Wide Sargasso Sea made me see Rochester's character in a completely new light and I have to say that after reading it, I can't help but despise Rochester's character completely.
Anyone else read Wide Sargasso Sea and feel the same as me?
Printable View
Wide Sargasso Sea made me see Rochester's character in a completely new light and I have to say that after reading it, I can't help but despise Rochester's character completely.
Anyone else read Wide Sargasso Sea and feel the same as me?
While Literature Forum is an open forum, anybody can post, there ought to be a minimum comprehension standard in literature. Something like a course list, that you have to take the preliminaries before going on to advanced subjects.
For Charlotte Bronte, specifically post on Jane Eyre, I would suggest the question whether you consider Wide Sargasso Sea a prequel to Jane Eyre. If the answer is yes, you should be directed to a page of Harlequin Romances.
Unfortunately the copy right has limited applicability and unscrupulous people write books that attempt to piggy-back on dead authors, and we have to suffer with such as Linda Berdoll - Mr Darcy Takes a Wife or Jean Rhys – Wide Sargasso Sea. Neither has anything to do with the original characters or even less with the stylistic standards achieved by the original authors.
In the meantime take a dose of Castor oil and purge your mind.
Yes, I have read that many women feel that way after reading it.
That was probably the goal of the writer since it is feminist literature.
I think the point of it was to make him look bad. Obviously the writer didnt like the concept of him locking her up in the attic because she was mad. The whole book is sympathic to Bertha. Although i enjoyed it, i did find it biased.
It's a good thing that many great writers didn't take that advice or they'd be too afraid to write, mistakenly deluded that they require some Literature 101 before they dare to understand what it is they are reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peripatetics
There is no set system on how one ought to read, although some people may, to gratify their sense of self-superiority, treat literature as if it is elitist, exclusive and narrowly rigid.
Personally, I congratulate Jean Rhys that she dared to explore an unconventional view of Rochester. It is not as if she transformed Rochester into a completely different being; everything she created had an original strain in the Rochester of Jane Eyre. In my humble opinion, there is a huge thematic difference between Wide Sargasso Sea and 'Mr Darcy takes a wife' (which I feel is much more contemporary).
As long as one has money to purchase books, or a library card to access books, and are able to read to at least the seventh-grade level there is nothing that should stop them from reading whatever they like. What they don't initially understand they will ponder on and I have always thought that the act of thinking about and reflecting on a novel is much more important than the novel itself.
Otherwise, it's just Professor Literature 101's opinion, isn't it?
I actually feel that experience and sensitivity offer more to the understanding of literature than conventional education.
I've read WSS by Jean Rhys. I have to say that I didn't actually like it. I know it's highly critically regarded as a very good novel, but it just didn't do it for me.
I haven't read Wide Sargasso Seaand I do not intend to, but there was one thing right (apparently) in Rhys's interpretation of Rochester: his bad streak. Although she took it very far indeed and she might have taken it too far, there is still the fact that she might turn good opinions of popular readers about Rochester around. That is at least one merit.
Other than that, to me, it is fan fiction and it should not be read as a prequel. Brontė put enough in her book so as to not mistake Rochester's character...
I don't think a reader's list is required to read properly, unlike other people. It is not what you have read that determines your ability to pick up on things, but it is your intuition. Knowledge does not atomatically lead to wisdom...
One can read Wide Sargasso Sea apart from Jane Eyre. Essentially, it is not more Jane Eyre, than Bridget Jones's Diary is Pride and Prejudice (although echoes filter through, it is not the same). Can we also remark that Rochester was never named in Wide Sargasso Sea (if I am right)?
I've read both and I prefer Jean Rhys's earlier works (about single girls suffering poverty in Paris) to the Wide Sargasso Sea.
I also have to say that since Rochester is never named in the later work, I wouldn't have readily known that it was a prequel
to Jane Eyre.
I've read both, and enjoyed both, the tacked-on happy ending to Jane Eyre notwithstanding.
I think that Wide Sargasso Sea offers an interesting perspective on the events of Jane Eyre that very nicely parallels Brontė's own cultural biases. Notice how the Frenchwoman and German woman who captured Rochester's attentions in his younger days are really nothing more than mistresses, while the delicate and humble English heroine captures his heart. Jean Rhys flips this on its head with the opposite perspective (one informed by her own childhood), viewing the characters with a reversed filter.
I think it's a little too uncharitable to say that writers can't extend or write further about the work of other writers. While there are strong points to be made in favor of originality, it isn't as if they're banning or burning the original work. They're just adding new perspective, even enriching the canon. That's just my opinion, though.
i never liked Jane Eyre, but Wide Sargasso Sea is awesome, and short. lol
the same goes to mr rochester, in bronte's book he reminds me of a stock male character in a sleazy female pocket book: silent, rich and old, aside from wearing a gypsy costume.
in rhys' book he's a completely different person, he even has his own narrative. but i can't really see him as THE bad guy in Wide Sargasso Sea. in that book it seems as if everything's going to end bad just by reading the first page.
You're absolutely right there. If later writers could not takeQuote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
inspiration for earlier works then our literature would be bereft of Ulysses by James Joyce, who is in my thoughts on this Feast Day of St. Patrick.
I have read both novels and taught both novels, once--back to back. Wide Sargasso Sea must be taught after Jane Eyre, of course, and yes, it can provide an alternate view of Rochester. Before you jump to any quick assessments, however, I will remind you that much of what Rochester knew about Bertha was told to him by his father, brother, and Mason. Whether or not she was crazy when he married her, if she went crazy after, or if she was doomed to slide into insanity later in life--we will never know. However, in Rochester's defense, he was listening to the cousin and all the gossip. When we listen to gossip or heresay, it is always risky. He believed Bertha or Antoinette had tried to poison him. She didn't of course, but he did not know that. He was furious at the manipulation--or attempted manipulation, and Christophine tried to warn her of the dangers. I think you need to re-read it again and try to see the story from each side. They are not in sync. Who lied to whom is the unanswered question.
I think the whole issue of prequels is an interesting one - where do you draw the line? Wide Sargasso Sea is recognised as an acclaimed literary work in its own right - something that Mr Darcy takes a Wife and other similar books fall short of.
Having said that, I didn't like Wide Sargasso Sea - I thought the idea behind it was a good one, but that the writing and narrative style was dry and difficult to drag myself through. I was reading it for school, though, and I never really enjoy novel studies, so it is possible that that influenced my view. I'm not prepared to try and reread it, though. For me, Jane Eyre stands better alone.
I thought that WSS offered an excellent feminist perspective of the "madwoman in the attic". I can't understand anybody being offended or annoyed by Rhys's novella. Instead, it should be celebrated for offering deeper insight into partriarchy and notions of female sexuality and "madness".
Your instructor evidently did not set up the novel for the students. It is written in three separate voices. The first is Christophine. And the language is pidgeon. Reading it aloud also helps. It is a shame that you weren't given the proper introduction to the novel. When I taught it... I set it up for the students. I brought in pictures, handouts about pidgeon English, and we talked about the differences in culture, the problems after the slaves were freed, etc. It presents the colonial aspect to the Brontė novel. AND it gives Bertha a voice.