I've read posts on a few different forums, and there was a large number of people who stated that they disliked Mr. Rochester. I happen to like him, but he really doesn't seem to have many fans. Is there anyone else here who likes him?
Printable View
I've read posts on a few different forums, and there was a large number of people who stated that they disliked Mr. Rochester. I happen to like him, but he really doesn't seem to have many fans. Is there anyone else here who likes him?
I like him
Yay! Mr. R needs more love! :D
I like him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicLitChick
I think he gets a lot of grief concerning his treatment of Bertha.
If we better understood the times they lived in, we would realize that his solution of caring for her in his home was actually the most compassionate choice he could have made.
He is a bit of a scoundrel for trying to justify polygamy. but other than that he's an extremely pathetic character and I definitely have a lot of compassion for his situation.
There's one particular film version where he is especially passionate and poetic and philosophical and romantic. I couldn't help but love him then.
All in all, it's a great love story.
I completely agree with everything that you said. I was actually going to write something along those lines!! That there is someone else in the world that feels exactly like I do about this man, makes me feel better!Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
I love him! The exact way that I would describe him has already been done with sciencefan's post. These are the reasons for why I like him. People tend to think I am crazy for it because of his wife, but I, too, feel that he did the best that he thought he could do to take care of her.
I always felt he was wrong for deceiving Jane, but at the same time I felt that he did what he did because he wanted her so much. He knew he wouldn't have her so long as his wife was still around. Is that wrong to go about getting her the way that he tried to? Of course. At the same time, that helps to make this already clearly unhappy man that much more pitiful to me.
Well, that is my feelings towards him.
Yay, there are others here who actually like/love him! I'm glad it's not just me having bad taste in men or something. *clings to Mr. Rochester* I <3 him :D
I agree that he does do some pretty despicable things, but he's human (well, actually he's a fictional character, but let's not get technical *wink*). Humans are flawed and make mistakes; Mr. Rochester is no exception.
Ha! I like your way of thinking! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicLitChick
I plan on buying this shirt that says "Rochester > Darcy". I love it!! Though I have to admit to having a thing for Darcy, too, but he is NOT Mr. Rochester!!
Are you kidding!!?? I'm in awe of him and in love with him. How can you not be in love with a guy who sings a beautiful song to his beloved, as well as speak French (the most romantic language out there) :) True, he has his faults (his treatment of Adele, his moodiness, etc) but there is so much greatness, goodness, and passion within him that I cannot see why anyone could not like him, at the least.
hey girls, I love him, too.
what shirt is this you mentioned Lady Wentworth?
He is one of my favorite characters in fiction. The scene right before he proposes to Jane where he speaks of a thread [or bond?] twixt the two of them if she goes off to Ireland, and he says that if it breaks he will take to bleeding internally just broke my heart.
A lovely man who did the best with what he had dealt him in life.
OK. I tried to post and it completely disappeared on me! So, I will try again.
Anyway, there is the scene where Jane asks him about why he went through the trouble to convince her that he loved Blanche. With part of his reply I was completely taken by him.
"I wished to render you as madly in love with me as I was with you"
Tell me that isn't great!
I was 13 when I first read this novel. I love it just as much now as I did then, if not more.
I just remember thinking that I was more than willing to be a penniless, plain, waif, orphan who worked as a 19th century governess in a strange huge home. I just wanted to have this brilliant man. I was more than willing to look past his mad wife that was locked in the attic! I am so crazy! :D
Mr. Rochester is perfect character. I admire his nobleness, magnanimity and charm. And of course his voice. I love him.
hey, i just love Mr. R. .
His wit and the way he talks to Jane is awesome, specially in the beginning when people never understand what they are talking about. How passionately he loves Jane!!! I am surprised everybody doesn't like him.
By far , he is in my list of the best fictional heroes.
Mr. Rochester is great. I love his personality. His sarcastic humor, his passion, even his moodiness. I think there's just so much to him.
hmm, all this talk makes me want to reread Jane Eyre (again).
I don't see anything in Mr. R except for his sharp tongue which is full of poetic-like words that he throws on Jane whenever he meets her. However, his coldness ( which I feel throughout the novel) really irritates me.
i am really surprised to hear these words from a female person because if you think the reason why Bertha went mad, the reason is Rochester's mistreatment of her.while she was a beautiful lady in her hometown Rochester took him as his wife and caused her to go mad and he left her alone in the attic till the last moment she made herself heard and if you look at the end of the novel Jane says" I married him" cuse now Rochester is in a similar situation like Bertha and he lost his sight because he must feel like her to understand her better but it is too late any more cuse Bertha is death.because of whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyWentworth
Bertha was mad before Rochester married her. It ran in her family. Her mother was mad. They tricked him.Quote:
Originally Posted by man-of-istanbul
I like the character so much :yawnb: . I think that his situation is very complicated with Bertha but I think that he is a good man with a desafortunated life. He loves Jane but he is married with a mad woman. She is violent, and Rochester have to conceal her. It´s a dificult situation, isn´t it?
So says Rochester, who is trying to rationalize himself out of a hot spot. I wouldn't take his story at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
I like Rochester more than anyone else in Jane Eyre, but he's not perfect by any means, especially after having read Wide Sargasso Sea. I will give him credit for taking care of Berthantoinette when he could just as easily have pushed her off the battlements and not gotten any guff for it, but my thinking goes thusly:
Rochester < Darcy < Rhett Butler
I DO take his story at face value. He has been justifying his actions to himself, and now he asks for the mercy of a lawyer and a clergyman. By the way, if Rochester was lying, the lawyer would have contradicted him. Placed in the context as it is, Bronte is now explaining Rochester's thinking to her readers.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
Brontë herself was an Englishwoman with an evident (if subconscious) dislike for those not of English blood.
Wide Sargasso Sea changes everything.
I would put them in the opposite order.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
Eh - to each their own. Rhett Butler gets points with me for his keen understanding of human nature and his no-nonsense attitude towards society around him (although one could argue that that is something all three men have in common). Rochester is a decent man at his core, but I get the feeling that Brontë didn't originally mean for Jane to be with him. Darcy is a great fellow, but Rhett steals it based on cool factor.
First of all, why am I the only one being quoted here? Other people praised him. I don't understand how my statement stands out. I am a little confused here.Quote:
Originally Posted by man-of-istanbul
Second, if I am going to pity someone (or be "on their side"), it isn't going to be based solely on the fact that it is a woman and I am a woman. If a person deserves my pity (or that I need to "side" with them), they will get it no matter who they are. I am not one of those women that will always take the woman's side.
Third, I am a sucker for the dark, brooding type. That is all. :)
I think I'd make it Darcy < Rhett < Rochester :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
That is exactly why I put him high on my list :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
he is really awesome, though you can understand why people don't like him too much, with the whole being really rude thing, and the crazy wife.
but he's so sweet! i always get mad at Jane for not letting him buy her stuff!
and my favourite passage of all time: the proposal scene
"Are you anthing akin to me, do you think, Jane?"
...
"Because," he said "I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you - especially when you are near to me, as now : it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous Channel came between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapped ; and then i've a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly."
OH MY GOD ARE YOU BLOWN AWAY?!!!!!!!!!!
I SURE AM!!!!!
find me ANYONE who'll say that to me and i'll marry them.
I luv him!!! he is so cool. especially in the bbc drama coz in it he is soooo hot!! i know he's not meant to be but please someone agree he is!!!!
xxxxx
In most versions of Jane Eyre, I did not feel the attraction between Rochester and Jane. He is older and wealthy, and conveniently for him, she alone and penniless.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlegirl
I have to agree with littlegirl, though- in the 2006 BBC version, Rochester is quite attractive, the chemistry between Jane and Rochester is strong, and his truly loving her is believable.
I have a love/hate relationship with Mr. Rochester. On the one hand, I know I certainly would never ever want to date or marry a man like him in real life because he could be controlling, deceptive, delusional, entitled, manipulative, moody, and, at worst, engage in some behaviors with Jane that would be considered borderline sexual harassment/sexual coercion in the modern day era of #Me2, though Rochester’s still far, far, far better towards Jane in Jane Eyre, even at his worst, in comparison to Harvey Weinstein, R Kelly, or Bill O’Riley. Back then, he would have been called somewhat of a seductive and libertine cad with women. While bigamy was still illegal to commit back then, regardless of gender, even back then in the era of early-mid 19th century Victorian England, men seducing women was not a punishable crime by law in the legal system, though it was certainly still frowned upon as libertine behavior back then, and women were considered “fallen” if they gave in to pressure and temptation. That’s why Jane Eyre is considered such a proto-feminist heroines of her time. She recognizes that men who impose their authority and dominance over her life are not entitled to do so, and she has no obligation to love them, marry them, or run away with them to live in sin.
I just can’t hate Rochester because he’s clearly not a neurotypical or sane man, and in the Victorian era that would have been incredibly difficult to overcome without becoming a total monster, so I think Rochester does genuinely deserve some credit for holding onto some deep semblance of genuine humanity, self-awareness, and self-control in that era, though he’s still far from a saint and a total mess.
He seems to clearly suffer from mild-moderate traits of NPD and hypomanic depression. Yes, he has trouble being honest, fair, and emotionally vulnerable with Jane. It would really suck to not be able to get a divorce from someone who turned out to be clinically insane, unfaithful, and abusive to you back then, especially after finding out your brother and your dad set you up for failure in their trap of a marriage that you naively fell for. Yes, Rochester was somewhat of a libertine with women, which would make us cringe today, but within that backwards Victorian patriarchal society in which women were viewed as second class citizens to men, there was little to no proper treatment or therapy for people with mental health issues, most people didn’t fully understand what all the red flags of abuse were in relationships, men were allowed to get away with sexually harassing/seducing women, and the only crime that was penalized by the law was bigamy, so I can completely understand why a broken, cowardly, emotionally damaged, deeply insecure, unconsciously emotionally/psychologically abusive, controlling, blindly entitled, self-sabotaging, possessive, and delusional man who had serious trouble fully understanding what consent was from a woman, like Rochester would exist within that historical context of Jane Eyre, and my heart completely breaks for him. Rochester’s no saint, even by Victorian standards, but I still want for him to get better. Obviously, he’s still fully responsible for the emotional trauma he caused Jane by deceiving and pressuring her, Jane was completely in the right for leaving him when she did after finding out the truth because he was not entitled to her, like he was attempting to make her feel, and if Jane hadn’t wanted to forgive him or take him back in the end, then she still would have been completely obligated to that choice.
I love Mr. Rochester and Jane, both as individual characters and an ultimate couple by the end. However, the most important aspect of having a fictional favorite problematic character and/or couple is fully acknowledging their faults and recognizing why they are problematic. Mr. Rochester may not have been physically abusive of Jane, but he occasionally was somewhat emotionally abusive of Jane up until she left him for his deceptions, he lost his eyesight (temporarily), a hand, his estate, and he started atoning for his sins. We have to acknowledge that it was very wrong for him to be this way with Jane as readers to appreciate his atonement arc at the end of the novel, just as both of the characters ultimately did in the novel before they could get a happy ending together as a healthy couple.
Usually, those who emotionally/mentally abuse others truly aren’t totally aware that they are causing any emotional trauma to others by coercing, deceiving, manipulating, gaslighting, disregarding their right to, controlling their finances, isolating, being possessive, pressuring, guilt tripping, threatening, intimidating ,etc. in relationships for what they believe is “love.” Instead, they are usually very deeply self-loathing people with untreated mental illness(es) and/or personality disorders with entitlement/self-delusional issues who convince themselves and attempt to convince those who become their victims in relationships that they are doing what is best for them by controlling them because they are too hyper-focused on their own personal insecurities and/or perceived shortcomings, and too afraid to be emotionally vulnerable with someone else because they are so afraid of rejection. I think Rochester’s issues were mild-moderate NPD, manic depressive, and histrionic traits, and considering the fact that he was a 19th century Englishman living with those issues, I think he genuinely does deserve some credit for being able to hold onto enough of his humanity and sanity to keep himself from completely falling over the edge of the brink and becoming a monster.
Heathcliff was just a ****ing monster with no conscience and no ultimately redeeming qualities, and Emily Brontë didn’t ever pretend otherwise in the narrative of Wuthering Heights. He’s a complete subversion of the Byronic Hero with Classic Anti-hero traits, and clearly a Villain Protagonist variant Byronic Hero. Granted, the Phantom did have something of a redemptive moment at the end of POTO by letting Christine go with Raoul, but I still call him mostly a Byronic Hero with Villain Protagonist traits, too, like Heathcliff, rather than a Byronic Hero with Classic Antihero traits like Mr. Rochester. Not only was what Heathcliff and the Phantom put their victims through far, far, far worse than what Rochester ever put Jane through in Jane Eyre, but, unlike him, they also had malicious intentions, whereas Rochester deceived and manipulated Jane and occasionally acted overbearing because he was a deeply self-loathing coward with mild-moderate NPD/manic depressive traits, so I think people are making him out to be way worse in canon than he actually was intended to be by drawing comparisons between Rochester versus the Phantom and Heathcliff. Yes, they are all literary Byronic Heroes, but whereas the Phantom and Heathcliff are/were genuinely and intentionally evil Villain Protagonists, Rochester fits more into the Byronic Hero/ Classic Anti-Hero variant of the trope of a character. This variant of a Byronic Hero genuinely doesn’t intend to cause any harm to anyone and genuinely means well (or believe they do) but still hurts others in relationships, anyway, because their pride, cowardice, self-loathing, delusions, and personal insecurities act as their own worst enemies, and holds them back from doing what is right in the right ways. The Byronic Classic Anti-Hero variant applies more closely to Rochester. He genuinely and deeply loves Jane, he’s genuinely under the belief that he’s doing what’s best for both of them, even if his means are immoral, deceitful, cowardly, manipulative selfish, and just incredibly unhealthy, but it’s his own blind entitlement, recklessness, selfishness, and incredibly unhealthy coercive, deceitful, and manipulative means he attempts that act as his own undoing. Thankfully, he gets the opportunity to atone and redeem himself at the end, but, yeah, he was a total ****ing mess!
I suppose you could call Rochester an Anti-Villain, except he’s not really a heel-face-revolving door, and he genuinely thinks securing love with Jane through bigamy is his ticket to becoming a better man. He knew the deceit was wrong all along, but he thought the bigamy was okay. Anti-Villains are usually wild cards who are all over the place, aligning with good guys and bad guys alike for whatever suits their needs or desires, often caught in a heel-face-revolving door. Rochester could be in that category, except his desires and needs, for better or worse, really only align with Jane and her love in the novel. He’s something of an antagonist to Jane’s goal to gain, maintain, and retain free-will, happiness, and self-respect, but he’s also part of her success to find those things and triumph over them. I’m not sure if we would call him a villain of the story either.
Nonetheless, a lack of malicious intent does not excuse the emotional/mental trauma and pressure the emotional/psychological abuser puts on those who become their victims in relationships. Jane was completely obligated to not be in a romantic/sexual relationship with Mr. Rochester in chapter 27. If Jane hadn’t felt like forgiving Rochester and/or didn’t feel like taking him back in the end after she came back and his wife was dead, she would have been completely obligated to the choice not to. However, I’m glad she was rewarded by Mr. Rochester genuinely atoning for his sins, learning from his mistakes, and spending the next ten years of their life making it up to her by being the best husband ever when she forgave him and decided to marry him on her own terms.
I genuinely don’t believe Rochester ever would have actually physically harmed Jane, physically forced her to be his mistress/“wife,” especially not when he saw how unhappy he was making her by trying to coerce her in, and/or sexually violated her in chapter 27. But I think it’s also important for us to acknowledge that he was behaving kind of terrifyingly in that chapter towards her. We have to acknowledge it was wrong for him to attempt to dupe Jane into a bigamous union. We have to acknowledge that he was wrong to attempt to marry a woman who was under his employ the first time around, which was why he lost his estate. We have to acknowledge that it was wrong for him to attempt to persuade and pressure Jane to run away with him to the Mediterranean so they could get bigamously married there as “husband” and “wife” without the law being able to follow them across Europe outside of England, dropping an empty threat of physical violence, guilt tripping her, reminding her that she had no one else in the world’s opinion to care about but his own, kissing her forehead and cheek in attempt to shake her resolve to leave him, and by grabbing her arm and waist in a tight hold for a second, sharing some scary thoughts about how he felt tempted to hurt her and physically violate her, yet never actually could, and shaking her once in his anger before letting her go free to make her own choice.
As for the thing about keeping Bertha locked up in the attic, considering the historical context of the novel Jane Eyre, I really didn’t see that as a sign that Rochester was evil. I actually thought it was pretty humane, considering how terrible asylums were back then, though it genuinely was really shortsighted and stupid of him to not look for a more competent caretaker for Bertha than an alcoholic, which, of course, he does pay for at the end of the novel when Bertha burns down Thornfield, and he loses most of his eyesight, a hand, and his estate.
I agree. In a modern novel he'd be a manipulative creep. For the 19th century, well he's not as ridiculous an older man as Jarndyce in Bleak House. But at least Dickens had the judgment to dig up a last minute Prince Charming for Esther. And it's telling that the BBC had to give Rochester a makeover before he was ready for our times.
Rhett was beyond terrible to Scarlett.
Granted, she was also a greedy and verbally/emotionally abusive ***** who hurt him too, but even she didn’t deserve to be raped or verbally/emotionally abused by Rhett. Rochester could be controlling, entitled, hot-tempered, and manipulative. However, he still had enough common decency to back off when Jane called him out, and he never reveled in seriously hurting her. Plus, he changed for the better because of true love, and I’ll always love the BATB trope, no matter how old I get, no matter how cheesy it is.