Share your favorite part of Jane Eyre below. :piggy:
Printable View
Share your favorite part of Jane Eyre below. :piggy:
I just started reading Jane Eyre yesterday, but I'll let you know.
First, I have to say Jane Eyre has become one of my all-time favorite characters.
My favorite part of the story is young Jane's confrontation with her aunt just before she goes off to school.
I have a theory that every girl who has read the book, wants to be Jane Eyre
Guilty as charged. I first read JE at age 14 and I am now the age that Jane is through most of the novel. (Arithmetic, you see, is useful.) In many ways it changed me as a reader and a person (with its subtle sensuality, pervading intertexuality, and rebellious feminism). I've read it at least once a year since that first time, always with greater fascination.
Jane Eyre is a part of who I am as a reader (and would-be academic/scholar) as a feminist, as a Christian and as an individual. It has shaped my thoughts, my feelings and my tastes. Its mighty sentences surge through my blood, sometimes chilling it, sometimes warming it until it tingles and thrills my whole frame. I suppose more than any other novel, I think of its characters as though they were real, yet it also first introduced me to intertexuality, pastiche and feminist criticism. I think it an inexhaustible store of literary themes, yet I turn to it as the best of “comfort reading”. “It runs in my blood, blends with my brains and seasons the marrow of my bones.”
I don't actually consider JE a perfect novel (whatever that could possibly mean). As a Janeite I find its Romanticism disturbing, and as George Eliot reader I find Jane's quick dismissals of other people's worth grating.
But, like Jane with Mr Rochester, "while I breathe and think, I must love" this novel.
aah, that's a really nice post! :seeya:
I'll confess :ciappa:, not obsessed with Jane, but with Rochester! After reading it years ago, I still get gooey thinking about him. And I get quite upset if peolple get him wrong. I don't know, it's just, he (and the rest of all those characters) are so very real. Despite her sister Emily's merits in her only work, I would go for the all time favorite Jane Eyre. The energy just splatters you when you read it, certainly in that Rochester section. How a woman who admittedly had had a few suitors (they all fell in love with her apparently, one even proposed to her after one afternoon's acquaintance!), but otherwise did not know an awful lot of people and did not have the chance to observe them en masse where she lived, could draw people so well and so multi-faceted, it is mind boggling.
Anyway, I'm sure Rochester would have loved that (and see, he becomes someone with an opinion) :ladysman:.
Ah, well I'm in love with Rochester too. His conversation is so piquant that I'm sure he's spoiled me for the conversation of any other male. (Except maybe Henry Tilney's.) I love the fact that he talks like a sphinx.
But if he was real (ugh, that sounds nutty... :rolleyes: Start again.) Last time I reread JE I was very disturbed by his "curious, designing mind" and the fact that in their second interview he's already forming his plans to "get pleasure" out of Jane and marry her as a form of expiation.
Remember, the shadows are just as important as the light
Yes, I do have to say, Tilney is also very charming. Though, I think, to be as inexplicably attractive (however strange and a little stupid that may be) you need to be Rochester. Indeed, his conversation is so piquant that it is scary. and I join you in my apprehensiveness that he indeed has taken his decision already beforehand. I think he has just fallen madly in love at that point already, is trying to fight it, doesn't succeed and is thrown from yes to no constantly. On the one side he is devious, on the other he is desperate. He has not told his governess that there is madwoman who is his wife up in the attic and he can't tell her now because she'll never trust him again. It would have been easier to tell her if he wasn't madly in love... (doesn't he mention during their discussion after the thwarted wedding that he actually spied on her the morning after, I think during that moment that she was thinking of Heidelberg)Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
Although I think I would stay well away from such a man if he was real. (let's be nutty for once :D), but as he is not, he's safe to be in love with :).
Every time I think about the versatility of that character it surpises me that he was created by a woman who had only known a few men in her life, been madly in love with one and didn't even notice the feelings of her later husband. She herself was apparently awfully charming, but surely she didn't know that?
Yes, and in their discussion after the thwarted wedding he tells her that his purpose in traveling Europe (after taking Bertha to Thornfield) was to find a woman he could love, his "ideal of a woman". He does this because he sees his own character as tainted and defiled by his union with Bertha. He calls Jane the "instrument of [his] cure" and when he proposes to her he declares that "it [this marriage to a pure, but poor woman] will atone." In short, this marriage, like his care for Adelle, works "rather on the Roman Catholic principle of expiat[ion]".Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
(This also reminds me of something disturbing in Austen's Emma. The charade beginning "Kitty, a fair but frozen maid" is mentioned, but what is not generally known is that it referred to venereal disease. Tragically, some believed that the way to be cured of this was through intercourse with a young virgin - often a child. I am not at all accusing Mr Rochester of this. I just see a metaphorical parallel in his strong belief that a second marriage will secure him "peace of mind and regeneration of life". I suspect him of a belief that "without the shedding of [virgin] blood there is no remission". (Hebrews 9:22) However, while the text is proved correct in the plot, his interpretation is wrong, since it is his blood and Bertha's that be shed. [I'm still not sure about the last part of this hypothesis, since it seems to contradict the redemption theme. )
Ultimately Jane Eyre is an intensely (although unorthadoxly) Christian novel, with a theme of redemption. Mr Rochester ultimately comes to accept Jane's autonomy from his version of her and that he should "look higher than his equals for strength to amend and solace to heal." And, yes, he falls madly in love with her at some point, but until after she leaves his love is still intertwined with his own agenda, which he starts formulating the very first day after seeing her.
In the penultimate chapter Mr Rochester puts Jane off his knee to stand in humility and penitence, acknowledging the sovereignty of God, even over his greatest desires.
:iagree: It's just that I'm slightly ashamed of being madly in love with a fictional character, because some women make themselves so ridiculous over fictional characters.Quote:
Although I think I would stay well away from such a man if he was real. (let's be nutty for once :D), but as he is not, he's safe to be in love with :).
Absolutely! So all of the above is not criticism of the novel - because it shows how complex the character and novel are.Quote:
Every time I think about the versatility of that character it surpises me that he was created by a woman who had only known a few men in her life, been madly in love with one and didn't even notice the feelings of her later husband.
So after a mad week of French technical translation, I have now time to reply, FINALLY.
Now that is an interesting approach! It has been argued by at least one daft person that Rochester was afflicted by syphilis which his promiscuous wife gave to him. That would also have been cured (allegedly) by a virgin's blood. That is still believed in South Africa too as a cure for AIDS, resulting in horrible baby rapes... :eek: However, I cannot agree with the syphilis theory as Rochester would have been mad after 20 years and the end of Jane Eyre would not have seen bliss and a son, but total unhappiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
But in figurative terms it is an interesting theory. He has indeed his own agenda and his love is not selfless as it should be but selfish. He wishes to be in control and be the centre of attention. It is very poignant that he gives away his hand, let himself be led and gives his watch away. The latter is reminiscent of the end of the shopping trip where he says he will attach Jane to a chain like that of his gold watch. As it is in the Conclusion maybe the chain with the watch will stretch to Jane forever and he will be the one attached. The same image also reminds of his question about the little cord under his heart (during the first proposal). It's quite a nice image. It evokes him giving away any control he had and abandoning himself to her. Something he could never have done before as he was too scared to do that. He did it once to the wrong person and got his fingers burned...
Ah, but we are not Twilight fans. We don't love mindlessly because Rochester has an actor's name, because he has black eyes, we love because Rochester is Rochester. He is sparkly.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
Of course it is not criticism! Any criticism historical novelists are subected to I find mindless drivvle as it does not take into account any contemporary normality. If such structures are studied, they should be studied from the point of view of historians (novels are the best way to determine general opinion), not 'X is racist/masochist/...' because it is irrelevant as that is a modern point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
Obsessed with Jane Eyre, the novel, and most specifically with Edward Rochester. I have a collage of the novel hanging on my office wall. I have taught the novel to high school students, college students, and directed a reading study in my church group. I have the novel on audio and carry it in my vehicle but read it frequently. My closest friend wrote an entire novel from Rochester's perspective. I have a collection of Jane Eyre books, some quite old....and so many characters in literature just cannot hold up to Edward Rochester.
Kiki, you really should burn me in my bed for replying so late. I was too busy to reply when you first posted (over a month ago), and then I kept thinking, "It's too late to post now." But I wanna talk to my most perspicacious JE friend.
Yes, and I suppose they connect that to the blindness too. Yeah, a little far fetched, though I'd still be interested in seeing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I'd never connected the two watch references. Thanks for pointing them out. :blush:Quote:
It is very poignant that he gives away his hand, let himself be led and gives his watch away. The latter is reminiscent of the end of the shopping trip where he says he will attach Jane to a chain like that of his gold watch. As it is in the Conclusion maybe the chain with the watch will stretch to Jane forever and he will be the one attached.
Rochester and Jane's relationship with God/Christianity plays a major part in my view of JE. As I said earlier, he thinks marriage to her can transform him, but she tells him that a sinner's reformation cannot depend on another person. And finally he acknowledges God's justice and mercy.Quote:
The same image also reminds of his question about the little cord under his heart (during the first proposal). It's quite a nice image. It evokes him giving away any control he had and abandoning himself to her.
But your above thoughts reminded me that even spiritually, by the end of the novel, Jane is the one with the power. She's become his mediator, his glowing "virgin Mary" figure.(She wears blue in chapter 38, before becoming a mother, and apparently Mary was often depicted wearing blue. I can't remember why. I'm not expressing this well - I'll have to find the article that first suggested this to me.)
Slightly off topic, but have you seen the new JE film yet? I just watched it today and I'm underwhelmed. It's chops the novel up into little pieces, leaving hardly anything but romance. I don't know how anyone who didn't know the story could follow it, much less learn any of its complex themes.
To be fair to the new film, I should mention that I appreciated it's obvious Pre-Raphaelite imagery. (This Jane looked strikingly like the famous Pre-Raphaelite model Elizabeth Siddal.) I'd only recently been reading about how Charlotte aimed to be an artist, but (I think) her eyes were not good enough. And the connection was made between Charlotte's detail and symbolism and that of Pre-Raphaelite art.
Well, well, well, I'll have to get out of my room in the attic then... :lol:. I didn't see your reply because at that point we were occupied with Christmas and before that we were on a brief holiday... I keep thinking the same, but please talk to me if I am so 'perspicacious'. Does it mean something like 'eagle-eyed' (I had to look it up, but my Google Dutch translator said something like 'invest', although my German one said something meaning 'eagle-eyed')...Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
I forgot to mention that we had an accident with a bottle of Russian desert wine on the way back from holiday which managed to break the charger of mu hubby's laptop, so ever since, we had to share the charger which meant less time on the internet for me as my battery is up the creek (we got a new one today)...
Anyhoooo...
I don't actually think about it all day, you know, I just let my thoughts run as I am writing and it comes to me. I sometimes got amazed at what I have written (oh, that sounds sooooo arrogant :svengo:).Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
Christianity is in my mind important to JE because the author herself at least knew the bible in detail. I would say she was religious. It is hardly possible for her not to have been as she did not only have a curate father but eventually also a husband. It takes devotion, not only to the husband, but also to the cause itself to be able to live like that...Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
Jane is right in that Rochester takes her firstly as an excuse to reform, but essentially no sinner will become a better person if he does not reform for himself alone. That is less Catholic and more protestant: tireless self-improvement. Perdition is not inevitable. Man is doomed, but can prevent being cast into hell for his lusts by tirelessly fighting them. That's also why phrenology took off more than physiognomy. Physiognomy essentially determines what your nose is like and so what you are like. I.e. if you have a criminal's features, then you are one - I am still wondering what if an aristocrat like Byron had such features, but there you go...-. Phrenology told you about your tendencies, but it was less 'determined and final' than physiognomy. Therefore, you might have had a tendency for not being empathetic (like Rochester I have argued), but if you are aware of it, you can account for it.
Charlotte had a phrenology assessment once... I have forgotten what its conclusion was, but it was not terrible.
So to come back to Rochester and his debauchery: if he wishes to become a different man, he will need to determine that for himself and work at it. Essentially Jane cannot do anything to make it work. She can be his motivation, although she probably rejects that because she lives as God directs her and consequently finds that the only motivation for change should be God Himself. Therefore she only returns (with God's approval we might say) when he has changed for himself.
Elaborating on becoming a better man and the reason why he has become debauched could be another interesting question. Do people not display such behaviour because they do not feel that they are worth it to be loved, in the same way as people self-harm. Seeing it that way makes Rochester start out with very low self-esteem (it is always hard to be the second, certainly in his class), therefore over-compensating by
being charming. However, at the moment he sees that his wife is embarrassing him (to say the least) he is moved to self-distruction. He maybe doesn't do it, but he is certainly at that lowest level. In order to climb out of that pit, Jane can only encourage, as therapist can do, she cannot hand him a magic pill and that is, although that is what he wants from her initially. To Brontë the 'help' consisted of belief in God, as evoked in that Mary-connotation that you so cleverly highlighted :). It wouldn't be enough these days, although people do tend to turn to religion in their lowest moments.
Mary is often depicted or clothed in blue. Mary as a kind of agent bringing God into his world... She being touched by the Holy Ghost. There is something in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
Wikipedia (referenced) says that several Jewish clerics argued that blue was the colour of God's glory. The Arc of the Covenant was transported (if that happened at all) under a blue veil. Early Jewish culture associated the colour blue with the heavens (as pure as a cloudless sky) so In a way God's golry follows that. Then it is easy to see why Mary was clothed in blue very often by early Christians who were still mainly Jewish in culture.
That's actually a lovely picture, as Rochester has been trying to reach a higher level for ages, but never succeeded. Maybe the 'glittering ornament' round her neck could be paired with the morning star of Venus in the sky?
I haven't seen it, no, but I always find that any adaptation, be it poetic (Zefirelli) or very peisodical and almost a copy (the 1983 version) always lacks a great deal. It is either romance or a feeble attempt at capturing the whole (mostly total shambles). Or they do it well (as in 1983), but then the whole thing is very episodical and not a good film...Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
I should look into early- and mid-Victorian art views. That could be important yes.
Obviously she had a good eye and at least knew how to draw (don't know about the result :p), judging from some of the sequences in the novel. But then again, she would have been taught to draw as all middle class girls back then.
Yeah, burn me again.
Lol. You're clever enough to get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Perspicacious basically means "discerning" or "penetratingly perceptive". So actually eagle-eyed works too. ;)Quote:
I keep thinking the same, but please talk to me if I am so 'perspicacious'. Does it mean something like 'eagle-eyed' (I had to look it up, but my Google Dutch translator said something like 'invest', although my German one said something meaning 'eagle-eyed')...
That must've been annoying, but kinda funny too. Glad you've got a new one now.Quote:
I forgot to mention that we had an accident with a bottle of Russian desert wine on the way back from holiday which managed to break the charger of mu hubby's laptop, so ever since, we had to share the charger which meant less time on the internet for me as my battery is up the creek (we got a new one today)...
Absolutely. Though I think Charlotte Bronte went beyond just being the good curate's daughter and explored questions that still engage Christians today.Quote:
Christianity is in my mind important to JE because the author herself at least knew the bible in detail. I would say she was religious. It is hardly possible for her not to have been as she did not only have a curate father but eventually also a husband. It takes devotion, not only to the husband, but also to the cause itself to be able to live like that...
One of the first reviewers of JE wrote, “The autobiography of Jane Eyre is pre-eminently an anti-Christian composition. There is throughout it a murmuring against the comforts of the rich and against the privations of the poor which.. is a murmuring against God's appointment.” I would argue exactly the opposite. I'm convinced that JE is pre-eminently a Christian composition, in which the curate's daughter attempts to reconcile the Christian principle of self-sacrifice with the equally Christian principles of freedom and equality.
The book's main Christian message is not one about how to be saved. (Indeed, though I am convinced that the fiercely anti-Catholic author of Villette included a theme on Protestant vs. Catholic redemption, the overall theology is strongly Universalist.) No, the Christianity of Jane Eyre addresses practical questions that still engage Christians today. Questions like, “Do I have to give up my autonomy to be Christian?” “What is a woman's place?” “Does Christianity prohibit or require equality in marriage ?” “Can a Christian woman have sexual desires?” And, of course, “Did God really ordain class hierarchy?”
(Okay, so maybe most of those were problems unique to Victorians, but there's a tendency within conservative Christianity, which I grew up in, to deny women equality [because of what I consider misreadings of the apostle Paul]. And JE so intelligently deals with the actual sin of Victorian attitudes that elevated men and denigrated women, that I consider JE the book that made me a Christian feminist.)
I don't mean to contradict, because I really do see your point here, but I would have argued for its Protestantism from the fact that Rochester can not reform through "good intentions" and "paving hell with energy", i.e. "good works". He has reared Adelle on the "Roman Catholic principle of expiating numerous sins by one good work." While the word "conversion" may be a little too Evangelical for what Bronte herself would have believed, it is only through submission to providence and unearned forgiveness that Rochester is redeemed. (But maybe I'm underestimating the emphasis on grace - unmerited favor - within Catholic theology, since I'm Protestant.)Quote:
Jane is right in that Rochester takes her firstly as an excuse to reform, but essentially no sinner will become a better person if he does not reform for himself alone. That is less Catholic and more protestant: tireless self-improvement. Perdition is not inevitable. Man is doomed, but can prevent being cast into hell for his lusts by tirelessly fighting them.
Great thoughts. I think I agree on everything here.Quote:
So to come back to Rochester and his debauchery: if he wishes to become a different man, he will need to determine that for himself and work at it. Essentially Jane cannot do anything to make it work. She can be his motivation, although she probably rejects that because she lives as God directs her and consequently finds that the only motivation for change should be God Himself. Therefore she only returns (with God's approval we might say) when he has changed for himself.
Elaborating on becoming a better man and the reason why he has become debauched could be another interesting question. Do people not display such behaviour because they do not feel that they are worth it to be loved, in the same way as people self-harm. Seeing it that way makes Rochester start out with very low self-esteem (it is always hard to be the second, certainly in his class), therefore over-compensating by
being charming. However, at the moment he sees that his wife is embarrassing him (to say the least) he is moved to self-distruction. He maybe doesn't do it, but he is certainly at that lowest level. In order to climb out of that pit, Jane can only encourage, as therapist can do, she cannot hand him a magic pill and that is, although that is what he wants from her initially. To Brontë the 'help' consisted of belief in God...
I grew up on the Old Testament sanctuary story, so why didn't I think of this? I applaud you for figuring this out! Furthermore, in Number 15:38 the Israelites were instructed to put a border of blue on all their garments to remember the commandments. Oh, and I've also heard a theory that the Ten Commandments (if you assume the story is literal, of course) were originally on blue stones/tablets. So, yes, blue obviously has a lot of symbolism for holiness. (I also love the fact that contrasted to the drab colors imposed at Lowood ostensibly to mortify the flesh and make them better Christians, the mature Jane - who has, as you said, lived as God directed her -can wear beautiful colors. She's still the same modest, self-possessed, deeply principled woman, but she knows that eschewing beauty doesn't make you holy.Quote:
Wikipedia (referenced) says that several Jewish clerics argued that blue was the colour of God's glory. The Arc of the Covenant was transported (if that happened at all) under a blue veil. Early Jewish culture associated the colour blue with the heavens (as pure as a cloudless sky) so In a way God's golry follows that. Then it is easy to see why Mary was clothed in blue very often by early Christians who were still mainly Jewish in culture.
Hm, care to elaborate on the significance of Venus? Somewhat in the same line, I researched the meaning of the name Helen on a hunch and these are some of the meanings: "light or bright", "torch", "moon", "sun ray, shining light". Which makes perfect sense, since she's the one who teaches Jane about self-respect (which we see when she leaves Rochester) and forgiveness (and she has to forgive not only Aunt Reed, but St. John and Rochester as well, for how they try to control her).Quote:
That's actually a lovely picture, as Rochester has been trying to reach a higher level for ages, but never succeeded. Maybe the 'glittering ornament' round her neck could be paired with the morning star of Venus in the sky?
I absolutely agree with you about the two adaptations you mentioned, and I think we also agree about 2006 (and the horror of the most recent Emma). I'll tell you when I get around to posting some of my thoughts on JE2011 on my blog.Quote:
I haven't seen it, no, but I always find that any adaptation, be it poetic (Zefirelli) or very peisodical and almost a copy (the 1983 version) always lacks a great deal. It is either romance or a feeble attempt at capturing the whole (mostly total shambles). Or they do it well (as in 1983), but then the whole thing is very episodical and not a good film...
Obviously she had a good eye and at least knew how to draw (don't know about the result :p), judging from some of the sequences in the novel. But then again, she would have been taught to draw as all middle class girls back then.
I recently saw some good paintings/drawings of flowers by Charlotte in Jane O'Neil's The World of the Brontes. However, I can't find them online. Here's her sketch of Anne, which I find inferior to her "nature" sketches. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19011...mages/anne.jpg