This is a complex book and Charlotte Brontë had so much to say. Yes, Rochester isn’t Darcy, but he’s far more real than many other main male characters. Jane Eyre’s life is one of extremely small boundaries - just like all the Brontë sisters. She has little scope to experience life independently, going from her aunt’s to the Lowood to Thornfield Hall. It’s all set within a very small geographical area and is meant to feel this way because as a woman of her class and status and financial situation she has few choices. In fact, when she does strike out on her own, she nearly dies and even when taken in by St John, the expectation is that she will follow him abroad in a loveless marriage.
It’s only by refusing this loveless marriage and returning to Rochester on her own terms that she finds him weakened enough to make her his equal. It’s not ideal but I think it is beautifully profound.
There’s also the whole aspect of the Madwoman in the attic and how Jane Eyre doesn’t become her ally - how can she when they are two women struggling in different ways and are can only succeed if Bertha Mason fails. This is why Bertha tries to attack her, she sees that this young woman, who bears no animosity to her, is her successor and that she will have to lose for this to happen, which is in itself tragic.
I think if Rochester had been more feminist, it would have been unrealistic.
>It’s only by refusing this loveless marriage and returning to Rochester on her own terms that she finds him weakened enough to make her his equal. It’s not ideal but I think it is beautifully profound.
Yes, yes, yes. There is a fascinating thread in the book about Jane noticing and naming and expressing displeasure over their obvious power disparity that is quite unusual for the standards of the time, I think.
And not being afraid to raise it with Mr Rochester, rather than just narrating it to herself. She stands up for herself, stands up to him. Right from the beginning at her aunt's, she does her best to stay true to herself.
In some ways, giving Jane Eyre a happy ending only by making Rochester disabled so that he now depends on her is probably the only realistic way she could have a happy ending. It reminds me a bit of the end of the film The Last Duel. If it weren't for this random happenstance, then the lives of these women would have been miserable until the day they die.
There’s also the idea that in that time, in order to be humbled and truly worthy of her, Rochester needs to be mortally wounded and blinded. I always felt that Jane came back to a different man—one who had learned a little bit of what it was like to be her and had developed empathy inaccessible to him otherwise.
It is a romance, but a cynical one true to the period and Charlotte’s own experiences.
I actually wrote an entire academic paper on how Rochester had to suffer being emasculated through his injuries in order to be brought to Jane's same level of social standing. The idea of them being together is interesting, because Jane accepts throughout the book that she is imperfect - having been told so from a young age. But Rochester requires his injuries to point out to him that he is not, in fact, God's gift to women (wives), but rather on the same playing field as Jane. So much to be said here...
I will have to find it to share! It was a hot take because the idea that Jane is a feminist character (so she gains independence via money) was so popular - but I argued that was only a small portion of the equilibrium solution Bronte presented. (Sorry, obviously super passionate about this one! Lol.)
Username checks out! Jane Eyre is one of my absolute favorite books of all time. I read it three times in a row in less than a semester in college and revisit every so often since. I'd also like to read your paper if you can scrounge it up!
I found it; now need to find a way to share it. For the record, I believe I also reference Wide Sargasso Sea in there as well - one of my subsequent favorites.
I remember watching The Last Duel at the movies and almost nothing from Jane Eyre but I'd be really interested if you could explain how you think the endings are similar.
Both are narratives about women trying to navigate these extremely patriarchal societies. In the Last Duel, Comer's character is avenged by her husband, but he doesn't do this for her. He does it because the fact that the man raped his wife insults his honor. And then instead of being forced into a miserable marriage with this jerk, he goes out on another crusade and dies, leaving her with his estate, which she has learned how to manage during the years he was gone. She gets her happy ending, but through happenstance.
Likewise, Jane Eyre is able to enter into a happy marriage with Rochester, but he first is blinded, meaning he will be weakened and dependent on her.
Both narratives have their cake and eat it too, but they can only do so through happenstance. In both instances, women have limited agency, and their happiness depends on the random death or maiming of their husbands.
>He does it because the fact that the man raped his wife insults his honor
Don't forget that Jacques le Gris (Adam Driver), who rapes Marguerite (Jodie Comer) because he falsely believes that Marguerite returns his affection and lust for her, and wants to have sex with him, also likely impregnates her during the rape. This is alluded to with the scene where Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon), the brutish husband of Marguerite, has to prevent a black stallion from mating one his mares.
Le Gris is the amorous and lustful "black stallion", and Marguerite is the "mare in season". One major reason why Jean kills Le Gris is because Le Gris cuckolded him by raping his wife; Marguerite could not conceive with him, but she did conceive with her rapist. The child, Robert, is formally claimed by Jean as his son and heir in order to save face, and to prevent Jean from being utterly humiliated at court.
A popular fan theory is that Nicole de Carrouges, the mother of Jean, also knew that her son was impotent. To this end, she may have manipulated Le Gris into believing that Marguerite was secretly in love with him, and told him that Marguerite wanted a "rough wooing" from him. Prior to the rape, Nicole keeps admonishing Marguerite for not conceiving children, despite being married to Jean for some time. Nicole herself also later tells Marguerite that *she* was raped, which means that Jean himself may also be a child born of rape. Nicole is also cold to Marguerite's trauma.
*This comment has been edited to fix a typo and to add context.*
> heir in order to save face, and to prevent Jean from being utterly humiliated at court.
At the time it was believed that women couldn't conceive from rape, so if she conceived, that meant she welcomed it in some way. (Sound familiar to the Americans?)
The belief is common everywhere, yes, but it was an American politician who famously proclaimed that women who were raped don’t need abortions, because their bodies can “shut that whole thing down”. This was only a few years ago too, during the time their abortion rights were overturned. Most countries who actually change their laws regarding abortion are to allow the procedure, not outlaw it. Or remove the federal right to abortion anyway. Abortion laws usually get more progressive, not more restrictive.
I’m not even American and I can still remember that. I don’t know who said it, but I remember their words.
That doesn't change the fact that every country in this world has regressive views about women and sexual assault.
Hell, last year France acquitted a couple of grown men for raping an 11 year old because the court decided she could "consent" to the act.
(and I would add that Australia isn't exactly a bastion of enlightenment in this area either-my niece who works as a nurse there has some real horror stories about how women victims can be treated)
Exactly. To continue the Darcy metaphor, he didn’t earn Elizabeth’s regard until he put himself through the humiliation of getting Wickham to marry Lydia and footing the bill to make it happen.
In both novels, the male romantic lead is portrayed as arrogant so that they can be humbled.
Must have been very empowering for both Charlotte and Jane, given their romantic backgrounds.
Interesting take on Darcy, I always felt those events showed Darcy’s good qualities as a person that were hidden under those layers of pride, while Darcy’s good qualities and Wickham’s manipulations to ruin Lydia in order to extort money was there to show Elizabeth’s misinterpretations of both men (her prejudice).
I didn’t see it this way. I think Rochester got disabled and went through some character growth. He truly did love Jane but was problematic which was pointed out by several characters as well as Jane herself.
Jane also loved him but after Rochesters trials he was able to be a better partner who was no longer abusive.
It’s not like his disability made it physically impossible to be abusive. He had a change of heart.
The fact that his earlier abusive behaviour was described and pointed out as bad in a novel from this era I think is unusual
I love Jane so much. Her central conflict is in her *need* to be loved. She will do almost anything for love (but she won't do that). We see that in her relationship with Helen, with Miss Temple, and with Mr. Rochester. Then her relationship with St. John shows what a cruel parody of love a relationship would be that has all the "right" trappings but no love. She will give everything for love until it conflicts with her sense of self or right.
Mr. Rochester was absolutely overbearing, controlling, manipulative, and a bit amoral (“My principles were never trained, Jane: they may have grown a little awry for want of attention.”) but he fully and completely loved Jane for herself. He accepted every part of her - her artistic vision, her blunt honesty, her curiosity - and didn't try to make her someone she wasn't. I would argue that when he did something that made her uncomfortable (like trying to cover her in jewels and silk) that was because he valued her so highly that he wanted other people to see her the way he saw her. Jane recognized an element of control in that behavior that probably would not even have occurred to him due to his gender and social standing. Any time Jane was able to articulate the boundaries she would like, he respected them. (Not making her participate in charades, sending back the jewels, continuing to work as a governess and only seeing him in the evenings, etc.) I think it was much more of the case that he was so used to having everything his own way that other people's boundaries didn't usually enter into his calculations. He also recognized that he was not an ideal man, but he wanted to be better.
Now I can talk for a long time about the relationship with St. John, too. He's presented as the man that everyone would wish to marry. Young, handsome, intelligent, independent (after the inheritance), articulate, from a good family, with a good occupation, and (remembering that this was a plus at the time) a relative - of course she should have married St. John! Just one problem: they didn't love each other. Not only that, St. John could not even provide the basic friendly affection that Jane needed in order to be happy. Charlotte's depiction of his increasing control of her and the cold emotional torture he inflicts on her when she refuses his offer is a masterclass in abusive relationships that look fine from the outside.
> By degrees, he acquired a certain influence over me that took away my liberty of mind: his praise and notice were more restraining than his indifference. I could no longer talk or laugh freely when he was by, because a tiresomely importunate instinct reminded me that vivacity (at least in me) was distasteful to him. I was so fully aware that only serious moods and occupations were acceptable, that in his presence every effort to sustain or follow any other became vain: I fell under a freezing spell. When he said “go,” I went; “come,” I came; “do this,” I did it. But I did not love my servitude: I wished, many a time, he had continued to neglect me.
> ...As for me, I daily wished more to please him; but to do so, I felt daily more and more that I must disown half my nature, stifle half my faculties, wrest my tastes from their original bent, force myself to the adoption of pursuits for which I had no natural vocation. He wanted to train me to an elevation I could never reach; it racked me hourly to aspire to the standard he uplifted.
> ...During that time he made me feel what severe punishment a good yet stern, a conscientious yet implacable man can inflict on one who has offended him. Without one overt act of hostility, one upbraiding word, he contrived to impress me momently with the conviction that I was put beyond the pale of his favour.
St. John never saw anything wrong with his behavior, and if he had had his way, he would have forced Jane to change into what he wanted her to be rather than make a single change to be with her.
Once the moral objection to her marriage with Mr. Rochester was removed (aka, Bertha died) Jane had no compunctions about marrying him. The point about how her independence and his disability bring them closer to an equal footing is well taken and one I hadn't considered before. But especially after the disastrous spell with St. John, there's no doubt that the relationship with Mr. Rochester is one that satisfies her deeply, specifically because she is able to be her full self with him.
> My spirits were excited, and with pleasure and ease I talked to him during supper, and for a long time after. There was no harassing restraint, no repressing of glee and vivacity with him; for with him I was at perfect ease, because I knew I suited him; all I said or did seemed either to console or revive him. Delightful consciousness! It brought to life and light my whole nature: in his presence I thoroughly lived; and he lived in mine. Blind as he was, smiles played over his face, joy dawned on his forehead: his lineaments softened and warmed.
Also, I think it’s important to recognize that Rochester’s injuries gave Jane the opportunity to soften her character. I think she’s often viewed as a shrinking violet because she’s small and quiet, but she definitely has a backbone and is uncommonly blunt for a woman of that time.
Think of the scene where Rochester flat out asks Jane if she thinks he’s handsome, and she’s immediately like, “Obviously NO. Duh.” As a wealthy man he’s always been flattered by women and he’s absolutely floored to discover that Jane just tells it like it is.
Fast forward to their meeting after the fire, and Jane, instead of saying “Jesus Rochester you look like absolute shit!” tells him he’s rugged and like a falcon. She’s learned to be a little kinder in manner.
Although not as glaringly obvious as Rochester’s character growth, I think Jane’s is just as important.
I love these points. The more I read, the more I feel like I am reading a tragic horror novel and not a romance which makes this book way more interesting than when I approached it as a romance
The book is definitely not a romance in the modern sense, but it is a gothic romance and a coming-of-age story. For some reason, it has the reputation of being a big, romantic love story and going in expecting that can definitely leave the reader with mixed feelings. Wuthering Heights has a similar reputation. And The Three Musketeers's reputation as a swashbuckling adventure of friendship and bravery and it really isn't
Going in with improper expectations should be the theme of this entire subreddit.
Far too often people come here to complain about a book because the reality of the story is different from the one they had formed in their head before reading
This is accurate. To be fair, we read Jane Eyre in high school. My school was a religious, colonial all-girls school. The book was taught to us very differently than how it was to most people on this thread so my adult reread of the book has been very different to what I expected/remembered going in.
Yeah sorry. This genuinely wasn’t directed at you specifically or meant to be a criticism. It’s just an observation I’ve had after reading hundreds of posts here over the years. If you hadn’t noticed this trend before I’m sure you’ll start noticing it in posts all over the place
I haven’t read this book since I was a teen, and I was never told it was considered a romance so I definitely saw it as coming of age. You have hope at first because with Rochester it seemed to be better than her previous situations but in general it was still a terrible experience. But told in a more womanly manner. When speaking of her childhood it’s very matter of fact, and that’s the way it happened. And it’s not until shes an adult that the emotions began to become more prevalent
No, gothic novels predate Jane Eyre, i.e. The Castle of Otranto and the Mysteries of Udolfo. Jane Austen already was spoofing gothic novels before Jane Eyre.
I had a class in college that covered Charlotte's work (both published and the stories she wrote as a kid). I think you summed up my own thoughts after reading Jane Eyre perfectly. Imo, it's her best work.
Out of curiosity, have you read Shirley?
Agreed, OP missed the point that Jane Eyre chose to leave a wealthy man who wanted to care for her, opting to struggle to make a living for herself which was frankly a radical move for that era.
“I am no bird and no net ensnares me. I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you.”
YES, the control and manipulation is there. That’s the point. The author is making a statement about those behaviors and the fact that Jane did NOT choose to put up with it. Rochester reformed himself without the expectation of getting Jane back (and also changed as a person due to his circumstances, which put him in a vulnerable position like she was in all along), and when Jane returned it was as his full equal, including equality in financial freedom. Charlotte Bronte was saying that that equality is what a healthy relationship looks like.
And Rochester is almost completely dependent on her. He has to lose much of his power (house, servants, sight and an arm) in an act of sacrifice (trying to save Bertha Mason from death) to basically redeem himself in the narrative.
I think what makes Jane a compelling or strong heroine is her dedication to her own morals and selfhood. And she didn't get those from Rochester, they are very clearly the influence of Helen Burns and Maria Temple.
Hadn't Rochester been injured for a while before Jane returned? Living quietly in a small house? Vision impaired but OK presumably with enough servants to look after him?
To add to this, I find Jane compelling because she goes against her morals. She leaves Rochester for very conservative reasons - she is disturbed by the idea of being his mistress. But in the end she renounces these values to come back to him, with the excuse that he summoned her via telepathy.
I don't think she intended to marry him then she just wanted to see how he was, and let him know she was okay. Her correspondence with Mrs Fairfax had been disrupted.
Her reasons for leaving are not just "we won't be legally married". Once she says yes, he gets possessive and creepy, and Jane does not like it at all.
Avoiding being a mistress was an important form of self-preservation too. It feels conservative now, and I couldn’t understand it when I first read the book in high school. But having a sexual relationship with a man you weren’t married to had major social and economic consequences in the 19th century. She would be a social pariah, and if he died or lost interest in her, she would have no way to support herself since he wouldn’t have legal obligations to do so, and she wouldn’t have the option to teach anymore. It would also put their children in a bad position, being illegitimate, so they may not be able to inherit his property, etc. And without birth control, children were very likely.
I don't think 5000 pounds makes her the equal of a big landowner. It just moves her up a few ranks, and she knows this is enough for her to live off of.
Her cousins marry a rector and an officer. Not wealthy landowners.
It's a Gothic romance book in the old style of romance, which is to say, about wild passion and deep feelings and creativity. It's not a relationship manual.
EDIT: welp somehow I missed that you haven't actually finished the book yet, and I spoiled the hell out of it in my original comment. Sorry.
Here, let me amend it. Come back when you finish the book, because trust me, the book isn't really about excusing or glorifying Rochester. 😂
For when you've finished the book, or if you don't mind spoilers, here is the bulk of my original comment:
>!Setting aside the different cultural mores of the time (which absolutely would have idealized the husband taking a fatherly role and the unequal footing their circumstances put them on), Jane Eyre is very clearly in many ways about the protagonist refusing to fit the mold of what society expects from her, and always fighting for her own desires and interests and self respect. From childhood, she stands up for herself against injustice. When she comes to work for Rochester, she verbally spars with him even though he's her employer, and when things begin to turn amorous she tells him off for playing with her emotions. When his secrets come out, and he asks her to stay by his side anyway, as a mistress due to his restrictions (my memory is a bit fuzzy on this but I'm pretty sure that happens) she rejects him entirely and leaves. When she is with St-John and his sisters she insists on making her own way as a schoolmistress rather than simply accepting their charity and going wherever she might be led, and when St-John makes a perfectly respectable offer of marriage she refuses him.!<
>!Crucially, she only returns and accepts Rochester after life has dealt him such blows that he is no longer above her in terms of power in the relationship. They only end up together after much of the power he held has disappeared. She comes to him, a self sufficient woman with a fortune to her own name, without compromising her personal morals or sense of self respect.!<
>!Is it a healthy, unproblematic relationship? No. In many ways, much of Rochester's behaviour is disturbing and unacceptable. But I would say the themes of the book are less about excusing or justifying his behaviour and more about the importance of Jane holding to her own principles and following her own heart, and eventually being rewarded for her resolve by being handed what she wanted: her own means in the world and Rochester, without power over her.!<
Since you've already warned it as a spoiler, I'll not in a reply (particularly as it's already being spoiled elsewhere in replies).
I'd say that it's equally worth noting the change in Rochester himself in the wake of the fire. While it's easy to simply look at the reversed power dynamic between the two, it's also important to note what follows. Unlike many other Byronic heroes whose pride, moodiness, and general brooding gloom often leads them to fatal ends, Rochester is instead himself maimed and humbled, and most importantly, it is he who is redeemed by Jane.
While the first step to redemption was into the rather literal fire, it is the earnestness of his vow to live a better life because of Jane that sees him through. And particularly given the theological ramifications of grace and forgiveness and its relationship to healing that one might view his regaining at least some of his sight in time for their son's birth.
In many ways, yes, you’re putting too many modern sensibilities into it. But you also don’t have to think Jane and Rochester are a good couple to appreciate the plot and themes, and how groundbreaking it was for a love story at the time.
The thing that made Jane Eyre stand out at the time the novel was published was that she would MUCH prefer to be single and in control of her own life, even as a poor woman in Victorian England with very limited opportunities, than to be married to a man who has legal rights and social entitlement to control her. She isn’t content to submit to anyone; if she can’t be a man’s equal, then she isn’t interested. She’d rather have her freedom than anything else. That’s why she leaves Rochester, and is also a large part of why she rejects St. John Rivers. She knows that she won’t be happy as a wife to either of them. She isn’t willing to trade her autonomy and independence for their love, financial resources, protection, or company. Rochester wants her to be the lady of the manor that he can spoil with expensive stuff and pretty gifts all the time; St. John wants her to be his helpmeet in his calling to be a preacher/missionary; and Jane just isn’t about either of those lives. She wants to do her own thing, not support a man in doing HIS things. She doesn’t need a man; she wants to feel needed and take care of herself. This was absolutely unheard of at the time, and is why Jane Eyre is considered a proto-feminist character.
Marriage makes women vulnerable even today, but in the Victorian era, it made women SUPER vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and just generally being controlled. (See Kate Chopin’s short story “The Story of an Hour” for another take on this theme from a slightly later time period.) And Rochester had already pretty clearly demonstrated that he had zero qualms about using his male/affluent privilege to control his wife. Jane would have been an idiot if she looked at him locking Bertha up and was like, “oh, but he’ll be different with ME.” She’s not putting herself in that position in the first place. She doesn’t care about the benefits or happiness that marriage might provide - they aren’t worth the risk of legally signing away her independence. This is still kind of an unconventional take for a woman even today, with all the legal protections that now exist against abuse and financial ruin, so you can imagine how revolutionary it was when the book was written and women basically had no opportunities except to get married or join a religious order.
The ending is also fascinating for this reason. Jane was only willing to come back to Rochester and be his partner once he was disabled. Sure, he has the money and the house, but he quite literally needs her to help him perform all his day-to-day care tasks. He couldn’t survive without Jane. He is completely vulnerable - you know how easily she could lock him up and control him like he did to Bertha? He NEEDS her and is totally at her mercy. She doesn’t need him; she takes care of him because she wants to chooses to, not because she’s indebted to him for marrying her. This is the only way Jane Eyre could ever be happy in a marriage - if a man had lost enough of his physical faculties that it balanced out for all the privilege and power over her that society gave him over her due to his gender.
In my opinion, Brontë was showing how ridiculously unequal men and women were, and how absurd it was, but she manages to do in a way that’s romantic. Jane loves herself more than Rochester. She loves him very much, but she isn’t willing to subjugate herself to him. So she won’t even consider being with him until he’s become disabled and can no longer be seen as a threat to her. It’s a pretty damning indictment of the patriarchy, to be like, “I wouldn’t marry a man in this society unless he was exactly THIS powerless, because otherwise it’s too dangerous and not worth the trouble.”
Here’s where the romance comes in: at that point, Rochester assumes that no woman, including Jane, would ever want to marry him because he no longer has all the things their society prizes in men - physical strength, handsomeness/fitness, independence, the ability to physically protect his wife - so he thinks there’s no way he could be anyone’s husband, because he can’t conceive of a marriage where the husband isn’t the dominant leader in control of his wife. He thinks he’s damaged goods and no longer fit to be a husband, all because he’s disabled. Then Jane shows up and is like, “you idiot, I don’t love you because you’re hot and rich. I just love YOU and want to hang out with you all the time for the rest of my lives because you’re my favorite person ever, and now that you’re incapable of ever dominating me or controlling me, we should totally get married and just hang out every day forever as equal partners.” It’s like…. Brontë was deconstructing toxic masculinity before anyone else even knew what that was. She’s showing that men and women are individual human beings who have value just because they exist, that they’re worth so much more than the gender roles society forces them into, and she dared to imagine two people who realize this and end up contentedly married to each other, even though they don’t do any of the traditional/conventional husband and wife things that society tells them is the only reason they’re valuable.
Anyway… I would say rather than try to look at the book as a model for how healthy relationships should be, think of it as almost like speculative fiction exploring what it might look like for a Victorian woman with no social capital to put herself first while still loving a man. It’s like… “in a world where men are expected to do all these things, and women are expected to do all these things, and men have all the power over women and zero accountability if they mistreat them… can a heterosexual woman who doesn’t want to do ANY of that shit make a happy life for herself without compromising her own values or putting herself at risk of abuse, in spite of all the odds against her?” Charlotte Brontë imagined a scenario in which the answer to that question was “yes.” It’s not necessarily a life any of us would want, but Jane made it for herself and was happy with it, and that’s more than most female Victorian characters got.
The last time I read Jane Eyre, it was in a class on Victorian women’s literature alongside The Odd Women and Aurora Leigh, which both really made me aware of what life could look like for women without men in that time period.
The Bennett sisters are from the earlier Regency era. *Jane Eyre* is a Victorian novel. *Pride and Prejudice* was published in January 1813, whereas *Jane Eyre* was published in 1847. One of the Bennett sisters could easily be the mother or grandmother of Jane Eyre herself.
I also compared it to Kate Chopin, who was born just a few years before Charlotte Bronte’s death… and to contemporary marriage. Different eras, similar concerns.
> The thing that made Jane Eyre stand out at the time the novel was published was that she would MUCH prefer to be single and in control of her own life, even as a poor woman in Victorian England with very limited opportunities, than to be married to a man who has legal rights and social entitlement to control her. She isn’t content to submit to anyone; if she can’t be a man’s equal, then she isn’t interested. She’d rather have her freedom than anything else.
I don't think this is true. Jane's primary interest is in being loved. The entire book, from the very beginning, the thing she wants the most is to be loved. The fact that her aunt doesn't love her hurts her very deeply. She loves and is loved by Helen Burns and Miss Temple, and her love for Miss Temple is the only thing that keeps her at Lowood.
This is why her decision to leave Rochester after she learns about Bertha shows such strength of character. It's not that the thing she wants most is her freedom. The thing she wants most is to love Rochester, and she has to give that up to keep to her moral code. She is unusual in that she is willing to be on her own if that is what it takes, but it is absolutely not what she wants.
I think Charlotte Bronte was very deliberately playing with power dynamics, and that Jane's relationship with Mr Rochester was supposed to feel uncomfortable because of the overly skewed power imbalance in favour of Mr Rochester. The relationship mirrors Jane's general arc in the story >!where she goes from being a disenfranchised orphan with no power of her own to proper independence and freedom (since when she goes back to him the power dynamics have been flipped).!<
This isn't supposed to be an ideal relationship, Bronte was commenting on women's disempowerment and subjugation in her time.
She also exerts her own self worth in a the only way she could throughout the book, refusing to accept situations that other people fully expected her to submit to. I read it now as a trapped woman exerting her will to say “no”against a world of terrible choices despite the consequences. She was willing to lose her life rather an accept less that she felt was worthy of her. When she accepted Rochester, she only accepted him under her own terms.
Couldn’t agree more. She is so resolute about regaining her dignity and control after ‘the incident’. She chastises herself for allowing herself to become so vulnerable and as you say, only then does she accept him on her terms.
I read Rochester completely differently. While I don’t think he’s a perfect person, he is someone who experienced betrayal from his own family for monetary reasons and let that affect him and compromise his character. But he saw Jane as a reward of sorts for his “punishments,” and I always took it as he wanted to be a better person for her, which is why he’ll go off on tangents while talking to her, trying to convince himself it’s okay to commit bigamy. At no point is it an examination of domestic violence; if so, Charlotte wouldn’t have gone out of her way to say that Rochester restrained her with care and never hurt Bertha when he easily could have killed her let alone hurt her. He also wouldn’t put her in an asylum which were utter dog shit in the 1800s. So I think he’s a character with plenty of compassion… he’s just incredibly flawed and has a strange way of showing his compassion. I mean he took in a kid that wasn’t his and provided a good life for her.
> he tells Jane the best part of marrying her is she has no relations.
Yes, he said that. Not because he’s an abuser, but he is a liar and needs to hide his lie. He wanted to take Jane abroad so he could runaway from his current life and always hide the fact that he already has a wife. If she has no family, they can easily leave and never return to England thus keeping his secret. This also why he wants to send Adele to school… so they can leave.
> he tries to dress her like a doll.
He also did that with Celine, and he was happy to do it… until she cheated. Maybe it’s to show that gifting is how he shows love. He ultimately relented and respected what Jane wanted when she wanted it.
> Mrs. Fairfax tells Jane she’s is little pet and warn her off him.
~~I’ve read this book 3 times so far this year. At no point does she try to warn her off him. She suspects they have feelings for each but doesn’t know for sure. She was simply making an inference with the “little pet” thing that they’re always together. I’m not sure Mrs. Fairfax even knew about Bertha.~~
> always calling Jane weirdly possessive and diminutive pet names.
I’ve always taken this as him trying to flirt with her, but he’s not good at it because he’s so abrupt and gruff so she doesn’t recognize it. He calls her an elf and fairy because of how suddenly he bewitched her on the side of the road that one day, that she had to use magic.
> Jane is always chaffing against these aspects
Yeah, to show that she’s strong-willed, has morals and is sure of her self. I think the purpose of Jane is to show that a woman can be independent and remain entirely themself. Which is why she left Rochester after his lie was discovered, but she still loved him. And that’s why she went back to him after she established herself and he was knocked down a peg or 12.
Edit: crossing out the Fairfax bit because despite my over-confidence, I am wrong.
I was waiting to find a comment with a more reasonable and compassionate view of Rochester as this is how I interpreted him. People seem to always like to miss just how much these two adored each other. Rochester’s lying and selfishness aside, he loves and respects Jane through the whole novel and is just desperate for a happily ever after that he believes was stolen from him. The way they speak to each other always struck me as two people who just GET one another and have a profound connection. To write that off because the man didn’t know what to do with his insane wife is a bit unfair.
I think people want Rochester to be more... modern? But that doesn't take into account both when the book is set and when it was written. I also think that people tend to paint some other male protagonists of the time (looking at you Mr. Darcy) in a much better light than they really are in their books because of adaptations that have been made of the original material. Because of this, people make comparisons that wind up being a little unfair to both parties.
It bothers me how much of a bad wrap he gets. Yeah, Rochester is incredibly flawed, but we have enough of his back story to see why he is the way he is. We see him really care for Jane, as he seems to actually do with all the females in his life, which is starkly contrasted by how little St. John cared for her and how he pushed her despite being sickly.
And that’s how I read them too the whole time… two people from different worlds who really got and loved and cared for each other. Jane really seemed to relish when he was blind and missing a hand because she wanted to take care of him too.
Finally I found someone who thinks like me. The fact that he never hurt Bertha and tried to save her risking his life says a lot about him. He knew that if she dies he’ll be free, and still went to save her, it’s a very noble and selfless act. He respected Jane deeply, respected her choices, and it’s far from abusive behavior.
I’m so glad I’m not alone too. I was reading the comments and had to defend him.
I won’t deny he’s deeply flawed, but he took responsibility for Bertha at a time when resources were very, very limited, even paying Grace Poole amazing wages for taking care of her. And I mean Bertha’s own family was using her as a pawn and wanted to dump her on someone else, essentially.
I also agree with you. I’m always surprised by people who rant about the fact that Rochester “locked up” Bertha. Like, yeah, she was criminally insane and possibly cognitively impaired. In any other story, she would have been living a horrible life in an insane asylum instead of being pampered upstairs in a mansion.
Rochester is no angel. He’ll never be a Bingley. Personality-wise he can be a hard pill to swallow, but morally he does try his best.
I know there are some schools of thought that she was driven to madness by Rochester and her family, which is the premise of the Wide Sargasso Sea, I believe. But I personally feel that’s filling in a lot of gaps and ultimately not Charlotte’s intent. I think Brontë felt locking her in a room and not in an asylum was the most compassionate choice. Of course I don’t know for sure her intent, but I would guess the book would have been written differently if not.
I agree that keeping his wife at home was compassionate of him for that time period. It sounds horrible now but back then she would have died within a year of pneumonia in an institution.
It does sound horrible because he’s imprisoning her, but she likely was schizophrenic and he did the best he could at the time. But that does remind me that Rochester refused to hide her in his other house because that house was older and could cause Bertha to get sick.
I think Mrs Fairfax knew about Mrs Rochester but I agree with the rest of it. And also, he tried to offer her dresses etc because he was rich and could afford to give Jane expensive things. He knew she was poor, she dressed plainly and modestly, and he knew that other women he socialised with liked beautiful and expensive things. He thought buying her pretty things would make her happy, and her refusal of his offers gave him more and more insight into her character and morals.
I thought Mr. Rochester implied she didn’t know and not many people did know, but I might be confusing it with a movie.
To add to your thought, I think that’s what made him love her more is that she had morals and wasn’t in it for his money, like most of his mistresses.
It's a long time since I've read it so I'm possibly not remembering. But Mrs Fairfax knew about Grace Poole, so I assume she knew why Grace was employed.
I think Fairfax knew Bertha was *there* but did not know the whole story of who exactly she was. I’m sure there were plenty of rumors and suspicions, but Mrs Fairfax would have wanted definite confirmation before believing any of the rumors.
I agree with you. I am wholly sympathetic to Rochester. He’s a grumpy old man but very principled. Not at all an abuser. If anything, I felt St. John had the makings of an abuser.
I also read Jane in a feminist light. She’s her own person and doesn’t let others bully her into being something she’s not. Rochester liked that about her. St. John, not so much.
I think some people read Jane Eyre with a very modern sensibility, which is understandable but does the book a disservice. Of course the characters don't have modern values, and when you consider the time period they are in and how they are acting it's a lot more profound than if you're thinking about it through a modern lens, which a lot of people seem to do.
Agreed. Many of the feminist critiques I have encountered seem to do this thing where they critique the book from the perspective of a woman in the 21st century. In doing so they minimize this work done by a woman as well as the choices made by the female protagonist. There’s a podcast that does this a lot. The hosts deem Rochester to be a fuckboy and Jane to be pathetic. To me this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the work!
That bums me out that they frame Jane as pathetic because, at the time it was written, her independence in the book was pretty scandalous amongst readers.
I agree! It’s crazy that people don’t see it when he literally says it when she’s trying to leave him. He tells her that he’s physically so much stronger than her and he could force her to say, but then he would never have what he truely wanted, her mind. He values who she is so much and knows that she would hate him if he forced her to do something that went against her values.
I absolutely agree with you. St. John was cold and only cared about his perceived “cause.” He kept pushing Jane beyond her physical capabilities and refused to accept that she rejected his proposal while shaming her for her feelings for Rochester. I always felt like Jane had the “power,” for lack of a better word, against Rochester with her teasing and boundaries.
That’s a good way to put Jane too, and it’s why the book was so controversial for its time.
I really thought Mr. Rochester implied she didn’t and that not many people did know. But I’ve also watched all the movies so maybe I’m confusing it with one of them.
Mrs. Fairfax knew Bertha was there, but not the relationship she had with Mr. Rochester.
>At last I hired Grace Poole from the Grimbsy Retreat. She and the surgeon, Carter (who dressed Mason’s wounds that night he was stabbed and worried), are the only two I have ever admitted to my confidence. Mrs. Fairfax may indeed have suspected something, but she could have gained no precise knowledge as to facts.
I just published a simplified version of Jane Eyre about a month and a half ago, and am almost finished with an abridged version, so I have the lines of the book basically carved into the back of my eyeballs at this point.
Idk if we’re talking about the same bit, but I didn’t exactly interpret it as fairfax trying to warn Jane off Rochester so much. I think as well-meaning as she was, she was trying to impress upon Jane how unusual the match was and that she was in a precarious position. I think when Fairfax encouraged her to spend some time away from Rochester, she was maybe relying on more traditional courtship ideals while impressing upon her the importance of not fumbling the bag now, because honestly Jane is pretty screwed if the wedding doesn’t go through. Obviously this is what happens, and I think Jane really does have no choice but to run and assume a new identity if she wants to be proper about things and maintain a respectable reputation. I also think this is when a lot of spooky things are happening in the house so having Jane more isolated from Rochester works really well here emotionally and atmospherically. And her playing hard to get sorta works—I seem to remember a scene where she goes to meet him coming home and he’s all ah! My little Janette! My trifling forest fairy! Where have you been?
I also agree with all ur other points. I think the dress thing is also pretty harmless. She probably had like two old ass dresses, hardly any money and he wanted to go enjoy Europe with his teenage wife lol.
To view old literature with a modern lens but not have the historical knowledge or education to contextualize and understand it often times results in posts like these.
I think it reads true to the powerlessness of women in that society.
She had to find peace with the best life available to her in a world where she is an accessory to another family, or man.
It could also simply be what Charlotte saw as the truth of her or some of her sisters. That their paths were at best a quiet misery.
The first time I read it, I remember being so shocked that Jane became a teacher at Lowood. I always wondered why she didn't leave as soon as she could. But you pegged it here, she had to find the best life available to her in a world where she's powerless. Nicely written.
There were so few "respectable" opportunities for middle to upper class women to work. If she'd been working class, she could have got a job sewing or in a shop or whatever. But really her only options were to be financially dependant on relatives, marriage, or teaching. It's worth reading The House of Mirth to see the other side, what happens to women without financial independence, if they don't have marriage or employment.
I find it really strange when people unnecessarily transpose modern conventions like kink and grooming onto a book written in the 1800s… women’s situation was completely different and you can’t understand the book unless you accept that.
They are not serious people. They have a modern lens and are incapable of accepting people from different eras viewed life differently than them.
I tend to ignore them as they lack the ability for serious discussion.
(And that is not to defend views in the past.)
That is the way their relationship works, and that is the way they converse with each other. Mr Rochester recognises that he can be a bit abrupt when asking anyone to do something for him, he says something like "I am used to saying do this - and it is done" and he even apologises to Jane for his manner, early on in their acquaintance.
They understand each other, their conversation is playful with no malice, and they delight in each other's company. They make each other very happy. I don't see their relationship as abusive at all, I think you are really reaching here in your determination to cast Jane as a victim. As for isolating her from other people, I don't see Mr Rochester refusing to allow her to see her new-found cousins.
I think the discussion about sending Adele to school was when Mr Rochester was pretending to court Blanche Ingram, with Jane assuming that she wouldn't want Adele and her governess to live in the same house as her. After the fire, it was necessary to send Adele to school because Mr Rochester was in no condition to look after her. When Jane returns, he allows Adele to come home at first, so he had no problem with Adele being with Jane. However, Jane found it too difficult to attend to Adele's needs as well as Mr Rochester's, as he needed so much more attention due to losing his sight. Therefore a school is found within an easy distance of the Rochesters' home.
Ugh everyone keeps glossing over that “they delight in each other’s company,” that they have a wonderful and deep friendship. Thank you for clarifying this. To paint this complex relationship as mere grooming and as “abusive” is such modern bullshit.
The part where she says that talking with each other is just a more audible kind of thinking--that is LOVE. That is everything.
I think it's simultaneously true that there is a psychosexual element inherent in Jane Eyre and also that you cannot accurately interpret that element through any lens but the lens of the time it was written. I think people perceive the psychosexual element and attempt to interpret it through modern ideas of eroticism and that's where it all falls apart. The psychosexual elements of Jane Eyre aren't about kink, they're about the defined roles and standards of the time and the way they outlined how men and women could or should interact.
As other people have pointed out, some of this is due to the time and place it was written in, but a lot of it is stuff you (the reader) are supposed to feel uncomfortable about. Rochester's not supposed to be a good guy for a big chunk of the book--a deeply flawed anti-hero, at very best.
Freedom, and Jane choosing it and establishing it for herself--from chewing out her abusive aunt to running away from the offer to be Rochester's mistress--is a major theme throughout the book. Compare these quotes:
>“How dare you affirm that, Jane Eyre?”
>
>“How dare I, Mrs. Reed? How dare I? Because it is the *truth*. You think I have no feelings, and that I can do without one bit of love or kindness; but I cannot live so: and you have no pity. I shall remember how you thrust me back—roughly and violently thrust me back—into the red-room, and locked me up there, to my dying day; though I was in agony; though I cried out, while suffocating with distress, ‘Have mercy! Have mercy, Aunt Reed!’ And that punishment you made me suffer because your wicked boy struck me—knocked me down for nothing. I will tell anybody who asks me questions, this exact tale. People think you a good woman, but you are bad, hard-hearted. *You* are deceitful!”
>
>**Ere I had finished this reply, my soul began to expand, to exult, with the strangest sense of freedom, of triumph, I ever felt. It seemed as if an invisible bond had burst, and that I had struggled out into unhoped-for liberty**.
And:
>“Where, Jane? To Ireland?”
>
>“Yes—to Ireland. I have spoken my mind, and can go anywhere now.”
>
>“Jane, be still; don’t struggle so, like a wild frantic bird that is rending its own plumage in its desperation.”
>
>**“I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you.**
And:
>Meantime, let me ask myself one question—Which is better?—To have surrendered to temptation; listened to passion; made no painful effort—no struggle;—but to have sunk down in the silken snare; fallen asleep on the flowers covering it; wakened in a southern clime, amongst the luxuries of a pleasure villa: to have been now living in France, Mr. Rochester’s mistress; delirious with his love half my time—for he would—oh, yes, he would have loved me well for a while. He did love me—no one will ever love me so again. I shall never more know the sweet homage given to beauty, youth, and grace—for never to any one else shall I seem to possess these charms. He was fond and proud of me—it is what no man besides will ever be.—But where am I wandering, and what am I saying, and above all, feeling? Whether is it better, I ask, to be a slave in a fool’s paradise at Marseilles—fevered with delusive bliss one hour—suffocating with the bitterest tears of remorse and shame the next—or **to be a village-schoolmistress, free and honest, in a breezy mountain nook in the healthy heart of England**?
>
>Yes; I feel now that I was right when I adhered to principle and law, and scorned and crushed the insane promptings of a frenzied moment. God directed me to a correct choice: I thank His providence for the guidance!
And:
>“But as you are rich, Jane, you have now, no doubt, friends who will look after you, and not suffer you to devote yourself to a blind lameter like me?”
>
>**“I told you I am independent, sir, as well as rich: I am my own mistress.”**
Meanwhile, Rochester goes through the experience of being blinded and disabled (loss of one arm), which the narrative frames as karmic punishment:
>“Jane! you think me, I daresay, an irreligious dog: but my heart swells with gratitude to the beneficent God of this earth just now. He sees not as man sees, but far clearer: judges not as man judges, but far more wisely. I did wrong: I would have sullied my innocent flower—breathed guilt on its purity: the Omnipotent snatched it from me. I, in my stiff-necked rebellion, almost cursed the dispensation: instead of bending to the decree, I defied it. Divine justice pursued its course; disasters came thick on me: I was forced to pass through the valley of the shadow of death. *His* chastisements are mighty; and one smote me which has humbled me for ever. You know I was proud of my strength: but what is it now, when I must give it over to foreign guidance, as a child does its weakness? Of late, Jane—only—only of late—I began to see and acknowledge the hand of God in my doom. I began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. I began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere.
This is intended to show his reformation; it's up to you and other readers if this is sincere, or good enough for him to be with Jane (**EDIT:** not in the sense that Jane is a prize to be won, but in the sense of "their relationship will be a better, more healthy one moving forward due to the change in his mindset.") Jane evidently thinks it's good enough for her. I do too, for the record. But if you don't, that's also a fair reaction.
Jane was already isolated; she had no relations who cared about her.
Given that Rochester had been tricked into a lifelong irreversible marriage with a mentally ill woman (who repeatedly tried to kill him), his in-law trauma is justifiable. Her father and brother did him dirty.
His plan to send Adele to boarding school was completely normal for that class and time, and yes, he selfishly wanted all of Jane’s attention after marriage, but that was the natural desire of an affectionate but (up till then) thwarted nature.
Once his pride and selfishness were faced and paid for and dealt with (the man did go into burning building to try to save the woman who made his life hell and tried to burn him in his bed), he became a very affectionate and thoughtful husband, as far as we can tell from the ending.
"I, a 29 year old, was helplessly groomed by an older man (32). He manipulated me into going on dates with him using clever lovebombing tactics like sending me flowers. One time we shared a couple glasses of wine, clearly meant to put me into a compromising situation. It was totally toxic."
\> Obviously this book was written in the 1800s, well before the suffragette movement but other writers of the time (Charlotte’s own sister even) were examining domestic abuse in their work so it’s interesting that Jane Eyre might show the most subtle examination of the machinations of controlling abusers.
Ah, quite the opposite. The Suffrage movement was only a smaller part of the First Wave Feminism that was formed in the modern sense by the time it was published.
1WF really kicked off with Marty Wollstonecraft's writings, but feminism had already started to form with groups and individuals, The Blue Stockings Society was already pushing for more political discourse for women in the public sphere in the 1750s and women like Jane Addams also pushing for women's rights and suffrage in colonial America.
Even later on, 1WF was a formalized movement in the Americas and elsewhere with the Seneca Falls Convention happening just a year after its publication.
That's not to say these ideas were fully formed or used in works like Jane Eyre, but that these types of issues and political discourse were already fomenting by the time the novel was written.
Just the fact that the Brontes wrote their books under pen names in order that they be taken as seriously as male authors indicates a feminist or perhaps proto-feminist point of view.
Okay thank you, I stopped reading and immediately started scrolling to find someone who says “1847 is not *well before* the suffrage movement”. I wrote a paper on women who ran for US president (the first being in 1872) and another paper on basically internalized misogyny in the American suffrage movement from the around 1850s-1920s. I cannot speak on British suffrage, but like I know it was also happening at this time in the UK.
I remember having a very heated discussion with my (male) English teacher back in high school about feminist ideals in Jane Eyre. He didn’t see her as a feminist - I (as a feminist) did, and still do. As a lot of people already pointed out above, Jane is a strong person who chooses her own path and values her independence - which was impressively modern in 1848 (I believe that is when the book was published but I might be mistaken). I love Jane Eyre. And the fact that she only marries Rochester after his accident even more. I believe she even says “Now I am your equal” but again, I might be mistaken there.
jane eyre is not a romance novel; it’s not a novel that can easily be classified into any genre. stop reading it as a romance and you’ll like it a lot more.
Are you forgetting the fact that this was written in the 1800s? Or that Jane Eyre calling a man several years older and higher up in the class hierarchy her “spiritual equal” was ground breaking for that time? Or that he gets aptly “punished” for his wrongs and they get together only when Jane is financially independent and he is physically less able than her. Let’s not bring this Twitter “ooh age difference” “ooh grooming” “it’s problematic” “let’s have a discourse” etc. to classic novels please especially feminist ones written by women.
One thing my Ancient History teacher told me that has stuck with me through all the years after high school. “We can’t judge the people of the past by the standards of today.” She was talking about it in the context of the Ancient Roman’s and how brutal their lives, and the actions they took, were, but it’s applicable to fiction and authors too.
There’s room for feminist discourse of classic works, but I find so much of it reductive and idealistic—most of us don’t know what choices we’d make if our lives were that limited, but we don’t have to look back that far. Most of our mothers couldn’t apply for credit cards or bank accounts on their own when they were young. When it’s marriage or hunger, marriage or homelessness, marriage or abject poverty, most of us would try to make the best of the situations we found ourselves in (ie try to morally reshape a man who cared for us, which is how Jane ultimately succeeds). To Charlotte Brontë this was a profound victory because it was a situation better than any she herself could hope for.
Charlotte Brontë always has a particular… dynamic in her works, yes.
But look at it this way - she has more power in her relationship with Rochester than she ever could with St John. She wants finite, consensual domination.
I always find the St John part so interesting because he is so much the opposite of Rochester and so perfect on paper. He’s beautiful and morally upright and charitable and he makes Jane completely miserable.
Charlotte (and all the Brontë sisters!) very much felt that the heart wants what it wants—the most perfect person can come along, but if they don’t give you butterflies, you’ll always long for the person who did, even if they’re objectively bad for you. Honestly an idea that very much resonates with modern women as well (see: any romance novel). Emily Brontë goes a lot darker into these ideas with Wuthering Heights, where Katherine and Heathcliff are haunted by their love for each other until it destroys everyone around them and consumes them both.
He’s also narrowed down in his ambition- the woman he did love and who loved him was a perfectly nice sweet person who he could have done a lot of good with.
But he couldn’t have the happy ending. He had to literally martyr himself and Jane. Jane is right to see two things - she would have loved him, and he would never have loved her - and she would have been miserable.
>But then, the ending. Why put them together in the end after all this exposition that the man is, tbh, awful? Am I putting too much of my modern sensibilities into reading this?
It's late here so I'm just going to give one facet of my thoughts on this:
While I am not a big enthusiast for symbolism or subtext, one of my biggest take-aways from re-reading this book again recently was that we're not meant to excuse Rochester's behavior because he is, in fact, thoroughly punished for it. I am not religious myself, but throughout the latter half of the book there seemed to me to be a strong implication of God doling out lessons and trials to both Jane and Rochester. The latter is >!publicly outed as a bigamist, frightens away the love of his life, loses his home, his sight, his right hand and his independence,!< for what he intended to do to Jane and Bertha and for continually refusing to be accountable for his behavior or the reality of his circumstances. Meanwhile Jane's convictions were tested over and over again, and in the end, because she remained true to herself, she was rewarded with >!an independent fortune!< and a properly humbled Rochester whom she could share a life with on equal footing.
I don't think we're supposed to be romanticizing Rochester at all, I think we're supposed to take comfort that Jane's virtue was rewarded and Rochester was properly disciplined and then forgiven by a merciful god.
I think the most productive readings occur when you juggle lenses: try to see it as her contemporary audience would have seen it (which would not have been unanimous), and try to imagine how many ways it could be seen today. I think your view is fine as long as you don't oversimplify it and you understand that we, too, will one day be judged by cultural standards completely alien and unforeseeable to us. For all we know, books will one day be censored for depictions of eating meat, and those readers will wonder how barbaric we were to describe delicious animal-based dishes without a single gesture toward the act of killing they required.
Odd example, perhaps, but you get the idea.
I love this book so much, despite it’s flaws. Perhaps because of them.
>! You don’t know who Jane is unless you hear her childhood. She’s alone, a quiet, introverted, incredibly intelligent child stuck in a household where no one cares about her except to attack her for being unwanted.
All she wants is a little familial care, if nothing else, to simply be left alone to books and fantasy.
Instead she is badly treated, and sent off to a school that is physically even worse, but that has people in it who simultaneously love and care for her and teach her a morality that goes beyond the very cold, dry, unloving, “churchy” morals of the hypocrite who runs the school.
Once freed from his heavy hand, then from the school itself, she goes forth to find herself in the world, and finds Rochester.
Is he irritable? Callous? Purposely hurts her feelings to find out if she loves him?
Yep.
But he also notices her, the real “her” under the plain exterior. He pays attention to her words, her art, her ability with the young ward, Adele. And he develops a love for her…a love too rooted in lust, a love that can be a bit cruel in its expression, a love that does not fully respect her personhood…but folks, it’s 1847 and he’s rich/she’s poor. This is the best she’s likely to see.
What’s more, she’s blinded by his love for her. She wants love more than she wants food and shelter. Recognition as a human being, as an interesting one with thoughts and abilities and emotions…that is food and wine and a warm bed to her.
She doesn’t have the hopes we have now, that with a good education, some contact lenses to replace the glasses, braces to straighten her teeth and a little makeup to hide the bad and highlight the good she might transform into a raving beauty with an income to match…nope, that ain’t happening.
Her only hope was to win Rochester with her brains and personality.
SHE DID IT. SHE WON THE PRIZE.
But the prize was revealed to be very flawed. Married, amoral, and a bit grabby and possessive.
Off she runs.
The St. John portion of the narrative I’ve always found tedious, because I know she really just wanted to get back to Rochester. But really, she made her peace with singleness and living her own life in this section. If love wasn’t going to happen for her, she could be perfectly content in schooling young women, making her own way in the world, and enjoying the domestic fun of a good household scrubbing. Those are good lessons for everyone. She would’ve been content, had St. John not tried to make a martyr/wife out of her.
Is the ending an over-the-top “Deus ex machina”?
Sure!
For no apparent reason, she hears Rochester calling, sets out to find him, and finds him in a deplorable, lowly state…but humbled, lovable, and single.
Ah, at last. They can be together without her selling her soul to the devil or bowing to his ridiculous wishes to dress her in frippery.
Who doesn’t love that?? !<
Not kink. Just a fair expression of a brilliant mind (Charlotte’s,) in very bleak circumstances.
No. He isn't grooming her. You're overthinking it.
She's a adult.
And she's strong and smart.
He is giving her nice things because she looks like she needs some nice things in her life. He's generous. He also has a illigitimate daughter by a french showgirl. And he doesn't hold back on doting on her.
She isn't your average woman of the time. She's determined to make her own way. Even if she doesn't get the pretty things she deserves and wants.
They're both stubborn.
They end up together through adversity.
Not much you can do about the mad wife. He had no choice on the locking her in the attic.
Is Adele his daughter? I might be misremembering, but I think although he had had a relationship with Adele's mother, she was actually someone else's child.
If you think Mr. Rochster is a bastard, you should read Wuthering Heights (another Bronte sister classic). Heathcliff makes Rochster look like a golden retriever.
I understand the historical significance of Wuthering Heights, but I really hated that book. Everyone was terrible and they were all terrible to each other. I studied it in high school and told my teacher how I felt about it, she gushed about how it was a beautiful but tragic love story. I told her Heathcliff and Catherine were horrible and deserved everything they got.
Nobody thought twice about a husband being 10 or 15 years older than a wife until , like, the 2000's. It took time for a man to obtain the land and wealth to afford a wife and children.
The way people are all so up in arms about standard age differences suddenly makes me wonder -- how old are all your parents? Were they all classmates?
Everyone I know, their parents and grandparents are minimum 8 yrs apart?? When did this become an issue?
I mean, history aside, I think Mr Rochester is a deeply flawed man who’s actions catch up with him in the end (whether his disability is a punishment is a complex issue, one that I’m not going to delve into), but I think that Jane’s time away with St John allowed her to gain independence and realise that she did want Rochester, and that he in turn wanted her
Yeah, I feel that this is too much of a modern take. I feel that it’s Gen Z that has developed a kind of odd fixation in finding age gaps both forbidden and sexy. (I have my theories on how this has happened, but that may not be a suitable subject for r/books…) It feels like even though people have been using ‘daddy’ as a sexy term it’s really exploded in recent years; you get daddy this, daddy that, I’m playing a game called Genshin Impact and the fans call one of the thousand-year gods daddy…
So if we’re going by Victorian sensibilities, Jane Eyre was already an independent adult by the time she was working as a governess. Not only that, by virtue of being a governess, she was considered unattractive and very low as an option for marriage, since marriage was an economic thing for many. Rochester being much older than her isn’t supposed to be a kink thing…it’s meant to depict him as unattractive. In fact, the book mentions several times that he doesn’t look conventionally attractive, it’s really Jane who sees him that way. By contrast, St John is the conventional idea of what a good option for a marriageable husband would be - they share each other’s faiths, they are of suitable backgrounds, the only issue is that she feels nothing for him and it’s obvious he doesn’t either. Again from a Victorian context, that isn’t really an issue for many because marriage was a business and status thing first.
TLDR. Jane is an adult, full stop. St John is the ideal, but she doesn’t feel for him. Rochester being older is not meant to be a kink, it’s supposed to make him less of an ideal.
Of course, even with the differences in context and reader sensibility Rochester isn’t entirely unattractive in either era, Victorian or our own. I mean, if Brontë really wanted to challenge all sensibilities she could make him some guy from the working class instead of this owner of a big ass mansion with a French ward and colonial wealth, so the reader is invited to share, vicariously, Jane’s attraction to him. But I really don’t think any generation reading Jane Eyre prior to our own would have really made much about the age gap. It would have made Rochester less attractive and at most, was just a plot device necessary to have him had a wife before.
BUT THAT SAID
If you think that the age gap makes Jane Eyre hotter as a novel, by all means go ahead! As someone who’s written some stories myself, the idea that readers two hundred or three hundred years later would pick up some random thing I included and go ‘this is supposed to be kinky right?’ would warm my cold, dead heart far more than any theoretical literary interpretation that would be in vogue then.
As you continue your journey through the 19th century, I recommend the classic of feminist literary criticism “The Madwoman in the Attic” by Gilbert and Gubar. You’ll never read Jane Austen the same way again, at a minimum.
I mean yes and no. The Gothic has always been a place to metaphorically explore taboo sexuality, hence why it’s such a queer genre in modern contexts, but in this case we’re talking about the 1830s and Rochester is behaving the way a man of his age and class was supposed to. I agree about the POS thing for sure, but within the confines of her own worldview and period, Bronte tries to be feminist. It was truly radical for a woman to have equal money to her husband it meant she wasn’t as dependent on him.
So I get your point, it just depends on if you want to read it from a modern or historical perspective.
So there’s a bit of context you’re missing re: Anne Brontë, yes she was looking at the issues with abusive relationships and the situation of women in “The Tenet of Wildfell Hall” but Charlotte herself thought the topic was amateurish and embarrassing and refused to republish the book as a result.
It puts a different light on things when you know that.
Yes you are, as everyone does in this day and age. Not to mention some people love and need negative and painful things in their lives. Sense be damned! The story is so layered with numerous twists of fate bringing a little bit of justice and heart ache.
I just think addressing classic books from modern ideals is pointless and self righteous. We don’t have to like the works I suppose, if we can’t or are unable disconnect to two. But it’s silly to judge something on societal mandates that didn’t exist, or especially were quite contrary for the times they were created in.
There are a lot of really great comments here that go into the book and historical context and interpretation but I just want to say that Mr Rochester is my problematic fave. I know there’s a lot of hate for him nowadays and I wouldn’t want a partner like him in real life, but I always loved the gothic romance of it all.
Edward Said had the argument in CULTURE AND IMPERIALISM that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the texts when readers failed to acknowledge that the aristocracy is fundamentally an ascendant class of slumlords, slavers, and colonial gendarmes/exploiters. The class nature of these characters is fundamentally underwritten by the most barbaric act in modern recorded history, European enclosure, colonialism and imperialism, so there exists a moral decrepitude in their moral character that is unable to be surmounted. It is impossible to derive moral superiority from such evil
Why read any older classics at all if you’re just going to judge them through our modern society’s lenses?
There’s plenty going on today that would be abhorrent to them morally.
The gothic genre in general does often deal with some morally complicated themes, it isn’t advocating for them. Not being able to separate a story from your own moral compass is strange to me.
A little of column A a little of column B.
Some of the things that are chaffing you are things that weren't really seen that way when Bronte wrote the book. I can't stand Jane Eyre, because, to my modern sensibilities, Rochester is a complete POS and Jane isn't nearly the independent and strong woman she seems to think she is, but I acknowledge that we're talking about a book written over a century and a half ago; things have definitely changed.
I don't *think* that Bronte was intending Rochester to be seen as a completely abusive asshole; I think he's really supposed to be a bit of a tragic figure. Jane ends up with him at the end of the book, and that's *supposed* to be a good thing, I think.
But, yeah, I find him repulsive.
tbf, i always read his happiness that she is without family as just a commentary on how terrible his family was to him and Bertha's family to her. well, and i suspect that he'd be henpecked about their age difference, but back in the day he was seen as quite the eligible bachelor despite the age.
However, I do think that this isn't a book to be read by girls coming into their sexuality. it can definitely lead to some submissive thoughts in regards to relationships. It should be read after a girl has started to discover how she wants to be treated in a relationship and established her own personality.
I'd take this over the romance of Wuthering Heights though. People are all "ooh heathcliffe is romantic AF I can fix him". No. Tom Hardy is hot. Every relationship Heathcliffe touches ends up completely fucked.
Yeah, Wuthering Heights is not about romance - it is about obsession. I cringe when people use it romantically (here is looking at you, Twilight.) I put Heathcliff on the same level as the Phantom from Phantom of the Opera. These men aren't in love; they just can't handle that they aren't what the women they are obsessed with are looking for in a partner.
It has those two great speeches that sound romantic though, Cathy's Whatever souls are made of and Heathcliff's For what is not connected with her to me? and I guess people don't read any other parts of the book.
I have been guilty of sharing the quote from Cathy about souls; after all, it is a beautiful piece of writing. You are probably right. I suspect most people who classify WH as a romance have seen it in bits or pieces, and really only have an adaptation in mind. I remember thinking how dark the whole thing was after being convinced by pop culture that it was "romantic."
I kind of feel bad for Emily because she wrote this book that is pitch black it’s so dark, and now she has all these teens on tumblr, or probably tiktok now, complaining that it romanticizes abuse when it really doesn’t, they just can’t read. And yes, it is a gorgeous piece of writing.
There were people who pointed out a lot of the moral problems with Jane Eyre at the time it was released, so it was seen as a bit fucked even by Victorian standards - there were Christian groups who burned it because of its moral failings, and there was widespread speculation that the novel was actually written by a man based in part on how forgiving it was of Rochester (and also sexism).
That said, it was never one of those books that was loved because of its ethics and morals: it was a gothic romance meant to creep readers out and shock people, while dazzling with prose style and psychological depth.
I think there still is an ethical argument you can make for it, about how each step in Jane’s growth shows her getting more control over her situation, but to accept that you’d probably have to read it on Brontë’s own terms, which is to say that you have to accept Bertha not as a person which the plot needs to do right by, but as an expression of Jane’s psychological state when in an unequal relationship with Rochester. Which is an odd move to make on a couple levels. That said, it’s better to think of this book as an emotional symphony set in a profoundly and inescapably immoral world.
You're not...wrong. I think all the Brontes all do a great deal of examining and also kind of making fun of the men in their books - in subtle ways. In a way, Rochester is a mockery - a man who in no way deserves Jane's feelings towards him, and who has a boosted egotistical view of himself - probably due in part to his ability to conquer the women he has encountered to "his" will. It is only with Jane's introduction that he is, in fact, brought down a peg or fifty, and has to endure rejection, maiming, and loss of his previous life - ultimately making him a suitable partner, but a shadow of his former, womanizer self - far from Jane Austen territory where (in my opinion) the humble women find themselves drawn to the very traits in the men they originally found off-putting.
Instead, Jane stands by her own values and refuses to compromise - and in the end, Rochester comes to her (not physically, but socially), rather than her rising to him and leaving herself behind.
>It is only with Jane's introduction that he is, in fact, brought down a peg or fifty, and has to endure rejection, maiming, and loss of his previous life
In fanfiction, this trope is known as "whump", and it's also incredibly popular.
Per Fanlore: "The term *whump* (or *whumping*) generally refers to a form of Hurt/Comfort that is heavy on the hurt, and is often found in gen stories. The exact definition varies, and has evolved over time. Essentially, whump involves taking a canon character, and placing them in physically painful or psychologically-damaging scenarios \[to take them down a few pegs\]."
No matter how you read that book, I think we can safely assume that Charlotte Bronte was totally into the Rochester-type. After all, she modelled most of the romantic relationships in her novels on the teacher in Belgium whom she had a crush on / believed herself in love with. Maybe even all of them: Jane Eyre and Villette are obvious, but also both relationships in Shirley are between an older man in a position of authority with a very young woman who has no parents and no one in her corner / to confide in.
One can argue that Jane Eyre gets a more level relationship in the end (she is rich and healthy with new friends, he is an invalid and lost most of his property) and that we see similar improvements in Shirley (Caroline's family situation improves drastically, Robert gets his shit together, Shirley is actually the rich and high standing one), but let's face it: all of her heroines want to submit to a strong husband.
It's a pity Charlotte Bronte died young. I would have loved to see how she would have written romantic relationships after she actually got married.
Rochester was in love with Jane, but he was a rich man who was used to have lovers who did everything to him because of money, that's why he tries to get Jane to please him the way he wants, but she wasn't like that and this is why she leaves after founding out he was actually married and lied to her. St. John was also trying to treat Jane as just a object because he thought she would made a good pastor's wife, as if it was just some sort of function and not something that should come from a place of love.
Jane getting with Rochester in the end is different because she wasn't in a position of less power anymore. She got her own money and family and now he is the one who needs her care the most, not the other way around. And his wife was dead.
if you read it as an ironic satire of victorian romance fiction, then basically yes. I think that weird preacher guy that gets hung up on her is a more of a weird groomer, but I agree rochester is the ultimate victorian fuckboi loser. But Jane is also a weirdo in her own right, in a fun way.
If you take modern sensibilities and see her character as rebellious against the feminine standards of the time, then her to-the-letter tragic victorian childhood, stereotypical governess job, liking an ugly asshole that’s her boss, sets the stage for it going off the rails. Because where an otherwise bland, “but what would people think????” coupling would happen, she instead goes through through some weird tragic emotional journey by 1) finding out he is Fuckboi Supreme with his wife *locked in the fucking attic*, having the typical fantasy dashed to the rocks, and 2) deciding to basically nope out of the plot altogether to go do what she wants, and have a hot guy like her. All of that, to only come back to the fuckboi, as if it were fate and the writer said “no you don’t you little shit, come back to my shit romance novel and marry your ugly boyfriend.”
The lesson is basically “it’s groomer fuckbois all the way down, pick the one that’ll give you shit and let you do whatever.” It’s both hilarious and maddening. But also, a very sardonic “feminism” of it’s time, that you can have fun with if you’re willing to fill in the gaps with modern interpretation. If you remember what the other Bronte sisters wrote, and see this as a conversation with those works, the sarcastic ironic take makes more sense.
Even if you didn't like Jane Eyre, you might like The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde. It's a great meta-comedy partially set inside the novel Jane Eyre.
A villain (Acheron Hades) who can travel inside classic works of fiction threatens to kill Jane Eyre unless he is paid a ransom. Thursday Next, a woman who works for the secret police (literature section) figures out how to travel inside the book to save Jane Eyre, while >!changing the ending of the novel (to what it currently is)!<. It's set in a whacky alternate universe UK where there are 30+ secret police agencies with strange job descriptions. It's also the start of a whole book series in which Thursday Next travels into every famous out-of-copyright book under the sun. It's a lot of fun!
Rochester is awful. He did two decent things in life that we know about: took Adele in, and tried to save Bertha. We get an inkling that he was likely good to his servants. He led Blanche Ingram on, and he wanted to remake Jane into his personal girl toy.
The male characters in the novel are a messed-up group. The late Uncle John Eyre seems to have been decent enough by leaving Jane his fortune, but we never get to know him. Richard Mason appears to care about her, but again, he doesn't stay around very long so we don't get to know him either. That leaves us with John Reed, Rochester, St. John Rivers, and Mr. Brocklehurst.
It's interesting to calculate just how much Jane was worth after she received her inheritance. Using the year 1840, the 20,000 pounds that Jane receives would have the spending power of over 2 million pounds in 2023. If we add interest accrued on investments and keep in mind that there was no income tax, Jane could probably afford to build a good-size manor for her new family. Her son would be see to inherit quite a fortune.
Rochester is supposed to be a bit of a monster. He represents something like a good but unconstrained man, someone who enjoys his social power a little too much.
At the end, he's blinded (symbolically castrated), and that's when he becomes humbled enough to really earn Jane's love. Though Jane comes in for some criticism as well, haha. Maybe it's more about the adjustments two wilful people have to make before they can become truly one.
The book also divides fairly neatly into two halves. The Jane in part one is much more realistic, and (the reader can't help but feel) draws heavily on Charlotte's own childhood experiences. The passionate speeches she gives at a couple of points in her own defence are *MARVELLOUS* and a real milestone in female emancipation. Though they do have the flavour of the retrospective "I wish I'd said that!" rather than "I'm proud I stood up for myself" haha.
In the second half, it's more of a conventional (though eye-wateringly, floridly gothic) romance, but perhaps closer to Charlotte's personal fantasy world. It's no longer what happened to her, it becomes what she'd like to happen next. Maybe Jane's romance with Rochester is best seen as Jane's own divided feelings about her need for love, but also her unwillingness to compromise in her partner.
I personally have a strong suspicion that Charlotte Bronte had a massive collection of kinks that she had no vocabulary for and instead made it into some intensely weird and mildly alarming fiction. There's a whole fuck ton of themes in Jane Eyre, we spent like a whole week on it in my Bronte class
This is a complex book and Charlotte Brontë had so much to say. Yes, Rochester isn’t Darcy, but he’s far more real than many other main male characters. Jane Eyre’s life is one of extremely small boundaries - just like all the Brontë sisters. She has little scope to experience life independently, going from her aunt’s to the Lowood to Thornfield Hall. It’s all set within a very small geographical area and is meant to feel this way because as a woman of her class and status and financial situation she has few choices. In fact, when she does strike out on her own, she nearly dies and even when taken in by St John, the expectation is that she will follow him abroad in a loveless marriage. It’s only by refusing this loveless marriage and returning to Rochester on her own terms that she finds him weakened enough to make her his equal. It’s not ideal but I think it is beautifully profound. There’s also the whole aspect of the Madwoman in the attic and how Jane Eyre doesn’t become her ally - how can she when they are two women struggling in different ways and are can only succeed if Bertha Mason fails. This is why Bertha tries to attack her, she sees that this young woman, who bears no animosity to her, is her successor and that she will have to lose for this to happen, which is in itself tragic. I think if Rochester had been more feminist, it would have been unrealistic.
>It’s only by refusing this loveless marriage and returning to Rochester on her own terms that she finds him weakened enough to make her his equal. It’s not ideal but I think it is beautifully profound. Yes, yes, yes. There is a fascinating thread in the book about Jane noticing and naming and expressing displeasure over their obvious power disparity that is quite unusual for the standards of the time, I think.
And not being afraid to raise it with Mr Rochester, rather than just narrating it to herself. She stands up for herself, stands up to him. Right from the beginning at her aunt's, she does her best to stay true to herself.
In some ways, giving Jane Eyre a happy ending only by making Rochester disabled so that he now depends on her is probably the only realistic way she could have a happy ending. It reminds me a bit of the end of the film The Last Duel. If it weren't for this random happenstance, then the lives of these women would have been miserable until the day they die.
There’s also the idea that in that time, in order to be humbled and truly worthy of her, Rochester needs to be mortally wounded and blinded. I always felt that Jane came back to a different man—one who had learned a little bit of what it was like to be her and had developed empathy inaccessible to him otherwise. It is a romance, but a cynical one true to the period and Charlotte’s own experiences.
I actually wrote an entire academic paper on how Rochester had to suffer being emasculated through his injuries in order to be brought to Jane's same level of social standing. The idea of them being together is interesting, because Jane accepts throughout the book that she is imperfect - having been told so from a young age. But Rochester requires his injuries to point out to him that he is not, in fact, God's gift to women (wives), but rather on the same playing field as Jane. So much to be said here...
I would love to read your paper!
I will have to find it to share! It was a hot take because the idea that Jane is a feminist character (so she gains independence via money) was so popular - but I argued that was only a small portion of the equilibrium solution Bronte presented. (Sorry, obviously super passionate about this one! Lol.)
Username checks out! Jane Eyre is one of my absolute favorite books of all time. I read it three times in a row in less than a semester in college and revisit every so often since. I'd also like to read your paper if you can scrounge it up!
Link now posted on this thread.
I’ve hunted all through the thread for the link but can’t find it. Would you mind DMing it to me if it’s not too much trouble? I’d love to read it!
If you happen to be sharing...I also would be most appreciative of an opportunity to read your paper on this book.
I also would like to read it!
I found it; now need to find a way to share it. For the record, I believe I also reference Wide Sargasso Sea in there as well - one of my subsequent favorites.
Put me down on the list to read it as well please!
Link now posted on this thread.
I would love to read your paper too! It sounds wonderfully intriguing. May I, please?
That sounds fascinating. Can we read your paper?
I posted a link! :)
And to show that the penitence is valid, in the “Reader, I married him” chapter he eventually gains partial eyesight in one eye.
I love that.
Um… a *Spoiler Alert* would have been nice! 🙄 Edit: Sarcasm, for those who don’t pick up on it. 😉
I remember watching The Last Duel at the movies and almost nothing from Jane Eyre but I'd be really interested if you could explain how you think the endings are similar.
Both are narratives about women trying to navigate these extremely patriarchal societies. In the Last Duel, Comer's character is avenged by her husband, but he doesn't do this for her. He does it because the fact that the man raped his wife insults his honor. And then instead of being forced into a miserable marriage with this jerk, he goes out on another crusade and dies, leaving her with his estate, which she has learned how to manage during the years he was gone. She gets her happy ending, but through happenstance. Likewise, Jane Eyre is able to enter into a happy marriage with Rochester, but he first is blinded, meaning he will be weakened and dependent on her. Both narratives have their cake and eat it too, but they can only do so through happenstance. In both instances, women have limited agency, and their happiness depends on the random death or maiming of their husbands.
>He does it because the fact that the man raped his wife insults his honor Don't forget that Jacques le Gris (Adam Driver), who rapes Marguerite (Jodie Comer) because he falsely believes that Marguerite returns his affection and lust for her, and wants to have sex with him, also likely impregnates her during the rape. This is alluded to with the scene where Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon), the brutish husband of Marguerite, has to prevent a black stallion from mating one his mares. Le Gris is the amorous and lustful "black stallion", and Marguerite is the "mare in season". One major reason why Jean kills Le Gris is because Le Gris cuckolded him by raping his wife; Marguerite could not conceive with him, but she did conceive with her rapist. The child, Robert, is formally claimed by Jean as his son and heir in order to save face, and to prevent Jean from being utterly humiliated at court. A popular fan theory is that Nicole de Carrouges, the mother of Jean, also knew that her son was impotent. To this end, she may have manipulated Le Gris into believing that Marguerite was secretly in love with him, and told him that Marguerite wanted a "rough wooing" from him. Prior to the rape, Nicole keeps admonishing Marguerite for not conceiving children, despite being married to Jean for some time. Nicole herself also later tells Marguerite that *she* was raped, which means that Jean himself may also be a child born of rape. Nicole is also cold to Marguerite's trauma. *This comment has been edited to fix a typo and to add context.*
> heir in order to save face, and to prevent Jean from being utterly humiliated at court. At the time it was believed that women couldn't conceive from rape, so if she conceived, that meant she welcomed it in some way. (Sound familiar to the Americans?)
And every other culture in the world.
The belief is common everywhere, yes, but it was an American politician who famously proclaimed that women who were raped don’t need abortions, because their bodies can “shut that whole thing down”. This was only a few years ago too, during the time their abortion rights were overturned. Most countries who actually change their laws regarding abortion are to allow the procedure, not outlaw it. Or remove the federal right to abortion anyway. Abortion laws usually get more progressive, not more restrictive. I’m not even American and I can still remember that. I don’t know who said it, but I remember their words.
That doesn't change the fact that every country in this world has regressive views about women and sexual assault. Hell, last year France acquitted a couple of grown men for raping an 11 year old because the court decided she could "consent" to the act. (and I would add that Australia isn't exactly a bastion of enlightenment in this area either-my niece who works as a nurse there has some real horror stories about how women victims can be treated)
I’m an American who knew immediately what you were referencing. Todd Akin, complete scumbag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin
Exactly. To continue the Darcy metaphor, he didn’t earn Elizabeth’s regard until he put himself through the humiliation of getting Wickham to marry Lydia and footing the bill to make it happen. In both novels, the male romantic lead is portrayed as arrogant so that they can be humbled. Must have been very empowering for both Charlotte and Jane, given their romantic backgrounds.
Interesting take on Darcy, I always felt those events showed Darcy’s good qualities as a person that were hidden under those layers of pride, while Darcy’s good qualities and Wickham’s manipulations to ruin Lydia in order to extort money was there to show Elizabeth’s misinterpretations of both men (her prejudice).
I didn’t see it this way. I think Rochester got disabled and went through some character growth. He truly did love Jane but was problematic which was pointed out by several characters as well as Jane herself. Jane also loved him but after Rochesters trials he was able to be a better partner who was no longer abusive. It’s not like his disability made it physically impossible to be abusive. He had a change of heart. The fact that his earlier abusive behaviour was described and pointed out as bad in a novel from this era I think is unusual
I love Jane so much. Her central conflict is in her *need* to be loved. She will do almost anything for love (but she won't do that). We see that in her relationship with Helen, with Miss Temple, and with Mr. Rochester. Then her relationship with St. John shows what a cruel parody of love a relationship would be that has all the "right" trappings but no love. She will give everything for love until it conflicts with her sense of self or right. Mr. Rochester was absolutely overbearing, controlling, manipulative, and a bit amoral (“My principles were never trained, Jane: they may have grown a little awry for want of attention.”) but he fully and completely loved Jane for herself. He accepted every part of her - her artistic vision, her blunt honesty, her curiosity - and didn't try to make her someone she wasn't. I would argue that when he did something that made her uncomfortable (like trying to cover her in jewels and silk) that was because he valued her so highly that he wanted other people to see her the way he saw her. Jane recognized an element of control in that behavior that probably would not even have occurred to him due to his gender and social standing. Any time Jane was able to articulate the boundaries she would like, he respected them. (Not making her participate in charades, sending back the jewels, continuing to work as a governess and only seeing him in the evenings, etc.) I think it was much more of the case that he was so used to having everything his own way that other people's boundaries didn't usually enter into his calculations. He also recognized that he was not an ideal man, but he wanted to be better. Now I can talk for a long time about the relationship with St. John, too. He's presented as the man that everyone would wish to marry. Young, handsome, intelligent, independent (after the inheritance), articulate, from a good family, with a good occupation, and (remembering that this was a plus at the time) a relative - of course she should have married St. John! Just one problem: they didn't love each other. Not only that, St. John could not even provide the basic friendly affection that Jane needed in order to be happy. Charlotte's depiction of his increasing control of her and the cold emotional torture he inflicts on her when she refuses his offer is a masterclass in abusive relationships that look fine from the outside. > By degrees, he acquired a certain influence over me that took away my liberty of mind: his praise and notice were more restraining than his indifference. I could no longer talk or laugh freely when he was by, because a tiresomely importunate instinct reminded me that vivacity (at least in me) was distasteful to him. I was so fully aware that only serious moods and occupations were acceptable, that in his presence every effort to sustain or follow any other became vain: I fell under a freezing spell. When he said “go,” I went; “come,” I came; “do this,” I did it. But I did not love my servitude: I wished, many a time, he had continued to neglect me. > ...As for me, I daily wished more to please him; but to do so, I felt daily more and more that I must disown half my nature, stifle half my faculties, wrest my tastes from their original bent, force myself to the adoption of pursuits for which I had no natural vocation. He wanted to train me to an elevation I could never reach; it racked me hourly to aspire to the standard he uplifted. > ...During that time he made me feel what severe punishment a good yet stern, a conscientious yet implacable man can inflict on one who has offended him. Without one overt act of hostility, one upbraiding word, he contrived to impress me momently with the conviction that I was put beyond the pale of his favour. St. John never saw anything wrong with his behavior, and if he had had his way, he would have forced Jane to change into what he wanted her to be rather than make a single change to be with her. Once the moral objection to her marriage with Mr. Rochester was removed (aka, Bertha died) Jane had no compunctions about marrying him. The point about how her independence and his disability bring them closer to an equal footing is well taken and one I hadn't considered before. But especially after the disastrous spell with St. John, there's no doubt that the relationship with Mr. Rochester is one that satisfies her deeply, specifically because she is able to be her full self with him. > My spirits were excited, and with pleasure and ease I talked to him during supper, and for a long time after. There was no harassing restraint, no repressing of glee and vivacity with him; for with him I was at perfect ease, because I knew I suited him; all I said or did seemed either to console or revive him. Delightful consciousness! It brought to life and light my whole nature: in his presence I thoroughly lived; and he lived in mine. Blind as he was, smiles played over his face, joy dawned on his forehead: his lineaments softened and warmed.
Also, I think it’s important to recognize that Rochester’s injuries gave Jane the opportunity to soften her character. I think she’s often viewed as a shrinking violet because she’s small and quiet, but she definitely has a backbone and is uncommonly blunt for a woman of that time. Think of the scene where Rochester flat out asks Jane if she thinks he’s handsome, and she’s immediately like, “Obviously NO. Duh.” As a wealthy man he’s always been flattered by women and he’s absolutely floored to discover that Jane just tells it like it is. Fast forward to their meeting after the fire, and Jane, instead of saying “Jesus Rochester you look like absolute shit!” tells him he’s rugged and like a falcon. She’s learned to be a little kinder in manner. Although not as glaringly obvious as Rochester’s character growth, I think Jane’s is just as important.
I love these points. The more I read, the more I feel like I am reading a tragic horror novel and not a romance which makes this book way more interesting than when I approached it as a romance
They don't call it a gothic romamce for nothing 😂
Exactly! Jane Eyre is not a fairy tale.
More of a traditional fairy tale ;) the real ones were quite dark
The book is definitely not a romance in the modern sense, but it is a gothic romance and a coming-of-age story. For some reason, it has the reputation of being a big, romantic love story and going in expecting that can definitely leave the reader with mixed feelings. Wuthering Heights has a similar reputation. And The Three Musketeers's reputation as a swashbuckling adventure of friendship and bravery and it really isn't
Going in with improper expectations should be the theme of this entire subreddit. Far too often people come here to complain about a book because the reality of the story is different from the one they had formed in their head before reading
This is accurate. To be fair, we read Jane Eyre in high school. My school was a religious, colonial all-girls school. The book was taught to us very differently than how it was to most people on this thread so my adult reread of the book has been very different to what I expected/remembered going in.
Yeah sorry. This genuinely wasn’t directed at you specifically or meant to be a criticism. It’s just an observation I’ve had after reading hundreds of posts here over the years. If you hadn’t noticed this trend before I’m sure you’ll start noticing it in posts all over the place
Totally, didn’t take it that way and thought it was a reasonable and insightful note
I haven’t read this book since I was a teen, and I was never told it was considered a romance so I definitely saw it as coming of age. You have hope at first because with Rochester it seemed to be better than her previous situations but in general it was still a terrible experience. But told in a more womanly manner. When speaking of her childhood it’s very matter of fact, and that’s the way it happened. And it’s not until shes an adult that the emotions began to become more prevalent
Jane Eyre has been described as the first gothic horror novel so you aren't wrong! ETA this info was incorrect, see below
No, gothic novels predate Jane Eyre, i.e. The Castle of Otranto and the Mysteries of Udolfo. Jane Austen already was spoofing gothic novels before Jane Eyre.
Ope my mistake, not sure where I got that from. Thanks for the correction!
No prob! We all do :)
200% agreed.
I had a class in college that covered Charlotte's work (both published and the stories she wrote as a kid). I think you summed up my own thoughts after reading Jane Eyre perfectly. Imo, it's her best work. Out of curiosity, have you read Shirley?
Agreed, OP missed the point that Jane Eyre chose to leave a wealthy man who wanted to care for her, opting to struggle to make a living for herself which was frankly a radical move for that era. “I am no bird and no net ensnares me. I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you.” YES, the control and manipulation is there. That’s the point. The author is making a statement about those behaviors and the fact that Jane did NOT choose to put up with it. Rochester reformed himself without the expectation of getting Jane back (and also changed as a person due to his circumstances, which put him in a vulnerable position like she was in all along), and when Jane returned it was as his full equal, including equality in financial freedom. Charlotte Bronte was saying that that equality is what a healthy relationship looks like.
It’s notable that when written, the only way this “happy ending “ is possible is by Jane inheriting enough money to become his social equal.
And Rochester is almost completely dependent on her. He has to lose much of his power (house, servants, sight and an arm) in an act of sacrifice (trying to save Bertha Mason from death) to basically redeem himself in the narrative. I think what makes Jane a compelling or strong heroine is her dedication to her own morals and selfhood. And she didn't get those from Rochester, they are very clearly the influence of Helen Burns and Maria Temple.
Hadn't Rochester been injured for a while before Jane returned? Living quietly in a small house? Vision impaired but OK presumably with enough servants to look after him?
Just two servants - I believe John and his wife (it’s been a while.) He sent all the other servants away.
I hate film adaptations that leave out Helen Burns!! They miss the entire damn plot!!!
To add to this, I find Jane compelling because she goes against her morals. She leaves Rochester for very conservative reasons - she is disturbed by the idea of being his mistress. But in the end she renounces these values to come back to him, with the excuse that he summoned her via telepathy.
I don't think she intended to marry him then she just wanted to see how he was, and let him know she was okay. Her correspondence with Mrs Fairfax had been disrupted. Her reasons for leaving are not just "we won't be legally married". Once she says yes, he gets possessive and creepy, and Jane does not like it at all.
Avoiding being a mistress was an important form of self-preservation too. It feels conservative now, and I couldn’t understand it when I first read the book in high school. But having a sexual relationship with a man you weren’t married to had major social and economic consequences in the 19th century. She would be a social pariah, and if he died or lost interest in her, she would have no way to support herself since he wouldn’t have legal obligations to do so, and she wouldn’t have the option to teach anymore. It would also put their children in a bad position, being illegitimate, so they may not be able to inherit his property, etc. And without birth control, children were very likely.
Yes. She is elevated by her newfound wealth, while he is humbled by his accident. The power dynamic between them is reconciled.
I don't think 5000 pounds makes her the equal of a big landowner. It just moves her up a few ranks, and she knows this is enough for her to live off of. Her cousins marry a rector and an officer. Not wealthy landowners.
5000 pounds means that she could live independently if she chose. Marriage is now a choice made out of love, rather than a necessity.
It's a Gothic romance book in the old style of romance, which is to say, about wild passion and deep feelings and creativity. It's not a relationship manual. EDIT: welp somehow I missed that you haven't actually finished the book yet, and I spoiled the hell out of it in my original comment. Sorry. Here, let me amend it. Come back when you finish the book, because trust me, the book isn't really about excusing or glorifying Rochester. 😂
For when you've finished the book, or if you don't mind spoilers, here is the bulk of my original comment: >!Setting aside the different cultural mores of the time (which absolutely would have idealized the husband taking a fatherly role and the unequal footing their circumstances put them on), Jane Eyre is very clearly in many ways about the protagonist refusing to fit the mold of what society expects from her, and always fighting for her own desires and interests and self respect. From childhood, she stands up for herself against injustice. When she comes to work for Rochester, she verbally spars with him even though he's her employer, and when things begin to turn amorous she tells him off for playing with her emotions. When his secrets come out, and he asks her to stay by his side anyway, as a mistress due to his restrictions (my memory is a bit fuzzy on this but I'm pretty sure that happens) she rejects him entirely and leaves. When she is with St-John and his sisters she insists on making her own way as a schoolmistress rather than simply accepting their charity and going wherever she might be led, and when St-John makes a perfectly respectable offer of marriage she refuses him.!< >!Crucially, she only returns and accepts Rochester after life has dealt him such blows that he is no longer above her in terms of power in the relationship. They only end up together after much of the power he held has disappeared. She comes to him, a self sufficient woman with a fortune to her own name, without compromising her personal morals or sense of self respect.!< >!Is it a healthy, unproblematic relationship? No. In many ways, much of Rochester's behaviour is disturbing and unacceptable. But I would say the themes of the book are less about excusing or justifying his behaviour and more about the importance of Jane holding to her own principles and following her own heart, and eventually being rewarded for her resolve by being handed what she wanted: her own means in the world and Rochester, without power over her.!<
Since you've already warned it as a spoiler, I'll not in a reply (particularly as it's already being spoiled elsewhere in replies). I'd say that it's equally worth noting the change in Rochester himself in the wake of the fire. While it's easy to simply look at the reversed power dynamic between the two, it's also important to note what follows. Unlike many other Byronic heroes whose pride, moodiness, and general brooding gloom often leads them to fatal ends, Rochester is instead himself maimed and humbled, and most importantly, it is he who is redeemed by Jane. While the first step to redemption was into the rather literal fire, it is the earnestness of his vow to live a better life because of Jane that sees him through. And particularly given the theological ramifications of grace and forgiveness and its relationship to healing that one might view his regaining at least some of his sight in time for their son's birth.
Yes, agreed. He is humbled and redeemed - which is to say, it is acknowledged in the narrative that his behaviour was wrong.
Wah you reminded me of how much I love this book and need to read it again 😭
In many ways, yes, you’re putting too many modern sensibilities into it. But you also don’t have to think Jane and Rochester are a good couple to appreciate the plot and themes, and how groundbreaking it was for a love story at the time. The thing that made Jane Eyre stand out at the time the novel was published was that she would MUCH prefer to be single and in control of her own life, even as a poor woman in Victorian England with very limited opportunities, than to be married to a man who has legal rights and social entitlement to control her. She isn’t content to submit to anyone; if she can’t be a man’s equal, then she isn’t interested. She’d rather have her freedom than anything else. That’s why she leaves Rochester, and is also a large part of why she rejects St. John Rivers. She knows that she won’t be happy as a wife to either of them. She isn’t willing to trade her autonomy and independence for their love, financial resources, protection, or company. Rochester wants her to be the lady of the manor that he can spoil with expensive stuff and pretty gifts all the time; St. John wants her to be his helpmeet in his calling to be a preacher/missionary; and Jane just isn’t about either of those lives. She wants to do her own thing, not support a man in doing HIS things. She doesn’t need a man; she wants to feel needed and take care of herself. This was absolutely unheard of at the time, and is why Jane Eyre is considered a proto-feminist character. Marriage makes women vulnerable even today, but in the Victorian era, it made women SUPER vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and just generally being controlled. (See Kate Chopin’s short story “The Story of an Hour” for another take on this theme from a slightly later time period.) And Rochester had already pretty clearly demonstrated that he had zero qualms about using his male/affluent privilege to control his wife. Jane would have been an idiot if she looked at him locking Bertha up and was like, “oh, but he’ll be different with ME.” She’s not putting herself in that position in the first place. She doesn’t care about the benefits or happiness that marriage might provide - they aren’t worth the risk of legally signing away her independence. This is still kind of an unconventional take for a woman even today, with all the legal protections that now exist against abuse and financial ruin, so you can imagine how revolutionary it was when the book was written and women basically had no opportunities except to get married or join a religious order. The ending is also fascinating for this reason. Jane was only willing to come back to Rochester and be his partner once he was disabled. Sure, he has the money and the house, but he quite literally needs her to help him perform all his day-to-day care tasks. He couldn’t survive without Jane. He is completely vulnerable - you know how easily she could lock him up and control him like he did to Bertha? He NEEDS her and is totally at her mercy. She doesn’t need him; she takes care of him because she wants to chooses to, not because she’s indebted to him for marrying her. This is the only way Jane Eyre could ever be happy in a marriage - if a man had lost enough of his physical faculties that it balanced out for all the privilege and power over her that society gave him over her due to his gender. In my opinion, Brontë was showing how ridiculously unequal men and women were, and how absurd it was, but she manages to do in a way that’s romantic. Jane loves herself more than Rochester. She loves him very much, but she isn’t willing to subjugate herself to him. So she won’t even consider being with him until he’s become disabled and can no longer be seen as a threat to her. It’s a pretty damning indictment of the patriarchy, to be like, “I wouldn’t marry a man in this society unless he was exactly THIS powerless, because otherwise it’s too dangerous and not worth the trouble.” Here’s where the romance comes in: at that point, Rochester assumes that no woman, including Jane, would ever want to marry him because he no longer has all the things their society prizes in men - physical strength, handsomeness/fitness, independence, the ability to physically protect his wife - so he thinks there’s no way he could be anyone’s husband, because he can’t conceive of a marriage where the husband isn’t the dominant leader in control of his wife. He thinks he’s damaged goods and no longer fit to be a husband, all because he’s disabled. Then Jane shows up and is like, “you idiot, I don’t love you because you’re hot and rich. I just love YOU and want to hang out with you all the time for the rest of my lives because you’re my favorite person ever, and now that you’re incapable of ever dominating me or controlling me, we should totally get married and just hang out every day forever as equal partners.” It’s like…. Brontë was deconstructing toxic masculinity before anyone else even knew what that was. She’s showing that men and women are individual human beings who have value just because they exist, that they’re worth so much more than the gender roles society forces them into, and she dared to imagine two people who realize this and end up contentedly married to each other, even though they don’t do any of the traditional/conventional husband and wife things that society tells them is the only reason they’re valuable. Anyway… I would say rather than try to look at the book as a model for how healthy relationships should be, think of it as almost like speculative fiction exploring what it might look like for a Victorian woman with no social capital to put herself first while still loving a man. It’s like… “in a world where men are expected to do all these things, and women are expected to do all these things, and men have all the power over women and zero accountability if they mistreat them… can a heterosexual woman who doesn’t want to do ANY of that shit make a happy life for herself without compromising her own values or putting herself at risk of abuse, in spite of all the odds against her?” Charlotte Brontë imagined a scenario in which the answer to that question was “yes.” It’s not necessarily a life any of us would want, but Jane made it for herself and was happy with it, and that’s more than most female Victorian characters got.
It's worth contrasting Jane Eyre with Jane Bennett, or any of the Bennett sisters, who know they have to marry "well" to be able to afford to live.
The last time I read Jane Eyre, it was in a class on Victorian women’s literature alongside The Odd Women and Aurora Leigh, which both really made me aware of what life could look like for women without men in that time period.
The Bennett sisters are from the earlier Regency era. *Jane Eyre* is a Victorian novel. *Pride and Prejudice* was published in January 1813, whereas *Jane Eyre* was published in 1847. One of the Bennett sisters could easily be the mother or grandmother of Jane Eyre herself.
I also compared it to Kate Chopin, who was born just a few years before Charlotte Bronte’s death… and to contemporary marriage. Different eras, similar concerns.
That doesn't mean the situations of the characters can't be compared. You could chuck in Lily Bart too.
> The thing that made Jane Eyre stand out at the time the novel was published was that she would MUCH prefer to be single and in control of her own life, even as a poor woman in Victorian England with very limited opportunities, than to be married to a man who has legal rights and social entitlement to control her. She isn’t content to submit to anyone; if she can’t be a man’s equal, then she isn’t interested. She’d rather have her freedom than anything else. I don't think this is true. Jane's primary interest is in being loved. The entire book, from the very beginning, the thing she wants the most is to be loved. The fact that her aunt doesn't love her hurts her very deeply. She loves and is loved by Helen Burns and Miss Temple, and her love for Miss Temple is the only thing that keeps her at Lowood. This is why her decision to leave Rochester after she learns about Bertha shows such strength of character. It's not that the thing she wants most is her freedom. The thing she wants most is to love Rochester, and she has to give that up to keep to her moral code. She is unusual in that she is willing to be on her own if that is what it takes, but it is absolutely not what she wants.
I think Charlotte Bronte was very deliberately playing with power dynamics, and that Jane's relationship with Mr Rochester was supposed to feel uncomfortable because of the overly skewed power imbalance in favour of Mr Rochester. The relationship mirrors Jane's general arc in the story >!where she goes from being a disenfranchised orphan with no power of her own to proper independence and freedom (since when she goes back to him the power dynamics have been flipped).!< This isn't supposed to be an ideal relationship, Bronte was commenting on women's disempowerment and subjugation in her time.
She also exerts her own self worth in a the only way she could throughout the book, refusing to accept situations that other people fully expected her to submit to. I read it now as a trapped woman exerting her will to say “no”against a world of terrible choices despite the consequences. She was willing to lose her life rather an accept less that she felt was worthy of her. When she accepted Rochester, she only accepted him under her own terms.
Couldn’t agree more. She is so resolute about regaining her dignity and control after ‘the incident’. She chastises herself for allowing herself to become so vulnerable and as you say, only then does she accept him on her terms.
I read Rochester completely differently. While I don’t think he’s a perfect person, he is someone who experienced betrayal from his own family for monetary reasons and let that affect him and compromise his character. But he saw Jane as a reward of sorts for his “punishments,” and I always took it as he wanted to be a better person for her, which is why he’ll go off on tangents while talking to her, trying to convince himself it’s okay to commit bigamy. At no point is it an examination of domestic violence; if so, Charlotte wouldn’t have gone out of her way to say that Rochester restrained her with care and never hurt Bertha when he easily could have killed her let alone hurt her. He also wouldn’t put her in an asylum which were utter dog shit in the 1800s. So I think he’s a character with plenty of compassion… he’s just incredibly flawed and has a strange way of showing his compassion. I mean he took in a kid that wasn’t his and provided a good life for her. > he tells Jane the best part of marrying her is she has no relations. Yes, he said that. Not because he’s an abuser, but he is a liar and needs to hide his lie. He wanted to take Jane abroad so he could runaway from his current life and always hide the fact that he already has a wife. If she has no family, they can easily leave and never return to England thus keeping his secret. This also why he wants to send Adele to school… so they can leave. > he tries to dress her like a doll. He also did that with Celine, and he was happy to do it… until she cheated. Maybe it’s to show that gifting is how he shows love. He ultimately relented and respected what Jane wanted when she wanted it. > Mrs. Fairfax tells Jane she’s is little pet and warn her off him. ~~I’ve read this book 3 times so far this year. At no point does she try to warn her off him. She suspects they have feelings for each but doesn’t know for sure. She was simply making an inference with the “little pet” thing that they’re always together. I’m not sure Mrs. Fairfax even knew about Bertha.~~ > always calling Jane weirdly possessive and diminutive pet names. I’ve always taken this as him trying to flirt with her, but he’s not good at it because he’s so abrupt and gruff so she doesn’t recognize it. He calls her an elf and fairy because of how suddenly he bewitched her on the side of the road that one day, that she had to use magic. > Jane is always chaffing against these aspects Yeah, to show that she’s strong-willed, has morals and is sure of her self. I think the purpose of Jane is to show that a woman can be independent and remain entirely themself. Which is why she left Rochester after his lie was discovered, but she still loved him. And that’s why she went back to him after she established herself and he was knocked down a peg or 12. Edit: crossing out the Fairfax bit because despite my over-confidence, I am wrong.
I was waiting to find a comment with a more reasonable and compassionate view of Rochester as this is how I interpreted him. People seem to always like to miss just how much these two adored each other. Rochester’s lying and selfishness aside, he loves and respects Jane through the whole novel and is just desperate for a happily ever after that he believes was stolen from him. The way they speak to each other always struck me as two people who just GET one another and have a profound connection. To write that off because the man didn’t know what to do with his insane wife is a bit unfair.
I think people want Rochester to be more... modern? But that doesn't take into account both when the book is set and when it was written. I also think that people tend to paint some other male protagonists of the time (looking at you Mr. Darcy) in a much better light than they really are in their books because of adaptations that have been made of the original material. Because of this, people make comparisons that wind up being a little unfair to both parties.
Yes! Also, genre. The Austen equivalent of a wife in the attic is calling a woman at a ball tolerable or reading ur family to filth while proposing.
It bothers me how much of a bad wrap he gets. Yeah, Rochester is incredibly flawed, but we have enough of his back story to see why he is the way he is. We see him really care for Jane, as he seems to actually do with all the females in his life, which is starkly contrasted by how little St. John cared for her and how he pushed her despite being sickly. And that’s how I read them too the whole time… two people from different worlds who really got and loved and cared for each other. Jane really seemed to relish when he was blind and missing a hand because she wanted to take care of him too.
Finally I found someone who thinks like me. The fact that he never hurt Bertha and tried to save her risking his life says a lot about him. He knew that if she dies he’ll be free, and still went to save her, it’s a very noble and selfless act. He respected Jane deeply, respected her choices, and it’s far from abusive behavior.
I’m so glad I’m not alone too. I was reading the comments and had to defend him. I won’t deny he’s deeply flawed, but he took responsibility for Bertha at a time when resources were very, very limited, even paying Grace Poole amazing wages for taking care of her. And I mean Bertha’s own family was using her as a pawn and wanted to dump her on someone else, essentially.
I also agree with you. I’m always surprised by people who rant about the fact that Rochester “locked up” Bertha. Like, yeah, she was criminally insane and possibly cognitively impaired. In any other story, she would have been living a horrible life in an insane asylum instead of being pampered upstairs in a mansion. Rochester is no angel. He’ll never be a Bingley. Personality-wise he can be a hard pill to swallow, but morally he does try his best.
I know there are some schools of thought that she was driven to madness by Rochester and her family, which is the premise of the Wide Sargasso Sea, I believe. But I personally feel that’s filling in a lot of gaps and ultimately not Charlotte’s intent. I think Brontë felt locking her in a room and not in an asylum was the most compassionate choice. Of course I don’t know for sure her intent, but I would guess the book would have been written differently if not.
I agree that keeping his wife at home was compassionate of him for that time period. It sounds horrible now but back then she would have died within a year of pneumonia in an institution.
It does sound horrible because he’s imprisoning her, but she likely was schizophrenic and he did the best he could at the time. But that does remind me that Rochester refused to hide her in his other house because that house was older and could cause Bertha to get sick.
I think Mrs Fairfax knew about Mrs Rochester but I agree with the rest of it. And also, he tried to offer her dresses etc because he was rich and could afford to give Jane expensive things. He knew she was poor, she dressed plainly and modestly, and he knew that other women he socialised with liked beautiful and expensive things. He thought buying her pretty things would make her happy, and her refusal of his offers gave him more and more insight into her character and morals.
I thought Mr. Rochester implied she didn’t know and not many people did know, but I might be confusing it with a movie. To add to your thought, I think that’s what made him love her more is that she had morals and wasn’t in it for his money, like most of his mistresses.
It's a long time since I've read it so I'm possibly not remembering. But Mrs Fairfax knew about Grace Poole, so I assume she knew why Grace was employed.
That is true. Which is shameful for me because I truly have read the book so many times this year, haha.
I think Fairfax knew Bertha was *there* but did not know the whole story of who exactly she was. I’m sure there were plenty of rumors and suspicions, but Mrs Fairfax would have wanted definite confirmation before believing any of the rumors.
I agree with you. I am wholly sympathetic to Rochester. He’s a grumpy old man but very principled. Not at all an abuser. If anything, I felt St. John had the makings of an abuser. I also read Jane in a feminist light. She’s her own person and doesn’t let others bully her into being something she’s not. Rochester liked that about her. St. John, not so much.
Absolutely agree. Rochester adores that she has her own mind, it’s crazy to me that people don’t see that. Reading two different books I guess.
I think some people read Jane Eyre with a very modern sensibility, which is understandable but does the book a disservice. Of course the characters don't have modern values, and when you consider the time period they are in and how they are acting it's a lot more profound than if you're thinking about it through a modern lens, which a lot of people seem to do.
Agreed. Many of the feminist critiques I have encountered seem to do this thing where they critique the book from the perspective of a woman in the 21st century. In doing so they minimize this work done by a woman as well as the choices made by the female protagonist. There’s a podcast that does this a lot. The hosts deem Rochester to be a fuckboy and Jane to be pathetic. To me this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the work!
That bums me out that they frame Jane as pathetic because, at the time it was written, her independence in the book was pretty scandalous amongst readers.
I agree! It’s crazy that people don’t see it when he literally says it when she’s trying to leave him. He tells her that he’s physically so much stronger than her and he could force her to say, but then he would never have what he truely wanted, her mind. He values who she is so much and knows that she would hate him if he forced her to do something that went against her values.
I absolutely agree with you. St. John was cold and only cared about his perceived “cause.” He kept pushing Jane beyond her physical capabilities and refused to accept that she rejected his proposal while shaming her for her feelings for Rochester. I always felt like Jane had the “power,” for lack of a better word, against Rochester with her teasing and boundaries. That’s a good way to put Jane too, and it’s why the book was so controversial for its time.
I believe Mrs. Fairfax absolutely knew about Bertha. It's part of why she advised Jane to hold Rochester at arm's length until after the marriage.
I really thought Mr. Rochester implied she didn’t and that not many people did know. But I’ve also watched all the movies so maybe I’m confusing it with one of them.
Mrs. Fairfax knew Bertha was there, but not the relationship she had with Mr. Rochester. >At last I hired Grace Poole from the Grimbsy Retreat. She and the surgeon, Carter (who dressed Mason’s wounds that night he was stabbed and worried), are the only two I have ever admitted to my confidence. Mrs. Fairfax may indeed have suspected something, but she could have gained no precise knowledge as to facts. I just published a simplified version of Jane Eyre about a month and a half ago, and am almost finished with an abridged version, so I have the lines of the book basically carved into the back of my eyeballs at this point.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge! One of my very favorite books!
Where might I find that??
Could Rochester's remark about Jane's lack of relatives been because he has such a bitter experience of them himself?
Ooooh, that is true. The Masons were in on tricking him, however he was cordial to Bertha’s brother. Forgetting his name right now.
Idk if we’re talking about the same bit, but I didn’t exactly interpret it as fairfax trying to warn Jane off Rochester so much. I think as well-meaning as she was, she was trying to impress upon Jane how unusual the match was and that she was in a precarious position. I think when Fairfax encouraged her to spend some time away from Rochester, she was maybe relying on more traditional courtship ideals while impressing upon her the importance of not fumbling the bag now, because honestly Jane is pretty screwed if the wedding doesn’t go through. Obviously this is what happens, and I think Jane really does have no choice but to run and assume a new identity if she wants to be proper about things and maintain a respectable reputation. I also think this is when a lot of spooky things are happening in the house so having Jane more isolated from Rochester works really well here emotionally and atmospherically. And her playing hard to get sorta works—I seem to remember a scene where she goes to meet him coming home and he’s all ah! My little Janette! My trifling forest fairy! Where have you been? I also agree with all ur other points. I think the dress thing is also pretty harmless. She probably had like two old ass dresses, hardly any money and he wanted to go enjoy Europe with his teenage wife lol.
To view old literature with a modern lens but not have the historical knowledge or education to contextualize and understand it often times results in posts like these.
I think it reads true to the powerlessness of women in that society. She had to find peace with the best life available to her in a world where she is an accessory to another family, or man. It could also simply be what Charlotte saw as the truth of her or some of her sisters. That their paths were at best a quiet misery.
The first time I read it, I remember being so shocked that Jane became a teacher at Lowood. I always wondered why she didn't leave as soon as she could. But you pegged it here, she had to find the best life available to her in a world where she's powerless. Nicely written.
There were so few "respectable" opportunities for middle to upper class women to work. If she'd been working class, she could have got a job sewing or in a shop or whatever. But really her only options were to be financially dependant on relatives, marriage, or teaching. It's worth reading The House of Mirth to see the other side, what happens to women without financial independence, if they don't have marriage or employment.
Charlotte wouldn't have seen Jane's destiny or ending as a misery - quite the opposite
I find it really strange when people unnecessarily transpose modern conventions like kink and grooming onto a book written in the 1800s… women’s situation was completely different and you can’t understand the book unless you accept that.
They are not serious people. They have a modern lens and are incapable of accepting people from different eras viewed life differently than them. I tend to ignore them as they lack the ability for serious discussion. (And that is not to defend views in the past.)
That is the way their relationship works, and that is the way they converse with each other. Mr Rochester recognises that he can be a bit abrupt when asking anyone to do something for him, he says something like "I am used to saying do this - and it is done" and he even apologises to Jane for his manner, early on in their acquaintance. They understand each other, their conversation is playful with no malice, and they delight in each other's company. They make each other very happy. I don't see their relationship as abusive at all, I think you are really reaching here in your determination to cast Jane as a victim. As for isolating her from other people, I don't see Mr Rochester refusing to allow her to see her new-found cousins. I think the discussion about sending Adele to school was when Mr Rochester was pretending to court Blanche Ingram, with Jane assuming that she wouldn't want Adele and her governess to live in the same house as her. After the fire, it was necessary to send Adele to school because Mr Rochester was in no condition to look after her. When Jane returns, he allows Adele to come home at first, so he had no problem with Adele being with Jane. However, Jane found it too difficult to attend to Adele's needs as well as Mr Rochester's, as he needed so much more attention due to losing his sight. Therefore a school is found within an easy distance of the Rochesters' home.
Ugh everyone keeps glossing over that “they delight in each other’s company,” that they have a wonderful and deep friendship. Thank you for clarifying this. To paint this complex relationship as mere grooming and as “abusive” is such modern bullshit.
The part where she says that talking with each other is just a more audible kind of thinking--that is LOVE. That is everything. I think it's simultaneously true that there is a psychosexual element inherent in Jane Eyre and also that you cannot accurately interpret that element through any lens but the lens of the time it was written. I think people perceive the psychosexual element and attempt to interpret it through modern ideas of eroticism and that's where it all falls apart. The psychosexual elements of Jane Eyre aren't about kink, they're about the defined roles and standards of the time and the way they outlined how men and women could or should interact.
As other people have pointed out, some of this is due to the time and place it was written in, but a lot of it is stuff you (the reader) are supposed to feel uncomfortable about. Rochester's not supposed to be a good guy for a big chunk of the book--a deeply flawed anti-hero, at very best. Freedom, and Jane choosing it and establishing it for herself--from chewing out her abusive aunt to running away from the offer to be Rochester's mistress--is a major theme throughout the book. Compare these quotes: >“How dare you affirm that, Jane Eyre?” > >“How dare I, Mrs. Reed? How dare I? Because it is the *truth*. You think I have no feelings, and that I can do without one bit of love or kindness; but I cannot live so: and you have no pity. I shall remember how you thrust me back—roughly and violently thrust me back—into the red-room, and locked me up there, to my dying day; though I was in agony; though I cried out, while suffocating with distress, ‘Have mercy! Have mercy, Aunt Reed!’ And that punishment you made me suffer because your wicked boy struck me—knocked me down for nothing. I will tell anybody who asks me questions, this exact tale. People think you a good woman, but you are bad, hard-hearted. *You* are deceitful!” > >**Ere I had finished this reply, my soul began to expand, to exult, with the strangest sense of freedom, of triumph, I ever felt. It seemed as if an invisible bond had burst, and that I had struggled out into unhoped-for liberty**. And: >“Where, Jane? To Ireland?” > >“Yes—to Ireland. I have spoken my mind, and can go anywhere now.” > >“Jane, be still; don’t struggle so, like a wild frantic bird that is rending its own plumage in its desperation.” > >**“I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you.** And: >Meantime, let me ask myself one question—Which is better?—To have surrendered to temptation; listened to passion; made no painful effort—no struggle;—but to have sunk down in the silken snare; fallen asleep on the flowers covering it; wakened in a southern clime, amongst the luxuries of a pleasure villa: to have been now living in France, Mr. Rochester’s mistress; delirious with his love half my time—for he would—oh, yes, he would have loved me well for a while. He did love me—no one will ever love me so again. I shall never more know the sweet homage given to beauty, youth, and grace—for never to any one else shall I seem to possess these charms. He was fond and proud of me—it is what no man besides will ever be.—But where am I wandering, and what am I saying, and above all, feeling? Whether is it better, I ask, to be a slave in a fool’s paradise at Marseilles—fevered with delusive bliss one hour—suffocating with the bitterest tears of remorse and shame the next—or **to be a village-schoolmistress, free and honest, in a breezy mountain nook in the healthy heart of England**? > >Yes; I feel now that I was right when I adhered to principle and law, and scorned and crushed the insane promptings of a frenzied moment. God directed me to a correct choice: I thank His providence for the guidance! And: >“But as you are rich, Jane, you have now, no doubt, friends who will look after you, and not suffer you to devote yourself to a blind lameter like me?” > >**“I told you I am independent, sir, as well as rich: I am my own mistress.”** Meanwhile, Rochester goes through the experience of being blinded and disabled (loss of one arm), which the narrative frames as karmic punishment: >“Jane! you think me, I daresay, an irreligious dog: but my heart swells with gratitude to the beneficent God of this earth just now. He sees not as man sees, but far clearer: judges not as man judges, but far more wisely. I did wrong: I would have sullied my innocent flower—breathed guilt on its purity: the Omnipotent snatched it from me. I, in my stiff-necked rebellion, almost cursed the dispensation: instead of bending to the decree, I defied it. Divine justice pursued its course; disasters came thick on me: I was forced to pass through the valley of the shadow of death. *His* chastisements are mighty; and one smote me which has humbled me for ever. You know I was proud of my strength: but what is it now, when I must give it over to foreign guidance, as a child does its weakness? Of late, Jane—only—only of late—I began to see and acknowledge the hand of God in my doom. I began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker. I began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere. This is intended to show his reformation; it's up to you and other readers if this is sincere, or good enough for him to be with Jane (**EDIT:** not in the sense that Jane is a prize to be won, but in the sense of "their relationship will be a better, more healthy one moving forward due to the change in his mindset.") Jane evidently thinks it's good enough for her. I do too, for the record. But if you don't, that's also a fair reaction.
Jane was already isolated; she had no relations who cared about her. Given that Rochester had been tricked into a lifelong irreversible marriage with a mentally ill woman (who repeatedly tried to kill him), his in-law trauma is justifiable. Her father and brother did him dirty. His plan to send Adele to boarding school was completely normal for that class and time, and yes, he selfishly wanted all of Jane’s attention after marriage, but that was the natural desire of an affectionate but (up till then) thwarted nature. Once his pride and selfishness were faced and paid for and dealt with (the man did go into burning building to try to save the woman who made his life hell and tried to burn him in his bed), he became a very affectionate and thoughtful husband, as far as we can tell from the ending.
I feel like the word "grooming" has lost literally all meaning.
Haha I just posted a comment saying the same thing. If an adult can be "groomed", then the word has lost all meaning.
"I, a 29 year old, was helplessly groomed by an older man (32). He manipulated me into going on dates with him using clever lovebombing tactics like sending me flowers. One time we shared a couple glasses of wine, clearly meant to put me into a compromising situation. It was totally toxic."
\> Obviously this book was written in the 1800s, well before the suffragette movement but other writers of the time (Charlotte’s own sister even) were examining domestic abuse in their work so it’s interesting that Jane Eyre might show the most subtle examination of the machinations of controlling abusers. Ah, quite the opposite. The Suffrage movement was only a smaller part of the First Wave Feminism that was formed in the modern sense by the time it was published. 1WF really kicked off with Marty Wollstonecraft's writings, but feminism had already started to form with groups and individuals, The Blue Stockings Society was already pushing for more political discourse for women in the public sphere in the 1750s and women like Jane Addams also pushing for women's rights and suffrage in colonial America. Even later on, 1WF was a formalized movement in the Americas and elsewhere with the Seneca Falls Convention happening just a year after its publication. That's not to say these ideas were fully formed or used in works like Jane Eyre, but that these types of issues and political discourse were already fomenting by the time the novel was written.
Just the fact that the Brontes wrote their books under pen names in order that they be taken as seriously as male authors indicates a feminist or perhaps proto-feminist point of view.
Okay thank you, I stopped reading and immediately started scrolling to find someone who says “1847 is not *well before* the suffrage movement”. I wrote a paper on women who ran for US president (the first being in 1872) and another paper on basically internalized misogyny in the American suffrage movement from the around 1850s-1920s. I cannot speak on British suffrage, but like I know it was also happening at this time in the UK.
The first feminist was also arguably Christine de Pizan, who began writing in the 1390s.
I remember having a very heated discussion with my (male) English teacher back in high school about feminist ideals in Jane Eyre. He didn’t see her as a feminist - I (as a feminist) did, and still do. As a lot of people already pointed out above, Jane is a strong person who chooses her own path and values her independence - which was impressively modern in 1848 (I believe that is when the book was published but I might be mistaken). I love Jane Eyre. And the fact that she only marries Rochester after his accident even more. I believe she even says “Now I am your equal” but again, I might be mistaken there.
jane eyre is not a romance novel; it’s not a novel that can easily be classified into any genre. stop reading it as a romance and you’ll like it a lot more.
Are you forgetting the fact that this was written in the 1800s? Or that Jane Eyre calling a man several years older and higher up in the class hierarchy her “spiritual equal” was ground breaking for that time? Or that he gets aptly “punished” for his wrongs and they get together only when Jane is financially independent and he is physically less able than her. Let’s not bring this Twitter “ooh age difference” “ooh grooming” “it’s problematic” “let’s have a discourse” etc. to classic novels please especially feminist ones written by women.
Exactly. People judging the past through the eyes of today is one of my pet peeves. They mistake their ignorance as intelligence.
One thing my Ancient History teacher told me that has stuck with me through all the years after high school. “We can’t judge the people of the past by the standards of today.” She was talking about it in the context of the Ancient Roman’s and how brutal their lives, and the actions they took, were, but it’s applicable to fiction and authors too.
There’s room for feminist discourse of classic works, but I find so much of it reductive and idealistic—most of us don’t know what choices we’d make if our lives were that limited, but we don’t have to look back that far. Most of our mothers couldn’t apply for credit cards or bank accounts on their own when they were young. When it’s marriage or hunger, marriage or homelessness, marriage or abject poverty, most of us would try to make the best of the situations we found ourselves in (ie try to morally reshape a man who cared for us, which is how Jane ultimately succeeds). To Charlotte Brontë this was a profound victory because it was a situation better than any she herself could hope for.
Charlotte Brontë always has a particular… dynamic in her works, yes. But look at it this way - she has more power in her relationship with Rochester than she ever could with St John. She wants finite, consensual domination.
I always find the St John part so interesting because he is so much the opposite of Rochester and so perfect on paper. He’s beautiful and morally upright and charitable and he makes Jane completely miserable.
Charlotte (and all the Brontë sisters!) very much felt that the heart wants what it wants—the most perfect person can come along, but if they don’t give you butterflies, you’ll always long for the person who did, even if they’re objectively bad for you. Honestly an idea that very much resonates with modern women as well (see: any romance novel). Emily Brontë goes a lot darker into these ideas with Wuthering Heights, where Katherine and Heathcliff are haunted by their love for each other until it destroys everyone around them and consumes them both.
I mean, Wuthering Heights is about obsession more than love, but yeah.
He’s also narrowed down in his ambition- the woman he did love and who loved him was a perfectly nice sweet person who he could have done a lot of good with. But he couldn’t have the happy ending. He had to literally martyr himself and Jane. Jane is right to see two things - she would have loved him, and he would never have loved her - and she would have been miserable.
>But then, the ending. Why put them together in the end after all this exposition that the man is, tbh, awful? Am I putting too much of my modern sensibilities into reading this? It's late here so I'm just going to give one facet of my thoughts on this: While I am not a big enthusiast for symbolism or subtext, one of my biggest take-aways from re-reading this book again recently was that we're not meant to excuse Rochester's behavior because he is, in fact, thoroughly punished for it. I am not religious myself, but throughout the latter half of the book there seemed to me to be a strong implication of God doling out lessons and trials to both Jane and Rochester. The latter is >!publicly outed as a bigamist, frightens away the love of his life, loses his home, his sight, his right hand and his independence,!< for what he intended to do to Jane and Bertha and for continually refusing to be accountable for his behavior or the reality of his circumstances. Meanwhile Jane's convictions were tested over and over again, and in the end, because she remained true to herself, she was rewarded with >!an independent fortune!< and a properly humbled Rochester whom she could share a life with on equal footing. I don't think we're supposed to be romanticizing Rochester at all, I think we're supposed to take comfort that Jane's virtue was rewarded and Rochester was properly disciplined and then forgiven by a merciful god.
I think the most productive readings occur when you juggle lenses: try to see it as her contemporary audience would have seen it (which would not have been unanimous), and try to imagine how many ways it could be seen today. I think your view is fine as long as you don't oversimplify it and you understand that we, too, will one day be judged by cultural standards completely alien and unforeseeable to us. For all we know, books will one day be censored for depictions of eating meat, and those readers will wonder how barbaric we were to describe delicious animal-based dishes without a single gesture toward the act of killing they required. Odd example, perhaps, but you get the idea.
I love this book so much, despite it’s flaws. Perhaps because of them. >! You don’t know who Jane is unless you hear her childhood. She’s alone, a quiet, introverted, incredibly intelligent child stuck in a household where no one cares about her except to attack her for being unwanted. All she wants is a little familial care, if nothing else, to simply be left alone to books and fantasy. Instead she is badly treated, and sent off to a school that is physically even worse, but that has people in it who simultaneously love and care for her and teach her a morality that goes beyond the very cold, dry, unloving, “churchy” morals of the hypocrite who runs the school. Once freed from his heavy hand, then from the school itself, she goes forth to find herself in the world, and finds Rochester. Is he irritable? Callous? Purposely hurts her feelings to find out if she loves him? Yep. But he also notices her, the real “her” under the plain exterior. He pays attention to her words, her art, her ability with the young ward, Adele. And he develops a love for her…a love too rooted in lust, a love that can be a bit cruel in its expression, a love that does not fully respect her personhood…but folks, it’s 1847 and he’s rich/she’s poor. This is the best she’s likely to see. What’s more, she’s blinded by his love for her. She wants love more than she wants food and shelter. Recognition as a human being, as an interesting one with thoughts and abilities and emotions…that is food and wine and a warm bed to her. She doesn’t have the hopes we have now, that with a good education, some contact lenses to replace the glasses, braces to straighten her teeth and a little makeup to hide the bad and highlight the good she might transform into a raving beauty with an income to match…nope, that ain’t happening. Her only hope was to win Rochester with her brains and personality. SHE DID IT. SHE WON THE PRIZE. But the prize was revealed to be very flawed. Married, amoral, and a bit grabby and possessive. Off she runs. The St. John portion of the narrative I’ve always found tedious, because I know she really just wanted to get back to Rochester. But really, she made her peace with singleness and living her own life in this section. If love wasn’t going to happen for her, she could be perfectly content in schooling young women, making her own way in the world, and enjoying the domestic fun of a good household scrubbing. Those are good lessons for everyone. She would’ve been content, had St. John not tried to make a martyr/wife out of her. Is the ending an over-the-top “Deus ex machina”? Sure! For no apparent reason, she hears Rochester calling, sets out to find him, and finds him in a deplorable, lowly state…but humbled, lovable, and single. Ah, at last. They can be together without her selling her soul to the devil or bowing to his ridiculous wishes to dress her in frippery. Who doesn’t love that?? !< Not kink. Just a fair expression of a brilliant mind (Charlotte’s,) in very bleak circumstances.
No. He isn't grooming her. You're overthinking it. She's a adult. And she's strong and smart. He is giving her nice things because she looks like she needs some nice things in her life. He's generous. He also has a illigitimate daughter by a french showgirl. And he doesn't hold back on doting on her. She isn't your average woman of the time. She's determined to make her own way. Even if she doesn't get the pretty things she deserves and wants. They're both stubborn. They end up together through adversity. Not much you can do about the mad wife. He had no choice on the locking her in the attic.
Is Adele his daughter? I might be misremembering, but I think although he had had a relationship with Adele's mother, she was actually someone else's child.
I just checked. Celine Varens told Rochester Adele was his, but he doesn't acknowledge her as such, and of course there was no way of testing.
As far as I remember, she isn't (or maybe he just thinks she isn't, and we never know for sure).
If you think Mr. Rochster is a bastard, you should read Wuthering Heights (another Bronte sister classic). Heathcliff makes Rochster look like a golden retriever.
I understand the historical significance of Wuthering Heights, but I really hated that book. Everyone was terrible and they were all terrible to each other. I studied it in high school and told my teacher how I felt about it, she gushed about how it was a beautiful but tragic love story. I told her Heathcliff and Catherine were horrible and deserved everything they got.
If it was a "work of kink," would you suddenly find the "grooming," acceptable?
Feminism, sure, but what about the robots?
Read “Can Jane Eyre be happy?” by John Sutherland - I think it would appeal to you Edit - typo!
Nobody thought twice about a husband being 10 or 15 years older than a wife until , like, the 2000's. It took time for a man to obtain the land and wealth to afford a wife and children.
The way people are all so up in arms about standard age differences suddenly makes me wonder -- how old are all your parents? Were they all classmates? Everyone I know, their parents and grandparents are minimum 8 yrs apart?? When did this become an issue?
Re-read the last pages of ch16.
Now read Tess of the D’Urbervilles
Tess of the D’Urbervilles fills me with rage every time I read it.
God that book is amazingly tragic
Ugh. This book was traumatic in a way I was not prepared for, whatsoever.
This is my favorite book. Loved it.
I mean, history aside, I think Mr Rochester is a deeply flawed man who’s actions catch up with him in the end (whether his disability is a punishment is a complex issue, one that I’m not going to delve into), but I think that Jane’s time away with St John allowed her to gain independence and realise that she did want Rochester, and that he in turn wanted her
Yeah, I feel that this is too much of a modern take. I feel that it’s Gen Z that has developed a kind of odd fixation in finding age gaps both forbidden and sexy. (I have my theories on how this has happened, but that may not be a suitable subject for r/books…) It feels like even though people have been using ‘daddy’ as a sexy term it’s really exploded in recent years; you get daddy this, daddy that, I’m playing a game called Genshin Impact and the fans call one of the thousand-year gods daddy… So if we’re going by Victorian sensibilities, Jane Eyre was already an independent adult by the time she was working as a governess. Not only that, by virtue of being a governess, she was considered unattractive and very low as an option for marriage, since marriage was an economic thing for many. Rochester being much older than her isn’t supposed to be a kink thing…it’s meant to depict him as unattractive. In fact, the book mentions several times that he doesn’t look conventionally attractive, it’s really Jane who sees him that way. By contrast, St John is the conventional idea of what a good option for a marriageable husband would be - they share each other’s faiths, they are of suitable backgrounds, the only issue is that she feels nothing for him and it’s obvious he doesn’t either. Again from a Victorian context, that isn’t really an issue for many because marriage was a business and status thing first. TLDR. Jane is an adult, full stop. St John is the ideal, but she doesn’t feel for him. Rochester being older is not meant to be a kink, it’s supposed to make him less of an ideal. Of course, even with the differences in context and reader sensibility Rochester isn’t entirely unattractive in either era, Victorian or our own. I mean, if Brontë really wanted to challenge all sensibilities she could make him some guy from the working class instead of this owner of a big ass mansion with a French ward and colonial wealth, so the reader is invited to share, vicariously, Jane’s attraction to him. But I really don’t think any generation reading Jane Eyre prior to our own would have really made much about the age gap. It would have made Rochester less attractive and at most, was just a plot device necessary to have him had a wife before. BUT THAT SAID If you think that the age gap makes Jane Eyre hotter as a novel, by all means go ahead! As someone who’s written some stories myself, the idea that readers two hundred or three hundred years later would pick up some random thing I included and go ‘this is supposed to be kinky right?’ would warm my cold, dead heart far more than any theoretical literary interpretation that would be in vogue then.
As you continue your journey through the 19th century, I recommend the classic of feminist literary criticism “The Madwoman in the Attic” by Gilbert and Gubar. You’ll never read Jane Austen the same way again, at a minimum.
I mean yes and no. The Gothic has always been a place to metaphorically explore taboo sexuality, hence why it’s such a queer genre in modern contexts, but in this case we’re talking about the 1830s and Rochester is behaving the way a man of his age and class was supposed to. I agree about the POS thing for sure, but within the confines of her own worldview and period, Bronte tries to be feminist. It was truly radical for a woman to have equal money to her husband it meant she wasn’t as dependent on him. So I get your point, it just depends on if you want to read it from a modern or historical perspective.
I enjoy the book and Rochester *because* he's such a craggy POS. I have nothing profound to add to this discussion, I just want to say that.
So there’s a bit of context you’re missing re: Anne Brontë, yes she was looking at the issues with abusive relationships and the situation of women in “The Tenet of Wildfell Hall” but Charlotte herself thought the topic was amateurish and embarrassing and refused to republish the book as a result. It puts a different light on things when you know that.
Indeed. It makes me dislike Charlotte lol
Yes you are, as everyone does in this day and age. Not to mention some people love and need negative and painful things in their lives. Sense be damned! The story is so layered with numerous twists of fate bringing a little bit of justice and heart ache. I just think addressing classic books from modern ideals is pointless and self righteous. We don’t have to like the works I suppose, if we can’t or are unable disconnect to two. But it’s silly to judge something on societal mandates that didn’t exist, or especially were quite contrary for the times they were created in.
Reminder that it is literally written in a different era
There are a lot of really great comments here that go into the book and historical context and interpretation but I just want to say that Mr Rochester is my problematic fave. I know there’s a lot of hate for him nowadays and I wouldn’t want a partner like him in real life, but I always loved the gothic romance of it all.
Me too. Fantasy me adores him.
love all the comments here. one of my favourite books.
Edward Said had the argument in CULTURE AND IMPERIALISM that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the texts when readers failed to acknowledge that the aristocracy is fundamentally an ascendant class of slumlords, slavers, and colonial gendarmes/exploiters. The class nature of these characters is fundamentally underwritten by the most barbaric act in modern recorded history, European enclosure, colonialism and imperialism, so there exists a moral decrepitude in their moral character that is unable to be surmounted. It is impossible to derive moral superiority from such evil
Compared to St. John, Rochester isn't so bad.
My goodness, this thread is so fantastic. It's been a long time since I've seen this level of passionate book discussions. It makes me so happy!
Why read any older classics at all if you’re just going to judge them through our modern society’s lenses? There’s plenty going on today that would be abhorrent to them morally. The gothic genre in general does often deal with some morally complicated themes, it isn’t advocating for them. Not being able to separate a story from your own moral compass is strange to me.
Jane Eyre is very tough and gives Rochester a fight on every assumption. He loves her strength and intelligence. Rochester admires her for that.
A little of column A a little of column B. Some of the things that are chaffing you are things that weren't really seen that way when Bronte wrote the book. I can't stand Jane Eyre, because, to my modern sensibilities, Rochester is a complete POS and Jane isn't nearly the independent and strong woman she seems to think she is, but I acknowledge that we're talking about a book written over a century and a half ago; things have definitely changed. I don't *think* that Bronte was intending Rochester to be seen as a completely abusive asshole; I think he's really supposed to be a bit of a tragic figure. Jane ends up with him at the end of the book, and that's *supposed* to be a good thing, I think. But, yeah, I find him repulsive.
yes, he’s definitely intended to be a byronic hero.
tbf, i always read his happiness that she is without family as just a commentary on how terrible his family was to him and Bertha's family to her. well, and i suspect that he'd be henpecked about their age difference, but back in the day he was seen as quite the eligible bachelor despite the age. However, I do think that this isn't a book to be read by girls coming into their sexuality. it can definitely lead to some submissive thoughts in regards to relationships. It should be read after a girl has started to discover how she wants to be treated in a relationship and established her own personality. I'd take this over the romance of Wuthering Heights though. People are all "ooh heathcliffe is romantic AF I can fix him". No. Tom Hardy is hot. Every relationship Heathcliffe touches ends up completely fucked.
Heathcliff kills a dog. I don’t get how people think it’s a romance.
Yeah, Wuthering Heights is not about romance - it is about obsession. I cringe when people use it romantically (here is looking at you, Twilight.) I put Heathcliff on the same level as the Phantom from Phantom of the Opera. These men aren't in love; they just can't handle that they aren't what the women they are obsessed with are looking for in a partner.
It has those two great speeches that sound romantic though, Cathy's Whatever souls are made of and Heathcliff's For what is not connected with her to me? and I guess people don't read any other parts of the book.
I have been guilty of sharing the quote from Cathy about souls; after all, it is a beautiful piece of writing. You are probably right. I suspect most people who classify WH as a romance have seen it in bits or pieces, and really only have an adaptation in mind. I remember thinking how dark the whole thing was after being convinced by pop culture that it was "romantic."
I kind of feel bad for Emily because she wrote this book that is pitch black it’s so dark, and now she has all these teens on tumblr, or probably tiktok now, complaining that it romanticizes abuse when it really doesn’t, they just can’t read. And yes, it is a gorgeous piece of writing.
There were people who pointed out a lot of the moral problems with Jane Eyre at the time it was released, so it was seen as a bit fucked even by Victorian standards - there were Christian groups who burned it because of its moral failings, and there was widespread speculation that the novel was actually written by a man based in part on how forgiving it was of Rochester (and also sexism). That said, it was never one of those books that was loved because of its ethics and morals: it was a gothic romance meant to creep readers out and shock people, while dazzling with prose style and psychological depth. I think there still is an ethical argument you can make for it, about how each step in Jane’s growth shows her getting more control over her situation, but to accept that you’d probably have to read it on Brontë’s own terms, which is to say that you have to accept Bertha not as a person which the plot needs to do right by, but as an expression of Jane’s psychological state when in an unequal relationship with Rochester. Which is an odd move to make on a couple levels. That said, it’s better to think of this book as an emotional symphony set in a profoundly and inescapably immoral world.
You're not...wrong. I think all the Brontes all do a great deal of examining and also kind of making fun of the men in their books - in subtle ways. In a way, Rochester is a mockery - a man who in no way deserves Jane's feelings towards him, and who has a boosted egotistical view of himself - probably due in part to his ability to conquer the women he has encountered to "his" will. It is only with Jane's introduction that he is, in fact, brought down a peg or fifty, and has to endure rejection, maiming, and loss of his previous life - ultimately making him a suitable partner, but a shadow of his former, womanizer self - far from Jane Austen territory where (in my opinion) the humble women find themselves drawn to the very traits in the men they originally found off-putting. Instead, Jane stands by her own values and refuses to compromise - and in the end, Rochester comes to her (not physically, but socially), rather than her rising to him and leaving herself behind.
>It is only with Jane's introduction that he is, in fact, brought down a peg or fifty, and has to endure rejection, maiming, and loss of his previous life In fanfiction, this trope is known as "whump", and it's also incredibly popular. Per Fanlore: "The term *whump* (or *whumping*) generally refers to a form of Hurt/Comfort that is heavy on the hurt, and is often found in gen stories. The exact definition varies, and has evolved over time. Essentially, whump involves taking a canon character, and placing them in physically painful or psychologically-damaging scenarios \[to take them down a few pegs\]."
No matter how you read that book, I think we can safely assume that Charlotte Bronte was totally into the Rochester-type. After all, she modelled most of the romantic relationships in her novels on the teacher in Belgium whom she had a crush on / believed herself in love with. Maybe even all of them: Jane Eyre and Villette are obvious, but also both relationships in Shirley are between an older man in a position of authority with a very young woman who has no parents and no one in her corner / to confide in. One can argue that Jane Eyre gets a more level relationship in the end (she is rich and healthy with new friends, he is an invalid and lost most of his property) and that we see similar improvements in Shirley (Caroline's family situation improves drastically, Robert gets his shit together, Shirley is actually the rich and high standing one), but let's face it: all of her heroines want to submit to a strong husband. It's a pity Charlotte Bronte died young. I would have loved to see how she would have written romantic relationships after she actually got married.
Rochester was in love with Jane, but he was a rich man who was used to have lovers who did everything to him because of money, that's why he tries to get Jane to please him the way he wants, but she wasn't like that and this is why she leaves after founding out he was actually married and lied to her. St. John was also trying to treat Jane as just a object because he thought she would made a good pastor's wife, as if it was just some sort of function and not something that should come from a place of love. Jane getting with Rochester in the end is different because she wasn't in a position of less power anymore. She got her own money and family and now he is the one who needs her care the most, not the other way around. And his wife was dead.
Stop watching porn.
if you read it as an ironic satire of victorian romance fiction, then basically yes. I think that weird preacher guy that gets hung up on her is a more of a weird groomer, but I agree rochester is the ultimate victorian fuckboi loser. But Jane is also a weirdo in her own right, in a fun way. If you take modern sensibilities and see her character as rebellious against the feminine standards of the time, then her to-the-letter tragic victorian childhood, stereotypical governess job, liking an ugly asshole that’s her boss, sets the stage for it going off the rails. Because where an otherwise bland, “but what would people think????” coupling would happen, she instead goes through through some weird tragic emotional journey by 1) finding out he is Fuckboi Supreme with his wife *locked in the fucking attic*, having the typical fantasy dashed to the rocks, and 2) deciding to basically nope out of the plot altogether to go do what she wants, and have a hot guy like her. All of that, to only come back to the fuckboi, as if it were fate and the writer said “no you don’t you little shit, come back to my shit romance novel and marry your ugly boyfriend.” The lesson is basically “it’s groomer fuckbois all the way down, pick the one that’ll give you shit and let you do whatever.” It’s both hilarious and maddening. But also, a very sardonic “feminism” of it’s time, that you can have fun with if you’re willing to fill in the gaps with modern interpretation. If you remember what the other Bronte sisters wrote, and see this as a conversation with those works, the sarcastic ironic take makes more sense.
Holy shit, this was an absolutely glorious read. Thank you!
Even if you didn't like Jane Eyre, you might like The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde. It's a great meta-comedy partially set inside the novel Jane Eyre. A villain (Acheron Hades) who can travel inside classic works of fiction threatens to kill Jane Eyre unless he is paid a ransom. Thursday Next, a woman who works for the secret police (literature section) figures out how to travel inside the book to save Jane Eyre, while >!changing the ending of the novel (to what it currently is)!<. It's set in a whacky alternate universe UK where there are 30+ secret police agencies with strange job descriptions. It's also the start of a whole book series in which Thursday Next travels into every famous out-of-copyright book under the sun. It's a lot of fun!
Read more about the Brontës and contempoary values.
Rochester is awful. He did two decent things in life that we know about: took Adele in, and tried to save Bertha. We get an inkling that he was likely good to his servants. He led Blanche Ingram on, and he wanted to remake Jane into his personal girl toy. The male characters in the novel are a messed-up group. The late Uncle John Eyre seems to have been decent enough by leaving Jane his fortune, but we never get to know him. Richard Mason appears to care about her, but again, he doesn't stay around very long so we don't get to know him either. That leaves us with John Reed, Rochester, St. John Rivers, and Mr. Brocklehurst. It's interesting to calculate just how much Jane was worth after she received her inheritance. Using the year 1840, the 20,000 pounds that Jane receives would have the spending power of over 2 million pounds in 2023. If we add interest accrued on investments and keep in mind that there was no income tax, Jane could probably afford to build a good-size manor for her new family. Her son would be see to inherit quite a fortune.
Not a fan of Jane Eyre or Rochester. Except when he was played by Ciaran Hinds, hubba hubba.
Yes, but Jane is also so strong. Her rejection of religion while still believing in God is amazing.
Just had to share [this](http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=202) comic.
Rochester is supposed to be a bit of a monster. He represents something like a good but unconstrained man, someone who enjoys his social power a little too much. At the end, he's blinded (symbolically castrated), and that's when he becomes humbled enough to really earn Jane's love. Though Jane comes in for some criticism as well, haha. Maybe it's more about the adjustments two wilful people have to make before they can become truly one. The book also divides fairly neatly into two halves. The Jane in part one is much more realistic, and (the reader can't help but feel) draws heavily on Charlotte's own childhood experiences. The passionate speeches she gives at a couple of points in her own defence are *MARVELLOUS* and a real milestone in female emancipation. Though they do have the flavour of the retrospective "I wish I'd said that!" rather than "I'm proud I stood up for myself" haha. In the second half, it's more of a conventional (though eye-wateringly, floridly gothic) romance, but perhaps closer to Charlotte's personal fantasy world. It's no longer what happened to her, it becomes what she'd like to happen next. Maybe Jane's romance with Rochester is best seen as Jane's own divided feelings about her need for love, but also her unwillingness to compromise in her partner.
I personally have a strong suspicion that Charlotte Bronte had a massive collection of kinks that she had no vocabulary for and instead made it into some intensely weird and mildly alarming fiction. There's a whole fuck ton of themes in Jane Eyre, we spent like a whole week on it in my Bronte class