but I have limited time.

[Pike Bishop]

From my perspective, suppose I make a time and attention commitment to read the text, say, a Hindu spiritual text. I have limited time. I know I won't understand the text at face value, but do I really want a Christian perspective on that text? Do I really want an atheistic perspective on that text? Sure, they might provide value, but I have limited time.
You should want those perspectives if you want a greater, more comprehensive understanding of the text. Your question is the equivalent of someone asking do I want a woman's perspective of a male-written text, a German perspective on an Irish-written text, or an African American view of a text by a white author? It mistakenly assumes the only person who can give valid commentary on a text is one who shared the author's experiences. History and many successful textual commentaries by readers of different experiences have shown otherwise. Full literary understanding of religious or secular texts demands viewpoints of multiple experiences and even multiple ideologies. So, we should value quality readings and commentaries by readers of the whole spectrum of experiences.

[YesNo]

Your not trusting non-believers to well read religious texts is like non-believers not believing religious people can comprehend secular atheist texts by authors like Freud, Marx, Camus, Sartre, Derrida, and McCarthy.

Exactly!


It mistakenly presumes belief in a particular ideological element of a text is required for understanding, and it's not.

A particular belief is not required for understanding. The belief, whatever it is, is a conceptual box or bias that I want to know upfront so I can more quickly make a decision to move on to another author.


As Bartelbooth mentioned, one doesn't have to accept that ideology to appreciate and understand the text's aesthetic, intellectual, and philosophical value. Also, your presumption that non-believers would all make polemics against the religious text is also incorrect.

They aren't all going to make polemics, but they will all stand by their beliefs which do not agree with what is in that text. Since I have chosen to read a particular religious text, I want someone from that religion to guide me through the text.


Many, if not most, non-believing serious readers of religious texts are as respectful of those texts they read as they are of non-religious texts, as they legitimately value those texts as much.

I would trust an atheist even less than a Christian with a Hindu text.

[Pike Bishop]

Exactly!

A particular belief is not required for understanding. The belief, whatever it is, is a conceptual box or bias that I want to know upfront so I can more quickly make a decision to move on to another author.

They aren't all going to make polemics, but they will all stand by their beliefs which do not agree with what is in that text. Since I have chosen to read a particular religious text, I want someone from that religion to guide me through the text.

I would trust an atheist even less than a Christian with a Hindu text.

I'm glad you say "exactly" to my comparison. However, that doesn't change the fact that either stance in my comparison would be fallacious and not supported by evidence. Secondly no belief is inherently a "conceptual box or bias.' Intelligent, open-minded people do not let their beliefs become so; so, intelligent, open-minded readers would not let their beliefs effectively bias their readings of texts of different ideologies.

And no, not all readers stand by their beliefs when reading religious texts. Intelligent, thoughtful readers will read the texts as they are, without the need to actually counter them with their own ideologies. Your mistake is you think believing a religious text is a requirement of reading it well, and it is not. One can read Marx well without being a Marxist, one can read Derrida well without being a Deconstructionist, and one can read religious texts well without adhering to the text's religion.

And you can trust whomever you like to read a text, that doesn't make that person an inherently better reader for that text. And an Atheist is just as likely to be ideologically biased when reading a Hindu text as a Christian reader. While a Christian reader may have a shared theistic sympathy for a text by a different religion, and atheist readier could easily reject all religious texts, including Hindu ones.

[YesNo]

I'm glad you say "exactly" to my comparison. However, that doesn't change the fact that either stance in my comparison would be fallacious and not supported by evidence. Secondly no belief is inherently a "conceptual box or bias.' Intelligent, open-minded people do not let their beliefs become so; so, intelligent, open-minded readers would not let their beliefs effectively bias their readings of texts of different ideologies.

I suspect that is wishful thinking. The problem is that most people (if not all of us) are not all that conscious of what they (we) believe. I don't see any way that bias can be avoided.



And no, not all readers stand by their beliefs when reading religious texts. Intelligent, thoughtful readers will read the texts as they are, without the need to actually counter them with their own ideologies. Your mistake is you think believing a religious text is a requirement of reading it well, and it is not. One can read Marx well without being a Marxist, one can read Derrida well without being a Deconstructionist, and one can read religious texts well without adhering to the text's religion.

I don't think that one must believe a religious text to read it well. Given limited time, I prefer reading the commentary of a believer to a commentary written by a non-believer of that text.



And you can trust whomever you like to read a text, that doesn't make that person an inherently better reader for that text. And an Atheist is just as likely to be ideologically biased when reading a Hindu text as a Christian reader. While a Christian reader may have a shared theistic sympathy for a text by a different religion, and atheist readier could easily reject all religious texts, including Hindu ones.

I think I agree with that. That is why I would trust the Christian over the atheist with the Hindu text, but I would prefer to hear what the Hindu has to say.

With regard to close and distant readings, I suspect the current view of "distant" is to use computer textual analysis of all available texts from the period to see what information can be obtained from that. I think that is worthwhile to do since a computer can do that better than a human being. The human being can add the belief portion which is a kind of "distance" from the specific "close" verses in the text and is something a computer cannot do.

[Pike Bishop]

I suspect that is wishful thinking. The problem is that most people (if not all of us) are not all that conscious of what they (we) believe. I don't see any way that bias can be avoided.

I don't think that one must believe a religious text to read it well. Given limited time, I prefer reading the commentary of a believer to a commentary written by a non-believer of that text.

I think I agree with that. That is why I would trust the Christian over the atheist with the Hindu text, but I would prefer to hear what the Hindu has to say.


No, it's not wishful thinking, it's reality. While all of us are subconsciously affected by our inner biases, we are able to effectively manage and/or circumvent them when reading/analyzing/critiquing texts. You also forget that readers of a certain religion bring the bias of their own personal interpretation of that religion. That personal bias can shape the their readings to fit their own anecdotal experiences; distort the religion; or even present a heretical, sharply errant view of it. So, you're just as likely to get an inaccurate reading from a reader of the religion's text--albeit a different type of inaccurate reading--as you are from a reader outside that religion.

As to your personal preference, that's your prerogative, and you can choose whatever reader you prefer. However, as to the Christian/Atheist readers of Hindu texts quandary, the flip side is unconscientious readers of a different religion than Hinduism could be hostile to texts of that "competing" religion, while conscientious atheist ones would give all religions--outside the explicitly heinous ones--equally conscientious readings of their texts.

[YesNo]

No, it's not wishful thinking, it's reality. While all of us are subconsciously affected by our inner biases, we are able to effectively manage and/or circumvent them when reading/analyzing/critiquing texts.

I can tell from my own experience that I am not able to circumvent my biases especially when I am unaware of them. I assume others aren't any better at this than I am.


You also forget that readers of a certain religion bring the bias of their own personal interpretation of that religion. That personal bias can shape the their readings to fit their own anecdotal experiences; distort the religion; or even present a heretical, sharply errant view of it. So, you're just as likely to get an inaccurate reading from a reader of the religion's text--albeit a different type of inaccurate reading--as you are from a reader outside that religion.

That is exactly what I want to experience when I read the commentary of a believer. I want to see their biases, their heresies, their errant views and, because of all that, their insights from within their religious tradition.



As to your personal preference, that's your prerogative, and you can choose whatever reader you prefer. However, as to the Christian/Atheist readers of Hindu texts quandary, the flip side is unconscientious readers of a different religion than Hinduism could be hostile to texts of that "competing" religion, while conscientious atheist ones would give all religions--outside the explicitly heinous ones--equally conscientious readings of their texts.

I don't think atheists are any more "conscientious" than anyone else. This is not to say that an atheistic perspective might not provide value. It is not my first choice.

Similarly for atheistic mythologies such as the unconscious selfish gene, many worlds or artificial intelligence, I would want to focus on the atheists' verbalization of these concepts and if I wanted to discredit those mythologies, I would want to cite atheistic sources.

To tie this all back to "distant" and "close" readings of texts, I think they are two facets of the same thing. A close reading focuses on short phrases. A distant reading includes more information than is present in that passage, in particular computer based analysis of related texts.

What surprises me about distant reading is that this is considered a new thing. I assumed it was being done. What is going to be a challenge is to program the computer to generate interesting information based on these texts that one does not already know.

[Pike Bishop]

I can tell from my own experience that I am not able to circumvent my biases especially when I am unaware of them. I assume others aren't any better at this than I am.

That is exactly what I want to experience when I read the commentary of a believer. I want to see their biases, their heresies, their errant views and, because of all that, their insights from within their religious tradition.

I don't think atheists are any more "conscientious" than anyone else. This is not to say that an atheistic perspective might not provide value. It is not my first choice.

Similarly for atheistic mythologies such as the unconscious selfish gene, many worlds or artificial intelligence, I would want to focus on the atheists' verbalization of these concepts and if I wanted to discredit those mythologies, I would want to cite atheistic sources.

1.Your own experience is insufficient evidence to predict or speculate on other people's behavior. It's like saying, "I shape my political views to match my parents' political views, so I know other people do so as well." It's a false assumption based on fallacious logic.

2. If you want to see a religious readers' biases in their readings of religious texts, you will get them. However, you will not necessarily get the best reading of the texts, which non-believers could just as easily provide.

3. I never said atheists are more conscientious than anybody else; I said there are conscientious atheists who could provide effectively unbiased and superior readings; and they can. Try to read my posts better. As to the "atheistic mythologies" you provided, two of them--many worlds and artificial intelligence--are not myths (they're facts), and one of them is a scientific theory yet to be proven or unproven. So, while it is hardly scientific fact, it hasn't been established as a myth either.

[YesNo]

In one of my classes, our professor had us analyze Middlemarch using a technique called distant reading. We constructed models of different aspects of the novel and used these models as the basis for our class discussions. I appreciated the approach as a way of looking at literary works through a new lens, but an article in the New York Times seems to imply that the pioneers of distant reading want their models to replace other critical approaches like close readings of the text. Does anyone here agree with the idea that distant reading should be the dominant approach to literary criticism? As a first-year student at my university, I really have no idea how popular this approach is or how often it is used in academic writing on literature.

To bring this back to the OP, it looks like the question is whether distant reading should replace other approaches to literary criticism. It seems that the only thing that might be new with distant reading is using a computer to generate information about a set of texts. I don't think that is enough to replace actually reading the text. Also, I wonder if the distant reading approach has generated any interesting results.

[ennison]

Here's me thinking this thread was either going to be about telepathy or an optician's chart. Whatever will these profs think of doing next to while away the time.

[YesNo]

I thought it was going to be about telepathy also when I first read the title.

I can see how someone would want to see what insight they can get by programming a computer to scan the various texts available to them. Many groups are doing this today whether for marketing or security. One might as well do it to better understand literature as well.

[kiki1982]

Haha, I thought it was about telepathy too!


First of all, your statement is, itself, one of literary theory since you assert a theoretical stance on understanding literature. So, your statement is effectively self-negating. Secondly, there is no way of understanding art in any discursive or comprehensive way without some informed "theory." Otherwise, any random observation--like "dogs are nice, therefore pictures of dogs playing cards is the highest art"--could be true, and there could be no effective discussions about art since no statement could be more legitimate or effective than the other.

Also, critical theory/aesthetic criticism does not claim to be "true;" no non-scientific aesthetic or philosophical statement can be fully true. It attempts to elucidate comprehension of and/or evaluate an art medium or art form. As to all critical theory statements being outlandish, that is entirely inaccurate and unsupported in any way and shows a lack of understanding of such substantial modern theorists as: Barthes, Derrida, Moi, Morrison, Kristeva, Butler, and Zizek. If you could make an actual criticism of one of these--or other--modern literary theorists, I would love to read it.

Finally, literary theory is a long tradition, including excellent works by brilliant authors, works I doubt you would consider "outlandish." Here are some.

Aristotle's Poetics
On the Beautiful and the Sublime by Immanuel Kant
The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche
"On the Sublime and Beautiful" by Edmund Burke
Biographica Literaria by Samuel Coleridge
Poetry, Language, and Thought by Martin Heidegger
Essays in Criticism by Matthew Arnold
The Dialogic Imagination by Mikhail Bakhtin...and many more

So, by mistakenly dismissing theory, you're not only dismissing brilliant, useful works of modern theory/theoretical criticism, you are dismissing a long, rich tradition of theoretical criticism. Anyway, I'm looking forward to some of your criticisms of some theorists; I'm sure they will be interesting.

The works you list there are theories made from the right angle, though, they weren't applied to works of literature (or they shouldn't have been). What people observe from reading, is entirely up to them, and it's legitimate, but it's a problem when these same theories are mistakenly applied to works that have nothing to do with them. That's putting words into someone's mouth.
Kleist's Engagement in Santo Domingo with his Neger (n***er, excuse the word) and how he went on about how that man (I'll call him) didn't know what gratitude was, is obviously racist (from a current point of view), but is it worth proving it? We know that already from the fact they went to catch slaves in Africa and we know how they treated them and we know there were nursery rhymes about beating slaves instead of children for something bad the children might have had done. The Merchant of Venice, Othello (probably) and many other works no doubt are influenced by that casual racism. That's what I mean with stating the obvious. Reading these works can be valuable for historic understanding (just like reading the nursery rhymes can be). After all they convey the views of authors who lived in these times and who conceived these stories freely. In that sense they are on one level a reflection of the times. But conversely, it doesn't do anything to say 'surprise, surprise, drum roll, Othello seems to be racist, because look, the Moor is portrayed as someone who kills his wife out of jealousy. Bad Shakespeare.' Similarly Kleist's portrayal of Congo Hoango can be interesting in terms of how people saw these 'inferior' people, but it adds no understanding to the story itself when I term it 'racist' or 'colonialist'. Obviously it's colonialist, it's from the 18th century.
By feminist theorists Hardy has been scolded (and that's putting it very politely) for being so nasty with Tess. Yes, and??? Arguing that Hardy seemed to have a weird delight in making his characters' life paths end in tragedy doesn't make me understand the genre any better. It is what's behind the tragedy that's interesting. Similarly, praising Austen and Brontë for their strong female characters is irrelevant. Austen probably wrote about women because that's what she knew (I can't imagine she had met many men apart from her brother and father and talked to them in private about politics or current news items) and Brontë too. Rather it would be interesting to view these works from their historic perspective and to include them in the corpus of writings that betrays the rise of women in society. They will have been used this way too, but there are enough theorists who apply theories to novels, don't draw theories from them.

Secondly, my analogy went like this: 'Dogs are nice, therefore pictures of dogs playing cards are nice'. I never said anything about the 'highest art'. It also stands to reason that if someone were to fear dogs pathologically, they'd also be at least slightly squeamish about pictures of dogs (like arachnophobes). So indeed, these things are pre-defined.

Now I can imagine that this distance reading can be interesting if you want to make a general study of themes or things. 'Is love really that important in Victorian literature?' Then you take the vast corpus of novels, short stories, plays, treatises and all things vaguely literary (which you could never read) and analyse this for a database of words to do with love. Of course you already start with a problem: should Victorian literature be deemed all literature from the accession of Victoria to the throne? Or also include earlier and later works (art does not change overnight with the change of a monarch)? Hardy for example would have part of his work excluded because it was published after 1901 when Victoria died. Does that make him an Edwardian writer as well or is turn of the century lit also to be deemed Victorian?
Diagrams may be interesting for books/plays with tangled plots like Vanity Fair and Macbeth, but I fail to see how for example a diagram of the plot of Mansfield Park will have anything to add.
Also, words themselves are one thing (after you have determined which words you should include, which is a whole new matter altogether), but should the model not control for irony/sarcasm/figures of speech? Another problem.
So will your conclusion about 'Victorian literature' ultimately be right? Sure, you will have controlled for all kinds of factors, but ultimately the computer model is created by people, people are fallible and so your conclusion will be flawed in one way or other. So it's better to read the books and to accept that you will never be able to read them all instead of arguing that this distance reading could actually replace reading the works themselves.

I've done quite a bit of translation about the use of statistical models in companies, which proves that most of the people using these things don't have a clue how to apply them, but firmly believe that they are right. Although even a lay person can easily see that these things bear no connection to reality. This issue was raised by economics students of Manchester University who said economics is getting dangerous because economists are using models based on assumptions instead of their own observations. So they draw conclusions based on assumptions, which in turn might explain their faulty conclusions.
These people would believe the sum 2+2=5 is mathematically right because it was returned by their analytical model.

Surely that's not how we should treat the creations of artists?

Was it Napoleon who already said that 'with statistics you can prove anything'?

[Pike Bishop]

The works you list there are theories made from the right angle, though, they weren't applied to works of literature (or they shouldn't have been). What people observe from reading, is entirely up to them, and it's legitimate, but it's a problem when these same theories are mistakenly applied to works that have nothing to do with them. That's putting words into someone's mouth.

Kleist's Engagement in Santo Domingo with his Neger (n***er, excuse the word) and how he went on about how that man (I'll call him) didn't know what gratitude was, is obviously racist (from a current point of view), but is it worth proving it? We know that already from the fact they went to catch slaves in Africa and we know how they treated them and we know there were nursery rhymes about beating slaves instead of children for something bad the children might have had done. The Merchant of Venice, Othello (probably) and many other works no doubt are influenced by that casual racism. That's what I mean with stating the obvious. Reading these works can be valuable for historic understanding (just like reading the nursery rhymes can be). After all they convey the views of authors who lived in these times and who conceived these stories freely. In that sense they are on one level a reflection of the times. But conversely, it doesn't do anything to say 'surprise, surprise, drum roll, Othello seems to be racist, because look, the Moor is portrayed as someone who kills his wife out of jealousy. Bad Shakespeare.' Similarly Kleist's portrayal of Congo Hoango can be interesting in terms of how people saw these 'inferior' people, but it adds no understanding to the story itself when I term it 'racist' or 'colonialist'. Obviously it's colonialist, it's from the 18th century.

By feminist theorists Hardy has been scolded (and that's putting it very politely) for being so nasty with Tess. Yes, and??? Arguing that Hardy seemed to have a weird delight in making his characters' life paths end in tragedy doesn't make me understand the genre any better. It is what's behind the tragedy that's interesting. Similarly, praising Austen and Brontë for their strong female characters is irrelevant. Austen probably wrote about women because that's what she knew (I can't imagine she had met many men apart from her brother and father and talked to them in private about politics or current news items) and Brontë too. Rather it would be interesting to view these works from their historic perspective and to include them in the corpus of writings that betrays the rise of women in society. They will have been used this way too, but there are enough theorists who apply theories to novels, don't draw theories from them.

Secondly, my analogy went like this: 'Dogs are nice, therefore pictures of dogs playing cards are nice'. I never said anything about the 'highest art'. It also stands to reason that if someone were to fear dogs pathologically, they'd also be at least slightly squeamish about pictures of dogs (like arachnophobes). So indeed, these things are pre-defined.

Now I can imagine that this distance reading can be interesting if you want to make a general study of themes or things. 'Is love really that important in Victorian literature?' Then you take the vast corpus of novels, short stories, plays, treatises and all things vaguely literary (which you could never read) and analyse this for a database of words to do with love. Of course you already start with a problem: should Victorian literature be deemed all literature from the accession of Victoria to the throne? Or also include earlier and later works (art does not change overnight with the change of a monarch)? Hardy for example would have part of his work excluded because it was published after 1901 when Victoria died. Does that make him an Edwardian writer as well or is turn of the century lit also to be deemed Victorian?

Diagrams may be interesting for books/plays with tangled plots like Vanity Fair and Macbeth, but I fail to see how for example a diagram of the plot of Mansfield Park will have anything to add. Also, words themselves are one thing (after you have determined which words you should include, which is a whole new matter altogether), but should the model not control for irony/sarcasm/figures of speech? Another problem.
So will your conclusion about 'Victorian literature' ultimately be right? Sure, you will have controlled for all kinds of factors, but ultimately the computer model is created by people, people are fallible and so your conclusion will be flawed in one way or other. So it's better to read the books and to accept that you will never be able to read them all instead of arguing that this distance reading could actually replace reading the works themselves.

I've done quite a bit of translation about the use of statistical models in companies, which proves that most of the people using these things don't have a clue how to apply them, but firmly believe that they are right. Although even a lay person can easily see that these things bear no connection to reality. This issue was raised by economics students of Manchester University who said economics is getting dangerous because economists are using models based on assumptions instead of their own observations. So they draw conclusions based on assumptions, which in turn might explain their faulty conclusions.
These people would believe the sum 2+2=5 is mathematically right because it was returned by their analytical model.

Surely that's not how we should treat the creations of artists?

Was it Napoleon who already said that 'with statistics you can prove anything'?

Firstly, I offer this as friendly advice: you need to edit your writing. Your ideas aren't incoherent per se; however, your numerous run-on sentences and paragraphs do make it difficult for the reader to discern them.

1. As to your first paragraph, 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. So, all of those critical books I proffered can and do apply to works by artists who were unaware of their theories. So, your inapplicable comment about "putting words into someone's mouth" is also irrelevant. Using your logic, we could never critique art of artists before us at all, since they weren't aware of our critical/theoretical lenses.

2. Your second paragraph about Kleist, Othello, and The Merchant of Venice doesn't address or counter anything I had said in any way. i don't know why you included it in your post.

3. You make three key errors in this paragraph. Firstly, you use an an example of bad feminist criticism to indict all feminist criticism. That's illogical cherry-picking that uses the bad particular to disparage the whole, and that is not good criticism. Secondly, after railing against critical theory, you proceed to offer a historicist critical theory that hypocritically counters and negates what you claimed in your first paragraph. Third, you complain about critics "putting words in authors' mouths," then you go ahead and put words in Austen's mouth. Again, that is hypocritical and counters and negates that previous claim.

4. You completely misread my "dogs playing cards" analogy and need to read it again. What you said about it is both inapplicable and irrational to the cogent analogy I made.

5. As to your next paragraphs about diagrams, computer models, and Victorian literature per se, I never addressed or directly addressed any of these things, so they do not apply to my arguments.

6. Finally, I presume your final paragraph about statistical analysis is--and should be--addressed to Bartlebooth's distance reading model, as none of it has anything to do with my arguments, as well.

[kiki1982]

Yes, well, I don't have much time these days, so I don't tend to spend hours writing on this forum. It's not a writing contest either, so pardon me if I post something that is less than perfect. I'll try not to cram too much in one sentence, if that's what you mean.

The reason why I compared literary theory to Bach numbers is because sometimes it is irrelevant. Not always, but sometimes it is. You have do admit that.

While I realise that artists in general might add things to their work unconsciously and don't really know what they actually mean, I don't see how applying particular theories to individual novels is going to add anything. Sure, study the role of women and how it changed through the ages, for example by contrasting Clarissa by Richardson, Austen's novels, Brontë's Jane Eyre and Hardy's Far from the Madding Crowd, but how is a feminist interpretation of Tess going to add anything to that novel? It will not aid me in understanding why the plot is as it is (only reading about the historical context will do that), it will only help me get outraged, which is not helpful.
This is not an irrelevant point, because I argue this type of literary criticism does not at all 'elucidate comprehension'.

I have not favoured anything. I only said that if you are reading a book that was written in an era that wasn't your own, you can do either of two things: to understand it you can read about the historic context. E.g. I can get outraged about the scene of wife-selling in The Mayor of Casterbridge at the very beginning and can stop there, or I can try to understand why none of the characters present at the scene seemed to be bothered by it. This will make me see it wasn't really like a slave market, but it was a way to end a relationship without costly proceedings or if there was no adultery (the only cause for divorce if the woman was the adulteress; if it was the man he had to beat his wife violently into the bargain). If I'm a historian I can use the wife-selling scene when I'm studying cultural habits. How terrible it is from a modern point of view is entirely irrelevant. I admit that probably coincides with historicism, but I already thought that was the way to go before I knew that theoretical concept existed.

The problem I was probably getting at and which I didn't express very well as I didn't have much time, was that some of it has been beaten to death, like the feminist and racist stuff. A lot of nasty things have been read in the 'Creole' in Jane Eyre, for example. If it wasn't Charlotte Brontë who was racist and purposefully locked up the character who wasn't mad in the first place, it was Rochester who did so because he was a vile colonialist. To me, both of these opinions are irrelevant: the former is making assumptions about the author and her motive. As I said previously, her feelings towards (partially) black people would probably have been ambivalent in the least, but there is no reason to say that she locked Bertha up because she was Creole, or that she made Bertha a Creole because she was mad. That's beside the point. The idea that Rochester was a racist because he locked up his wife, is even entirely preposterous. It's not even a real man! The only thing that could be said about that bit of the novel is that Bertha was apparently mad and dangerous (for whatever reason) and that she happened to be Creole. Why that is will only become clear if her creator were ever to come back to tell us and that won't happen. And even if it did, we couldn't be sure she'd know. Where I have a problem is that we are no longer drawing conclusions from works, we are imposing conclusions on works. That isn't irrelevant either, because some academics have been doing that since the fifties.

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?

[Pike Bishop]

1. Yes, well, I don't have much time these days, so I don't tend to spend hours writing on this forum. It's not a writing contest either, so pardon me if I post something that is less than perfect. I'll try not to cram too much in one sentence, if that's what you mean.

2.The reason why I compared literary theory to Bach numbers is because sometimes it is irrelevant. Not always, but sometimes it is. You have do admit that.

3. While I realise that artists in general might add things to their work unconsciously and don't really know what they actually mean, I don't see how applying particular theories to individual novels is going to add anything. Sure, study the role of women and how it changed through the ages, for example by contrasting Clarissa by Richardson, Austen's novels, Brontë's Jane Eyre and Hardy's Far from the Madding Crowd, but how is a feminist interpretation of Tess going to add anything to that novel? It will not aid me in understanding why the plot is as it is (only reading about the historical context will do that), it will only help me get outraged, which is not helpful.

4.This is not an irrelevant point, because I argue this type of literary criticism does not at all 'elucidate comprehension'.

5. I have not favoured anything. I only said that if you are reading a book that was written in an era that wasn't your own, you can do either of two things: to understand it you can read about the historic context. E.g. I can get outraged about the scene of wife-selling in The Mayor of Casterbridge at the very beginning and can stop there, or I can try to understand why none of the characters present at the scene seemed to be bothered by it. This will make me see it wasn't really like a slave market, but it was a way to end a relationship without costly proceedings or if there was no adultery (the only cause for divorce if the woman was the adulteress; if it was the man he had to beat his wife violently into the bargain). If I'm a historian I can use the wife-selling scene when I'm studying cultural habits. How terrible it is from a modern point of view is entirely irrelevant. I admit that probably coincides with historicism, but I already thought that was the way to go before I knew that theoretical concept existed.

6. The problem I was probably getting at and which I didn't express very well as I didn't have much time, was that some of it has been beaten to death, like the feminist and racist stuff. A lot of nasty things have been read in the 'Creole' in Jane Eyre, for example. If it wasn't Charlotte Brontë who was racist and purposefully locked up the character who wasn't mad in the first place, it was Rochester who did so because he was a vile colonialist. To me, both of these opinions are irrelevant: the former is making assumptions about the author and her motive. As I said previously, her feelings towards (partially) black people would probably have been ambivalent in the least, but there is no reason to say that she locked Bertha up because she was Creole, or that she made Bertha a Creole because she was mad. That's beside the point. The idea that Rochester was a racist because he locked up his wife, is even entirely preposterous. It's not even a real man! The only thing that could be said about that bit of the novel is that Bertha was apparently mad and dangerous (for whatever reason) and that she happened to be Creole. Why that is will only become clear if her creator were ever to come back to tell us and that won't happen. And even if it did, we couldn't be sure she'd know. Where I have a problem is that we are no longer drawing conclusions from works, we are imposing conclusions on works. That isn't irrelevant either, because some academics have been doing that since the fifties.

7. 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?

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.

[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 :D, 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 :D, 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! :D

[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 :D, 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.

[Pompey Bum]

Congratulations Kiki! :)

And Mona, you are indeed a star and a treasure. Your quick wit is one of the best parts of this site. (Plus you laugh at my jokes! :))

[mona amon]

Ooh thanks, Pompey! :blush:

[kiki1982]

May we all rest in eternal peace. :D Maybe you can try to get on his ignore list as well, Mona. :)


I don't think the skin colour itself is an issue in Bertha's case. By the time we meet her she's purple :D, 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.

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.

Haha, purple, tanned indeed. ;)

I have been reading this (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/77875/livesayd_1.pdf?sequence=1).

It seems that back in the colonies the climate was considered to generally increase promiscuity (among white men and black or whatever women). That's interesting, because I had read before about the alleged promiscuity of Caribbean women (a view also expressed by Rochester) which can then give rise to madness, but it seems to have been a general view. It all started back in the 17th century apparently when the island was primarily populated by pirates, smugglers, deportees etc., i.e. depraved people, and later when the first plantation owners came, they had lots of natural disasters, which were presented as God's disapproval. Kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. Obviously the lack of white women didn't help white men to control their urges :D.

That's quite an amusing gloss on the 'fresh wind from Europe'. I wonder how that view reflects on Rochester subsequent debauchery, actually...

The increase in libido among white men and the lack of white women :D gave rise to a mixed-race population that ended up in 1820, when you can estimate Rochester travelled there, as 50-50 free and enslaved. Some white men cared for their mixed race children and gave them a good education, also bought them free. Others didn't and took no interest or favoured some and others not. Anyway, it seems that if you were mixed race, the whiter and more Europeanised you were, so the stronger your connection with your white heritage, the higher your standing in society was. Only by 1820, this thing starts to change, as there is a drop in whites travelling to the West Indies and a rise in mixed race people marrying and producing more mixed race children. So they start forming their own community (also appointing their own lobbyist in Westminster in 1823) and start separating their lot from the white community which they had connected themselves with before.

Incredibly, even slaves could inherit.

Although whites marrying mixed race people was a bit controversial, I can't help think Bertha was probably white. Old Mason (Richard's father) took a mixed-race 'nurse' (read mistress), herself a child of a white father and at least partially black mother, had white-looking children and then tried to look for a white man 'of good race' as Rochester says, thus reducing the black part in their ancestry. A white man wanting to marry Bertha in Jamaica would have been difficult to find, because most of them took mistresses and there weren't enough white men around. The ratio that stuck into my mind was 10 to 1, bu I may be wrong.


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?

Being mixed race seems not to have been such a problem over there, until the abolition of the salve trade, when differences started to be more defined (ironically). Even back home people seem to have been sympathetic, although that may also have been due to views of promiscuousness. The family itself became more important after Victoria's accession to the throne, so illegitimate children were not so welcome anymore, compared to in the 18th century, I'm thinking.
But it seems that back in the colonies mixed-race people were prevalent and some of them were prominent and reasonably rich, because their father had accepted them, given them an education (in England) and also a profession/an inheritance. In itself it's probably not entirely strange that she would have been presented to a white newcomer.