Jane Eyre vs Pride and Prejudice

Fair enough, Laura. I enjoyed reading "Jane Eyre" myself, and Rochester's attic may have been preferable to Bedlam(although I still don't see why Rochester kept his wife's existence a secret). Also, both authors were the daughters of Anglican clergymen. I wonder if Charlotte Bronte was mocking St. John's Puritanism (Austen was clearly mocking her cleric, Mr. Collins). I will continue to think that Rochester was, if not abusive, at least close to it. He tells Jane (while dressed as a gypsy) that he is going to marry Miss Ingram and later excuses his lie by saying he wanted to make her jealous. That's a minor sort of abusiveness.

If you didn't like "Pride and Prejudice", you probably wouldn't like Mansfield Park. Austen's style remains the same, although the circumstances of her heroine are close to Jane Eyre's.

Also, I don't think Rochester is thinking of himself when he uses his pet names for Jane. Instead, he is betraying his subconscious by choosing the names he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Austen sets the reader up to believe that Darcy's flaw is his pride (characters complain of it), and Elizabeth's her prejudice. But the two are flip sides of the same coin. Elizabeth's prejudice is born out of her pride -- she herself suggests that she is proud of her perspicacity and quickness of judgment. Darcy's pride is a form of prejudice -- prejudice in favor of certain values and associations. So both protagonists are proud AND prejudiced, and their pride and prejudice are inseparable.

---

True. If Austen had stuck to her original plan and called the book First Impressions, we wouldn't be judging them like this and finding pride and prejudice everywhere we look. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

You see, I never liked that idea. Have you heard the saying that people don't change for a marriage? I understand that nobody is perfect, but marriages should stand on the basis of accepting each others flaws, not on "changing" oneself like Darcy apparently did. If Darcy was snobby before marriage, he will stay that way. And remember that Elizabeth does not like the prideful side of Darcy - she only marries him after she thinks he changed.

---

Oh I don't think he changes all that much, and Elizabeth finds plenty to tease him about even after they are married. As Ecurb says, he wasn't so bad to begin with. The story is more about overcoming unfavourable first impressions and getting to know and accept each other. She marries him not so much because he has changed but because she has overcome her initial misperceptions, and now knows the real Darcy and loves him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

When Rochester calls Jane is "elf" or his "witch" his attempts at pet names betray his true nature as a narcissist and egomaniac. Is Jane Eyre a "witch" because she has "bewitched" Rochester?

---

Well, yes. :D I love it when he calls her elf, witch, sorceress, etc., - and Janet! It was at the point where he accuses her of bewitching his horse that I fell in love with the book. I was 10, and nobody ever talked like that in any book I'd read till then. I think Charlotte does a great job at creating this sizzling chemistry between them. They just scorch up every page they appear on together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

When she runs off after the "wedding" I lost all patience with her - I mean preferring death by exposure and starvation to an extra marital romp with her beloved Rocky ? C'mon.
Then she stumbles upon her cousins (oh really!) and finds she is rich (you're pulling my leg) and that "call" from Rochester (oh stop it now).

I wouldn't mind those plot twists if I was being sucessfully carried along -

---

It does sound ridiculous when this wildly unlikely plot is described, and evidently Charlotte thought so too. After reading some of the plot summaries in the reviews, she asked her publisher if "the analyses of other fictions read as absurdly as that of Jane Eyre always does." I feel she pulls it off with aplomb, but I guess it doesn't work for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev67

I thought the last section was a bit weak for those reasons. I think it is fair enough for her to run away considering her mental state, but to stumble upon her cousins after roaming around at random. It would not be so bad if she decided to get off at that town because there was something about the town's name, like it had a familar ring to it, but that is not how it was written. The inheritance was rather fortunate too. I suppose the idea was to put her on an equivalent footing to Rochester, but it does not do her any credit. Her uncle was the successful merchant, not her. Then there was the telepathic cry for help.

---

You're right there, it's got a lot of the novels of Dumas and Hugo where a lot of fortunate coincidences happen. Particularly Dumas was very good at it, but I think Hugo gave him a good run for his money... It's indeed all too 'cheap' in a certain way, but OK, it had a lovely ending. TYhat's why we all like it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Yes, Charlotte could've written a less incredible ending quite easily and kept the resolution as it is - so we have to assume she chose not to. Why???

---

To be really cruel and brutal, for all her merits as a writer, I think she wasn't as good as her younger sister Emily. Anne neither, now you come to mention it. They were both good word smiths (Anne the more pompous one), but they lacked the creativity that was necessary to make a good and credible story, that felt natural. I don't say that because I didn't enjoy Jane Eyre, I did tremendously and devoted several years to a love affair with Rochester because he's so real, but at the same time, the sections before Thornfield and after it are flawed to the extreme, I find. I like having those coincidences, but the reader should never become acutely aware of them (although admittedly that becomes harder the more of this stuff you have read).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I often wonder if Jane could have coped if Rochester's brother in law had turned up after her wedding night - could her faith and those unbending morals have coped ? Would Rochester end up with two wives in the Attic? A much better ending I think.

---

Or God forbid a year and a day later! Interesting point... A real woman might have run away and hoped nothing came of the wedding night... But I think Charlotte, as the good God-fearing Christian she was, didn't even consider that situation. In a sense it's a bit like a tragedy where the evil guy gets punished for his wrongdoings and another scenario never really comes into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

Let's start with St. John. I honestly respect him. He is honest, hardworking, and devoted to his beliefs. Yes, he does have faults - he is a little to cold and unfeeling to be considered a "likable" character, but I would not call him cruel.

---

You're right that he is hardworking and honest, on a pittance at that. That's commendable. However, the way he kind of 'grooms' Jane (to use the word that's in vogue at the moment) and then tries to push her into a marriage with him (not taking 'no' for an answer almost), is really not on. It's as if he saw her, slumped at his door, then learned she was a teacher, gave her a job and a house with the idea of keeping her there to ingratiate himself and then pounce on her. That's probably not what Charlotte intended him to be, though, but the pressure he puts on Jane just before she hears that cry from Rochester is quite devious, i'd say. After all, what will become of her if he withdraws his good will from her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

And the dialogues in Pride and Prejudice? Yes, the dialogues are pretty elegant- (well-written by a talented writer, I'll admit) but do those dialogues really say or express much? I mean, sometimes I feel like they were more written to sound eloquent, rather really express something meaningful.

---

Yes, but that's pulling both things out of context. Rochester is different to Darcy for a start. Rochester started out more like a Bingley man: easy manners, likes having fun, etc. Darcy is the total opposite: he's quiet and shy (IMO, other readers would say he's aloof) and doesn't like big groups of people he doesn't know and who don't know him because he knows how he comes across. In a sense he's a bit like me.
Also, the conversation in the Victorian and Regency eras is totally different. Regency is contained at all times, puts a lot of emphasis on wit (saying what you think without doing it directly). I'm not sure when people actually did speak as we do, their minds (they must have done, surely), but definitely not in public. Emotional restraint was everything. Nothing should show. In Victorian times it slackened a bit. And not to forget, Rochester has decided 'to hell with the world', so he doesn't care. Darcy has defo not decided this.
Also remember that Rochester is speaking to his servant and trying to impress her like a lion with his roar. Darcy is talking to equals and is not trying to impress. The only time he does try, he doesn't do it through conversation, but through action. Miss Bingley regularly tries to impress with her wit, but Darcy is having none of it (indeed Lizzie is much better at it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

Teasing her: I would not consider that abusive - I always saw it as good-natured, and Jane does not seem to mind it
Torments her: When? I assume that you are referencing the time when he made her sit and watch him flirt with Miss Ingrim? I would not consider that "torment."
Sure, maybe it was not the best thing he could have done, but his intentions were not malicious - He was in love with Jane, and wished to see if she had any feelings for him. He, unlike readers like ourselves, had no idea of Jane's pain.
Threatening her: Once again, not one of his highlights.

---

Now, if you don't mind me saying, that's where you are totally wrong. Especially the playing with her feelings is not only wrong and despicable, but also an absolute no-no. Never ever ever should a Victorian gentleman make a lady/girl think he has feelings for her and then not follow up on them. Ingram wasn't only trying, Rochester encouraged her, or Ingram encouraged him (both did each other). He knew perfectly well that Jane took a shine to him and he set out for her to do so the moment he invited her into his presence with Mrs Fairfax (which is in my mind quite a singular thing to do; he should have left it with the first interview). He becomes more intimate with her, tells her about his daughter, which intimacy is inappropriate. And then he courts Ingram in front of her eyes? Knowing full well that Jane is upset, he tells her to sit there? It's not only cruel in our day and age, it's a total outrage at the time as well. A Victorian gentleman only becomes intimate with a woman (in terms of friendship) if he has honorable intentions. And if he wants to know a woman has feelings or not he speaks (as in proposes), he does not, under any circumstances, do what Rochester does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

But, this is who he is - a Byronic with flaws. Rochester is a passionate guy, both in times of happiness and times of desperation. However, I would like to note that he does not harm her - I honestly do not think he ever would. Is there any evidence in the book that would suggest otherwise? He lived with his mad, violent wife for 15 years, the bane of his happiness, but refused to strike or harm her in any way. Moreover, he had many opportunities to take his anger out on Mason, one of his "deceivers" in the whole operation, but did not. Rochester is not a violent guy, just very passionate.

---

Yes, OK, that's right too. The Byronic hero often hurts people out of sheer indifference.
Though Rochester's speech after the thwarted wedding where he says that he could crush her like a reed, I personally find quite frightening to be honest... But probably that was a hollow threat he didn't consider really following up on.

That said, he indeed didn't 'harm' his wife as such, but he could have chosen to care better for her. Most readers of Jane Eyre seem to think the treatment of the mad was necessarily terrible like Bedlam (which was for the poor in most cases), but this was definitely not the case. The early Victorians were optimistic people who had not been acquainted with Darwin yet and who genuinely believed they could cure lunacy, if only they found the right method. Admittedly they did purge and things in an attempt to do so, but things like occupational therapy and not tying people up, but calming them down instead, find their origins in these times. How does that compare with the room with no window and only a very sparse smoking light an unkempt Bertha is kept in. Victorians also believed in cleanliness and a good appearance, also for the mad (just look at pictures from asylums). He could have found and paid for far better care than he did, but then he wanted to forget her existence, didn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

And with Adele, yes I'll admit, I never liked his treatment of her. On one hand, though, she is most likely not his daughter - he certainly does not think she is - and yet he takes her in. Think about it, if your "girlfriend" cheated on you with someone else, had that person's child, and then presented you with the kid, how would that make you feel? I respect the fact that he took her in and gave her home, even though she was not his responsibility. However, in terms of his personal treatment of her, I do wish had been a little kinder to her. I understand if he still felt resentment for Adele's mother, but I don't think he should have projected some of that resentment onto Adele. Overall, he tempered a benevolent act with some negativity - not the worst thing in the world, we know he is not perfect.

---

Ah, but you see, essentially Rochester is a liar (at least before he changes). The mere fact that he takes Adèle in means he suspects, indeed even tacitly admits, she is his daughter. I agree, he tells Jane he is unsure, but then he's trying to come across as more honorable at that particular moment than he really is. It must be remembered that he knows he is talking to someone who has been raised with very puritanical values, is naïve and to whom people like Céline are harlots. By telling Jane Céline cheated on him, he exonerates himself a little and casts doubts in her mind as to whether he does have a bastard daughter or not. If he did tell her she was his, she would have drawn her conclusions about him straightaway and his game would have been up from the start. He expresses that when he asks her if she'll now look for another position, now she knows she's teaching the daughter of a dancer (or something along those lines). With that question, he is essentially looking whether his manipulation has worked. And it has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

In terms of sending her to boarding school, we do not know whether he was aware of them being good or bad. We do know, however, that Jane does not forget about Adele. Remember at the end when Jane found Adele's current school a bit too strict, and switched her into a more indulgent one?

---

I tend to agree with that. It had become quite fashionable to send girls to boarding school. Though maybe Adèle's school was one that was on the cheaper side (read: not necessary to spend a lot of money one her...). We will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laura Clarke

However, Rochester is also romantic, passionate, strong, protective, and slightly vulnerable.

---

Slightly? I see him as a deeply hurt man who has turned narcissistic to protect himself from any more. I think deep inside he's terribly lonely and just wants to be loved. Though at first he goes about it in the wrong way and then, when his lie is exposed, he expects everyone to say 'there, there'. Maybe that's where his ideas have become skewed through the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Fair enough, Laura. I enjoyed reading "Jane Eyre" myself, and Rochester's attic may have been preferable to Bedlam(although I still don't see why Rochester kept his wife's existence a secret).

---

Preferable to Bedlam yes, but then there were lots of places that were far better than Bedlam.
Rochester's keeping his marriage a secret is facilitated from the beginning by his own family who are embarrassed and just don't publish the marriage in the newspaper. At the point where his brother Rowland and father have died, there are presumably no people left who know about it, and he 'rolls' into that evil situation of bigamy, so to say. Granted when he locked her up at Thornfield, I suppose Mrs Fairfax knew. In my mind that's why she cautions Jane several times without really saying why. I think she knows but can't say, either out of pity for Rochester or out of fear, I'm torn between those two. Other than that, though, there was no-one to tell him 'no' and he kind of gets used to the lie. Some bigamists just don't dare to get rid of a partner or so. They don't really set out to look for a second wife, they just don't know how to get out of a relationship and eventually they end up in front of the altar. It's weird. Even in this day and age there are bigamists like this, even with two happy relationships. Rochester I suspect didn't set out to look for a second marriage (as he says himself), but he rolls into it with Jane because she doesn't know about his wife up there in the attic. His emotional torment about this, IMO, comes to the fore in the fire in his bed which weirdly coincides with the full moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Also, I don't think Rochester is thinking of himself when he uses his pet names for Jane. Instead, he is betraying his subconscious by choosing the names he does.

---

Indeed, I think so too. On one level, he fancies himself a kind of God/supernatural being (backed up by Jane's thought just before the wedding that she was losing track of God because Rochester was there).

Hmm Prendrelemick... seems like a lot of people agreed with you on this one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

That's fair enough. I have a similar problem with Jane, the woman has no faults! she's so perfect she makes you sick. When she runs off after the "wedding" I lost all patience with her - I mean preferring death by exposure and starvation to an extra marital romp with her beloved Rocky ? C'mon.

---

Jane is nowhere near perfect. She is small, plain, and child-like in appearance. She has a fiery personality and is passionate - do not mistake her for Helen Burns. She has plenty of faults.

And running off after the wedding? That does not make her "sickeningly perfect," that makes her admirable. Jane has by no means an easy life. As a child, she is abused by her cousins and aunt. She is later starved at a boarding school and watches her best friend die beside her. When she finally falls in love with Rochester, and we think she'll finally get her happy ending, even he hurts her by deceiving her. Jane is ultimately tested when given the choice between righteousness and suffering vs immorality and happiness - and struggles to make the right decision. Even after doing so, she often yearns that she had been weak and given into temptation. Trust me, she's human, but strong.

Quote:

---

Then she stumbles upon her cousins (oh really!) and finds she is rich (you're pulling my leg) and that "call" from Rochester (oh stop it now).

---

Okay, so meeting her cousins was a pretty lucky thing when you look at Mary and Elizabeth, but what about St. John? I mean, sure he saves her life and all that, but its not that makes her life any easier. In fact, he is actually pretty mean to Jane as he pressures her to marry him (remember his "bible passage" that basically said that if you don't devote yourself to God you go to Hell?) and seems to like controlling her - I would not call that paradise on Jane's part. St. John is the cause of Jane's second major decision in the novel - don't we all breathe out a sigh of relief when Jane finally escapes him?

Becoming rich? Yes, I'll admit that's pretty lucky. But I thought that it added to novel in that it truly emphasizes the depth of Jane's love for Rochester. I mean, here she is, rich, young, and independent, returning to and older, crippled, blind man. I honestly think that the novel would be considerably weaker of this had not happened - it shows that Jane returns for nothing but love (imagine if Jane returned to Rochester, poor and dependent on him. One could question whether she was returning because she had no other choice).

It also, I think, beautifully reverses the original situation. Earlier in the book, Rochester was the man - rich, overbearing, and proud, and had Miss Ingrim pretty much begging him to marry her. In contrast, Jane was weak, poor, and his employee. Jane's love for Rochester is understandable, but Rochester's truly showed depth. However, at the end, they switch places: Jane returns rich and invigorated, while Rochester is broken and helpless. In this case, Jane is the superior in the situation, and yet she still loves him unconditionally. Jane and Rochester's mutual love for one another remains unchanged, regardless of the circumstance.

Lastly, the "supernatural call." Alright, maybe I'm stretching this one, but I thought that this added to the novel as well. Yes, its unrealistic, but be honest, how could one not love that part? Also, remember the situation she is returning to - a blind, older, crippled man who lied to her. Not exactly a Prince Charming calling her. Rochester is by no means perfect, so I would not roll my eyes at this ending - it is happily "bittersweet," which makes it more real.

Quote:

---

Or God forbid a year and a day later! Interesting point... A real woman might have run away and hoped nothing came of the wedding night... But I think Charlotte, as the good God-fearing Christian she was, didn't even consider that situation.

---

I agree completly, Kiki.

I can't imagine if either of those situations had happened. Jeez, Prendrelemick, you trying to scare me? :)

Oh don't take any notice of me, I'll admit I've been playing devils advocate a bit, I do rate Jane Eyre and recently heard she was a new kind of heroine for that age, in that she stood up for herself (and for womankind) like no other before her. The school was based on a real School for Clergymen's Daughters, that did have a high mortality rate - basically because they weren't fed enough. The saintly Helen was based on one of her sisters who died in Childhood, as usual I can't remember details but Charlotte was adamant that it was an accurate portrayal. This is the sort of stuff that adds poignancy to the story.

That said, I still think Pride and Prejudice is better. In fact it is as perfect a book as I have ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Oh don't take any notice of me, I'll admit I've been playing devils advocate a bit, I do rate Jane Eyre and recently heard she was a new kind of heroine for that age, in that she stood up for herself (and for womankind) like no other before her. The school was based on a real School for Clergymen's Daughters, that did have a high mortality rate - basically because they weren't fed enough. The saintly Helen was based on one of her sisters who died in Childhood, as usual I can't remember details but Charlotte was adamant that it was an accurate portrayal. This is the sort of stuff that adds poignancy to the story.

That said, I still think Pride and Prejudice is better. In fact it is as perfect a book as I have ever read.

---

Yes, OK, I'll admit that Jane herself is kind of new as a heroine. She's no Clarissa at any rate who is a bit easily led and too good to be true. And I also admit some of Jane's story was based on things that really happened, but still I'd say that Charlotte tried very hard, but didn't make the entire corpus of her knowledge into a really creative piece of lit (unlike her sister Emily). Though maybe it needs to be said that she was still developing as a writer. Who knows what she would have become if she had lived to a ripe old age and continued writing?

If you compare Jane Eyre to P&P and all of Austen's other novels, they are much more sophisticated as lit than JE, if a bit short on symbolism, although I think Austen tried her hand at some of it in Mansfield Park, but that IMO was a bit serious for her. She's best when she talks people. Austen at her age was much more a developed author than Charlotte Brontë. She knew what she wanted and how to do it. Charlotte still had a way to go, IMO.

Clarissa easily lead? She spends the first 600 pages resisting her family and the rest of the book resisting Lovelace. I agree she is a bit too good to be true.

And Rochester may be a rotter, as Ecurb rightly says, but as the fascination with Lovelace shows, rotters can be dead sexy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonathanB

Clarissa easily lead? She spends the first 600 pages resisting her family and the rest of the book resisting Lovelace. I agree she is a bit too good to be true.

And Rochester may be a rotter, as Ecurb rightly says, but as the fascination with Lovelace shows, rotters can be dead sexy.

---

Yes, Clarissa spends the first 600 pages defying her family, but that makes her headstrong, not less naïve. The way Lovelace lures her is quite disgusting and the way she believes his lies is even more infuriating. To be honest, her family didn't really give Lovelace a chance and that's not fair. Despite his past and the fact that it's difficult to believe someone could change 180°, he seems genuine in his intentions, though I admit I haven't finished the book, due to eyesight problems. I need to download it on my Kindle. I'm led to believe that eventually does what he does out of sheer frustration.
That said the fact that Clarissa does what she does on that fateful evening might have everything to do with her sheltered life (if you don't have the experience, you can hardly have learnt from it). It's exactly what happens to Jane in the face of Rochester's manipulation. Mrs Fairfax knows it, but Jane is completely blind. And Rochester knows it and uses it.

But I agree, rotters are terribly sexy. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

But I agree, rotters are terribly sexy. :p

---

Now you tell me! If only I'd known when I was younger, I would have performed rotten deeds more often!

I'm reading "Dr Wortle's School" by Anthony Trollope right now. I mention this only because the plot revolves around bigamy, just as it does in Jane Eyre, but the bigamists are not rotters. It's possible to be an honorable bigamist, apparently, although Mr. Rochester would not have qualified.

I've started Mansfield Park. I'mm not sure of the analogy with Jane Eyre. Who's Rochester? Henry Crawford strikes me as too much of charmer.

I too think it's a bit Jane Eyrey - probably because both the heroines have that same miserable sacrificial demeanor. They are both martyrs to the ideal of, what became known as, Victorian morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Now you tell me! If only I'd known when I was younger, I would have performed rotten deeds more often!

I'm reading "Dr Wortle's School" by Anthony Trollope right now. I mention this only because the plot revolves around bigamy, just as it does in Jane Eyre, but the bigamists are not rotters. It's possible to be an honorable bigamist, apparently, although Mr. Rochester would not have qualified.

---

Yes, but that sexiness only applies when it's not for real :p. I'm not sure whether I'd like to submit to that in reality...
Women are fickle, aren't they ;).

Seems an interesting plot... Rochester also presses the point that he deserves a second chance, because he has been tricked into a marriage with a wife whom he can't get rid of. It's a valid point. The problem in this case is that he can't divorce her, because even if she did commit adultery with another man (he alludes to this), which was the only means for a man to get rid of his wife at the time, this would, paradoxically, still not be a ground for divorce in this case, as Bertha was declared mad before he could petition for divorce and therefore is considered non-compus mentis. In essence she is not considered to be responsible for her actions and thus she cannot be accused of adultery. That's quite sad, because not only is he saddled with an abusive wife, he cannot solve his problem either because the law forbids him. So he is faced with the lonely existence of a bachelor without the prospect of a wife and children (so idealised in Victorian society), until Bertha decides to die of her own accord.

I don't think his mere attempt at bigamy makes him a rotter. After all the priest and the lawyer clearly have some kind of sympathy for it. They do try and argue their case, but it is plain that faced with Bertha and the reality of Rochester's existence and chances of happiness, they are kind of taken aback by their own argument. However, where Rochester does become a real rotter in Victorian eyes is that (apart from not really attempting to care all that well for his 'former' wife) he has had a string of mistresses, a child out of wedlock, and to top it all off, he tries to trick Jane into a marriage.
From Wikipedia, I gather the Peacockes' situation differs where they get married in the mistaken belief that she is a widow, but after their mistake has been revealed they decide to carry on the 'marriage' nonetheless. Rochester never tells Jane that he's got a mad wife, but that he'd like to marry her and be her husband. He makes that pledge under false pretenses. Which makes him untrustworthy. I mean, he can say 'but I truly love you and I won't leave you, ever, as long as I live' all he likes after his lie has been exposed, but if he was prepared to lure her into a bigamous marriage without taking her into his confidence about his terrible problem, then why should she be prepared to trust him in what will be for her a precarious situation?
Hardy also expressed ideas about bigamy in Jude the Obscure where he didn't see any problem with it either, I don't think. Just because those characters got married without really considering too much that it wa until either of them died, doesn't mean they should stay unhappily together. I think that was probably a reality for many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonathanB

I've started Mansfield Park. I'mm not sure of the analogy with Jane Eyre. Who's Rochester? Henry Crawford strikes me as too much of charmer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I too think it's a bit Jane Eyrey - probably because both the heroines have that same miserable sacrificial demeanor. They are both martyrs to the ideal of, what became known as, Victorian morality.

---

I see what they mean though. Fanny is also a bit of a goodie... Unless you know the plot already, we won't talk about it. But you'll see how Crawford fits into that picture, although admittedly it's less pronounced.

I have read it at least twice already and I know the plot. I still don't think Henry is anything like the brooding Mr Rochester. He's a charmer - and unusually in Jane Austen not good looking.

OK, there's no Rochester in Mansfield Park. The similarities are that small, unloved heroines go to live with their aunts and uncles. MP is Austen's only novel that begins with the heroine as a young girl (if we discount the humorous introduction in Northanger Abbey, in which baseball is mentioned). Also, there's a Caribbean connection in both novels. Sir Thomas has economic interests in Antigua (which, we assume, involve a plantation using slave labor). The similarity is mainly with the situation and character of the heroine, though.

I haven't read Jane Eyre for some time and given Ecurb's criticism of the heroine I am not likely to do so. But I'm not convinced the two heroines are that similar in character. In situation they are both dependents in a big house.

Presumably the similarity between Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice is that Rochester and Darcy both seem to have the same sexual attraction for a certain type. I'm gay for goodness sake and can find a man fanciable, but both of them leave me cold. (As do Heathcliff and Lovelace, the ****.) Henry Crawford though could flutter my heart.