Jane Eyre

[Miralys]

I just finished reading Jane Eyre for the first time. Has any one else read it? What was your reaction? Overall I felt it was a decent book. The plot pace was too staggered for my liking (slow for long periods then intense action out of nowhere) and many of the characters were totally unbelievable. I did like the main theme (or what I take to be theme) about reconciling self-respect/love with the love of others. The characters that bothered me most were Helen Burns and the young Jane. Weren't they the most precocious children ever? I babysit and have done so for many years and I have yet to meet a child like Jane or Helen. I got the impression that these two were not so much supposed to be characters as they were to be representations of ideals/philosophies. Any thoughts?

[X Rogue]

I got the impression that the young Jane and Helen appeared that
way because children at that time were expected to be more mature,
and because the older, narrating Jane filtered her memories through
her experiences as an adult. Characterizing in hindsight, as
it were. Besides, considering the Bronte's upbringing, I don'
t think they had the foggiest notion what a normal child *was*
. So none of the children in their novels
sound normal to
me. Look at Heathcliff. I never met any child that determined
and capable of planning ahead. I liked Jane Eyre really well,
except the fits and starts of the narration bothered me too.

[cee2lee2]

The "fits and starts" of the narration was the only thing I disliked about the book. I think in the Brontes' time, children were much more mature than they are now. Remember that life spans were much shorter and children started working at significantly younger ages.

Jane Eyre is my favorite of all the Bronte books. I'll have to read it again; it's been a few years since I last read it.

[arynetrek]

i read Jane Eyre about 3 years ago - thought it was OK but not great. the "fits & starts" of the storytelling were a little annoying, the characters (even Jane) seemed just a little unreal, & the story was predictable. and i read it in an English class where it got such a buildup of being a "new" & "unheard-of-for-its-time" story, which didn't help any. whoever said "the worst thing you can do to a good book is teach it in class" was definitely right. i much preferred Wuthering Heights, the only other Bronte novel i've read.

i promised the teacher of that class that i'd reread Jane Eyre in 5 years; he said i'd feel differently about it then. maybe i did miss something on the first reading that i'll pick up next time.

aryne *

[Elysha]

I love "Jane Eyre!"

"Villette" by the same author may be my favorite, although it's even more "fitty" than "Jane Eyre" and there is very little action except within the character's thoughts.

It's just that I prefer M. Emanuel to Mr. Rochester.

And the story is not predictable, unless your English teacher has told you what happens.

[ArumiChan]

erm, I REALLY didn't like that book. It has no action, AT ALL! My mom read all of those books, like Pride and Predjudice, Sense and Sensibility etc…

and well, I really don't like those books, save for some characters, like "the mom" in P&P.

well…that's just my opinion. I really favour books like Narnia. Lots of action! ^_^

Kerushi

[cee2lee2]

Wuthering Heights was my favorite Bronte when I was in high school. I thought it was very romantic and tragic. However, the older I get, the more I like Jane Eyre and it's become my favorite. I have much more sympathy for the characters in that book now. The Wuthering Heights characters have just become irritating.

[elf queen]

I just finished reading Jane Eyre and ohh! I cried sooooo hard!!!! But then again what book don't I cry when I am really reading a beautiful part!!!!
I really enjoyed it!!!!

[azalea]

I love it, too!
I agree with what cee2lee2 said...2 years ago...that the characters in Wuthering Heights are annoying -- I love the book, but I get mad at the characters.
Also, I agree with what the thread starter said, that the children were more of an ideal...perhaps reacting to things in a way we as adults would like to have reacted, if we could do it all again. That is the way with a lot of stories about children written by adults for adults. They take some liberties in that respect, and sometimes get away with it. (The theme of "boy -- a literal boy -- falls in love with a girl -- a literal girl -- and romances her [at the age of ten -- yeah, right], then they end up in love as adults" is a popular theme, because of the "true love/ soul mates" ideal).

[Linaewen]

Great, I didn't need to start a Brontë thread!

I love Jane Eyre. And I have bought Wuthering Heights, but haven't read it yet. Looking forward to, though. Can't wait to read the other Brontë books.

Also, I agree with what the thread starter said, that the children were more of an ideal...perhaps reacting to things in a way we as adults would like to have reacted, if we could do it all again. That is the way with a lot of stories about children written by adults for adults. They take some liberties in that respect, and sometimes get away with it.
Now that is interesting. Do you have any examples, azalea? Haven't read it in a while. I'd probably just agree with you then, but at the moment, I'm not quite sure.

[Sheeana]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Wuthering Heights doesn't even come close to the quality of Jane Eyre. Plus, Heath's REALLY bratty. :rolleyes: Did anyone else get strong urges to want to take him outside and beat him relentlessly with very large spikey sticks? :rolleyes:

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Plus, Heath's REALLY bratty. :rolleyes: Did anyone else get strong urges to want to take him outside and beat him relentlessly with very large spikey sticks? :rolleyes:

Oh yes. All the time. I didn't like Wuthering Heights :D

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen

Now that is interesting. Do you have any examples, azalea? Haven't read it in a while. I'd probably just agree with you then, but at the moment, I'm not quite sure.

Mm, maybe you're right. It may just be the way it's written that makes it seem that way. But when she has Jane say things like "Oh, aunt, have pity! Forgive me! I cannot endure it - let me be punished some other way!," it doesn't sound like a ten year old reacting to true fear. I know she is supposed to be "precocious," but I don't know, if I were her aunt I might think she was acting, too. That sounds melodramatic. It could be that those weren't her exact words, anyway, as we are getting the story as told by the adult Jane; it's entirely possible that she said something like that, and the adult Jane telling the story made it those words.
And then there's Helen Burns saying (again, she's ten, I think) "Nobody can be sure of the future," and "I was sent to Lowood to get an education; and it would be of no use going away until I have attained that object." Hey, it is possible that children spoke that way in the 1840s in England, but I suppose that's the disadvantage we have in reading it so many years after it was written.
I guess it's just that Jane Eyre was one of the first to use the "poor but very smart orphan" formula, and so many people after that have copied it for books and movies that it now seems trite. A Little Princess is another of that type (although that was written for children).

I hope it didn't sound as if I didn't like the book, because I really did!:)

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
Mm, maybe you're right. It may just be the way it's written that makes it seem that way. But when she has Jane say things like "Oh, aunt, have pity! Forgive me! I cannot endure it - let me be punished some other way!," it doesn't sound like a ten year old reacting to true fear. I know she is supposed to be "precocious," but I don't know, if I were her aunt I might think she was acting, too. That sounds melodramatic. It could be that those weren't her exact words, anyway, as we are getting the story as told by the adult Jane; it's entirely possible that she said something like that, and the adult Jane telling the story made it those words.
And then there's Helen Burns saying (again, she's ten, I think) "Nobody can be sure of the future," and "I was sent to Lowood to get an education; and it would be of no use going away until I have attained that object." Hey, it is possible that children spoke that way in the 1840s in England, but I suppose that's the disadvantage we have in reading it so many years after it was written.
I guess it's just that Jane Eyre was one of the first to use the "poor but very smart orphan" formula, and so many people after that have copied it for books and movies that it now seems trite. A Little Princess is another of that type (although that was written for children).

I hope it didn't sound as if I didn't like the book, because I really did!:)
Ah, yes, I see. I'm sort of torn- yes, the children could have represented ideals/philosophies- and I've always thought that the children were somewhat 'mature' for their age- saying things like that.
On the other hand, you have to consider the time in was written, like you said. The style of all books before what I like to think of as the 'modern text era' (I'm making it up) are all more 'mature' etc. You know what I mean? Their manner of speaking and everything was just so much more ...correct & traditional than ours. So, perhaps it may be true to an extent (the portrayal of children).
Have you read the Diary of Anne Frank? Now, that seemed to me to be the writing of an adult, not a teenager. It also did not seem like a real diary, but I was fascinated still.

Am I getting confused now? :(

[azalea]

I also might have been using ideal in the wrong way. What I meant was that on the one hand you have Jane representing an ideal child (one of humble beginnings, but forthright, with a code of morals, and very intelligent and mature), and then the "bad" children are shown as not having an ounce of compassion or a spark of intellegence (for lack of a better word -- they have knowledge enough, but lack, mmm, wit [not in the "ha ha" sense of the word], I guess). So they are more like "types" in some ways, as opposed to characters, but the book isn't about that, as the beginning is used as a lead-in to set up the rest of the book, and that's one reason it doesn't really matter.
Later on, as Jane grows, I see her as having more depth of character, however, that happens as a child grows up anyway. So young Jane ends up being believable anyway, despite the way she speaks.

I think the way those old books are written (language-wise) are one reason I prefer them over contemporary stuff (and I guess one reason why I like fantasy, since it tends to be written in that style).

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
I also might have been using ideal in the wrong way. What I meant was that on the one hand you have Jane representing an ideal child (one of humble beginnings, but forthright, with a code of morals, and very intelligent and mature), and then the "bad" children are shown as not having an ounce of compassion or a spark of intellegence (for lack of a better word -- they have knowledge enough, but lack, mmm, wit [not in the "ha ha" sense of the word], I guess). So they are more like "types" in some ways, as opposed to characters, but the book isn't about that, as the beginning is used as a lead-in to set up the rest of the book, and that's one reason it doesn't really matter.
Ahh! I see! Yes, I agree with you there. They are rather 'exaggerated'. I picked up on that a bit too - it's like some other text which I can't recall now.


I think the way those old books are written (language-wise) are one reason I prefer them over contemporary stuff (and I guess one reason why I like fantasy, since it tends to be written in that style).
I too. It's lovely to read the old books because of the language- it's amazing how extensive their vocabulary is, etc!

So what other Brontë books are good, then, if Wuthering Heights is not?

[azalea]

I definately wouldn't say that Wuthering Heights isn't GOOD, and of course it's some people's favorite book. I would recommend reading it, but when you do, you'll see why some of us find the characters frustrating.
I haven't read any other Bronte stuff, but I hear Villette is good.
Have you read any E. M. Forester? I think if you like Jane Eyre, then you'd like A Room with a View, or one of his other novels. Plus, you can watch the movies made of them after you read the books!:) And of course any Jane Austin is good (had you posted in that thread? I don't remember).
Another good "gothic" type novel is Uncle Silas by Sheridan Le Fanu, but it might be hard to find. I saw a PBS (might have been Masterpiece Theater) presentation based on it, and decided to buy the book. It isn't romance-based, though, it's more of a thriller type.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Linaewen
So what other Brontë books are good, then, if Wuthering Heights is not?

I always liked the Tenant of Wildfell Hall, though most people don't rate Anne Bronte as highly as her sisters.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea

I haven't read any other Bronte stuff, but I hear Villette is good.
Have you read any E. M. Forester? I think if you like Jane Eyre, then you'd like A Room with a View, or one of his other novels. Plus, you can watch the movies made of them after you read the books!:) And of course any Jane Austin is good (had you posted in that thread? I don't remember).
Another good "gothic" type novel is Uncle Silas by Sheridan Le Fanu, but it might be hard to find. I saw a PBS (might have been Masterpiece Theater) presentation based on it, and decided to buy the book. It isn't romance-based, though, it's more of a thriller type.
Thanks very much. I'll try and find them once I've finished reading the myriad of books I have set for myself. I've read a bit of Pride & Prejudice and hated it. I guess it's because I wasn't mature enough to understand it then. I will definitely have a crack at reading it again in the near future.

Erm, isn't there anything else to discuss about Jane Eyre? Surely, there would be - it's some 500 pages long!

[azalea]

I thought it was very romantic. And it was suspenseful leading up to the revelation that he was married! Have you watched any of the tv adaptations of it? I have one that I taped off of A&E, I think.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
I thought it was very romantic. And it was suspenseful leading up to the revelation that he was married! Have you watched any of the tv adaptations of it? I have one that I taped off of A&E, I think.
Yes, that bit was quite unexpected (for me).

I have watched one version of Jane Eyre - a recent one, but can't tell you which one 'cause Amazon doesn't have it, and I forgot who was in it. Anyway, don't you think Mr Rochester's mad wife is really weird? Sorry, that's just not the way I imagined her to be.

[azalea]

Yes, I'd be interested to know what modern medcine would make of her. Maybe with some Prozac she'd have been normal.:D

[Linaewen]

I thought that she was literally mad - like some half dog/half human thing - practically non-sentient. But she wasn't like that in the movie- so I thought my perception might have been wrong, in which case, Mr Rochester was immoral of his treatment of her.

[azalea]

Yes, same here! You must have seen the same one I did. It seemed she simply behaved unacceptably for the public or something, and then being confined made her go a little nutsy. In the book it seemed like she was almost supernatural in her madness, possessed or something. It's probably because in those days psychology was in it's infancy, and many people still believed that insanity WAS possession. At the very least, the severely mentally ill were seen as incurable, and that is the situation we see in Jane Eyre.
I wonder what she'd be diagnosed with -- schizophrenia co-morbid with pyromania? Probably. But in the movie it seemed like she was just a low-class woman who had been hidden away and became vengeful, and it did make Rochester seem shallow and immoral. But it wasn't like that in the book, though I forget why he didn't institutionalize her. That notwithstanding, I still liked the movie!:D

[Linaewen]

Azalea, is this (http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-4/jane-eyre-1996.htm) the one?

Originally posted by azalea
In the book it seemed like she was almost supernatural in her madness, possessed or something.
Here are excerpts from the book: (Fortunately, I found these passages quickly: otherwise I wouldn't bother)
From Jane Eyre
Mr Rochester flung me behind him: the lunatic sprang and grappled his throat viciously; and laid her teeth to his cheek: they struggled. She was a big woman ... she showed virile force in the contest...
Mr Rochester
'That is my wife ... compare these (Jane's) clear eys with the red balls yonder- this face with that mask- this form with that bulk; then judge me, priest of the Gospel and man of the law...'
Mr Rochester
'...because no servant would bear the continued outbreaks of her violent and unreasonable temper, or the vexation of her absurd..orders...'

My emphasis added (bold letters).

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
But in the movie it seemed like she was just a low-class woman who had been hidden away and became vengeful, and it did make Rochester seem shallow and immoral. But it wasn't like that in the book, though I forget why he didn't institutionalize her. That notwithstanding, I still liked the movie!
Hehe. I liked the movie too. :)

I posted the above quotes to demonstrate her 'madness', which appears to be so great that it was somewhat 'supernatural.' That's just my feeling anyway.

I wonder how the other movies portrayed her? Was she practically 'possessed', or mad to a lesser degree (which is how is portrayed in that film, anyway)

I've forgotten what else I wanted to say- I think I may have shown that in those quotes, though.

What do you think of St. John and his sisters? I really like his sisters- but St. John annoyed me at times. I kind of hoped at times that he and Jane would get together, cause I was sick of her being sad, but he was just ...frustrating. :rolleyes:

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Azalea, is this (http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-4/jane-eyre-1996.htm) the one?


Well, I've seen that one, but there's another version (from A&E, I think) that I taped. I'll have to watch it again and see how she's portrayed there. The one you posted must be the one I'm thinking of, too, though, where she doesn't seem to be THAT mad (not red-eyeball mad!:) )

Edit: Oh, and I liked St. John and his sisters -- I too wished Jane would get together with him at the time, but then I was satisfied with how it came out in the end, so I changed my mind about that.:)

[Linaewen]

Oh yeah, I'm satisfied with the ending too. Took a while to reach it, didn't it? But, St John annoys me ..can't remember exactly what ticked me off..perhaps his preachy ways? (I don't recall very well)

I'm glad I'm not the only one to hope the would get together. I thought it was just me being desperate for some love story. As always. :D

Bwahaha- red eyeball mad. :D

Do we still need to put spoilers in this thread? I think it's pretty much us two that post in here, anyway. :p Anyway, I think that It is really sad that Mr Rochester is blind - but I think it was a very interesting and unexpected twist in the story- I'd rather he be blind than not (in the end, that is)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen
I'd rather he be blind than not (in the end, that is)

Why? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding you:confused: )

I thought it was a good twist, too, and it helped highlight the nature of their love/ relationship.

[Linaewen]

Yes, azalea, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry if I seemed a bit..evil (Hey, it's my nature. :) ) It was unexpected etc. And I'm glad that you said it highlighted the nature of their relationship - that's what I think too. (I was wondering how I would explain this to you- but there's no need!) :)

[azalea]

Oh, okay, I just thought you were saying you were glad the man went blind!:( :) But, yes, then I agree with you (obviously, since you agreed with me ;) ).

[Linaewen]

We're reading Jane Eyre now for school, and like I promised Azalea, we can discuss it again. :)

Firstly, I remember how strange it was that Jane could be so intelligent at times (her academic success etc), and then at other times she was just so...naive, ignorant, or just ...thick. How long did it take her to realise she was related to St. John etc? And all of Rochester's hints about his love for her were so obvious, it surprised me how slow she was on the uptake. I think it could have something to do with her being a novice in relation to love, and perhaps it had to do with some sort of feelings she may have had- knowing he loved her, but thinking it couldn't possibly be true.

Oh, and stupid me suddenly realised something. Charlotte Bronte constantly stressed Jane and Rochester's lack of beauty, to show how deep their affection was for one another. (Love is blind) Is there any more to this (emphasising their plain-looks) or is it just to show the depth of their love?

And what type of person is Brocklehurst? He's contradicts what he preaches- all that stuff about being humble, suffering etc, but his own relatives prance about wearing elaborate clothing etc. Does he honestly believe his treatment of the girls will 'save' them? Or does he have a more sinister reason for their suffering?

[azalea]

Ohh! Nice discussion points!:) I can't respond today, but I'll have time tomorrow.

[azalea]

Okay, I can finally respond (in brief):
I think the dual intellegence/ naivte is part of what makes the character realistic, multi-faceted, and sympathetic. Although it is frustrating, because we as the reader can "see" more than she can, especially since we are hearing her version after the fact (IIRC). The fact that she's related to St. John is a typical literary device of the time: it is significant in that it is supposed to demonstrate to us further Jane's "goodness" because as we know family ties at that time in England were looked upon as clues to a person's character. (And it also adds a "surprise," a twist, yet another interesting facet to the story).
You have it "spot-on" as they say, about why Jane is slow on the uptake about Rochester's affection for her. However, don't forget the elements of sarcasm, teasing, and bad temper he displays at times, so it would naturally be confusing, and also she I think didn't want to love him (at first) because of these "flaws" (aside from the obvious master-servant relationship probs).
Plain looks: the depth of love (or more precisely the "trueness" of their love), yes, but also there is an element of the literary maneuvering there. Often to stress a point the beautiful in stories is portrayed as "bad," and plainness or outright unattractiveness is shown to be "good." This is of course common in fairy tales, but also in other similar novels the "plain girl with the good heart" wins out over the "beautiful but proud rich girl." It also may serve as a further emphasizing of her low status, and also to make her not too perfect a heroine.
Brocklehurst is intended to be obviously ironic in nature, a dig against so-called men of piety who are unaware of their own major shortcomings; specifically, the fact that they constantly see the "splinters" in the eyes of others, while ignoring their own eyes, which if they would seek to look, have "planks" in them. Also serves as a foil in terms of rich=bad, poor=good.
His treatment of the girls probably stems from what we today would refer him to a therapist for: a combination of upbringing, personal flaws, a flawed philosophy concerning teaching and "reformation," and the sense of power it brings to him. I'm sure that by pushing others down, he feels elevated (as a bully does), and he also has convinced himself that it is his "duty" to behave this way. Quite a comicly horrifying character.:)

EDIT: Please keep in mind that this is all off the top of my head and from memory since I haven't read the book in some time. I could be way off base on these points, but these are just my impressions from your post of what I remember.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
Please keep in mind that this is all off the top of my head and from memory since I haven't read the book in some time. I could be way off base on these points, but these are just my impressions from your post of what I remember.
No Azalea, it's all perfectly correct. Wow, you discussed these really well; I haven't got much too add. I may do so later, as well as bring in a couple more discussion points. *Is happy to have found a great discussion partner* :)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen
No Azalea, it's all perfectly correct. Wow, you discussed these really well; I haven't got much too add. I may do so later, as well as bring in a couple more discussion points. *Is happy to have found a great discussion partner* :)

Me, too!:) I love discussing literature; it's good mental floss.;)

[Linaewen]

Hehe, mental floss. :)
Hey Azalea, since you know so much about literature etc, could you tell me why Jane often refers to a place with the inital letter and then a --- , e.g. L-----, or like -----shire? My teacher hypothesised, but I'm sure you'd know the answer. :)
Again thanks for discussing; your answers are fantastic.

to demonstrate to us further Jane's "goodness" because as we know family ties at that time in England were looked upon as clues to a person's character
Would you mind elaborating on this?

Brocklehurst :....the fact that they constantly see the "splinters" in the eyes of others, while ignoring their own eyes, which if they would seek to look, have "planks" in them. Also serves as a foil in terms of rich=bad, poor=good.

Ah, yes the 'log' in one's eye. :p Now that's really interesting, as I perceive it a bit differently. I thought his treatment of the girls Vs the treatment of his family was deliberate, not some ignorance on his part. I thought (though maybe incorrectly) that a possibility could be that he diverts the money intended for the student's welfare to paying for the superfluous things for his family.

But when he condemns Jane, I saw that as more ...flaws in his character, not intentional. He was very cruel, especially given her age, but I think he may have sincerely thought he was morally right. Or maybe not..I apologise, I'm so ambivalent it frustrates all. (including me)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Hehe, mental floss. :)
Hey Azalea, since you know so much about literature etc, could you tell me why Jane often refers to a place with the inital letter and then a --- , e.g. L-----, or like -----shire? My teacher hypothesised, but I'm sure you'd know the answer. :)
Again thanks for discussing; your answers are fantastic.


I've seen this done in other stories, and I always thought it was so that the reader would not (ah, I'm having a diff. time putting this into words) be able to trace it (it wouldn't have to be perfect in terms of description of the place) to a certain time or place (like saying "any similarity to persons living or dead are purely coincidental"). That because it's a work of fiction, she didn't want it to be occuring in a place and the reader say "I live here, and no one by that name lives here, but also she wanted it to be realistic, and so couldn't make up a name of a place that didn't exist, so people would say "there's no place by that name in England." Also, it takes the focus off of the place and puts it on the story. That's the best I can do at this point with what I mean to say. :S

Would you mind elaborating on this?

I mean that often bloodlines were thought of as passing down more than just a name -- that the personalities of relatives, their "temperments" might be similar (kind of along the lines of the class system -- you didn't marry outside of your class, either up or down, which is why Jane's marrying R. was [she thought] freaking that other maid out because she of the servant class was to marry a gentleman). Kind of like in the world of ME -- Bilbo has that "Tookishness" in him that ultimately leads him to undertake the journey, Frodo has a similar temperment. However, the statement I made could be pure bunk, but it was just a thought (but wasn't that first "family" with whom she lived just related to her by marriage? See there's a distinction -- she wasn't a blood relative of the "bad" people, but is of the "good" people. I don't know, though).



Ah, yes the 'log' in one's eye. :p Now that's really interesting, as I perceive it a bit differently. I thought his treatment of the girls Vs the treatment of his family was deliberate, not some ignorance on his part. I thought (though maybe incorrectly) that a possibility could be that he diverts the money intended for the student's welfare to paying for the superfluous things for his family.

But when he condemns Jane, I saw that as more ...flaws in his character, not intentional. He was very cruel, especially given her age, but I think he may have sincerely thought he was morally right. Or maybe not..I apologise, I'm so ambivalent it frustrates all. (including me)

You're right about that -- he diverts the money as you say, but if confronted about it he would make excuses, be defensive, insist he does nothing wrong. We have many people like that in the world today. So he is deliberate about it, but he feels he is justified (that is at least my memory of it -- see, I can be ambivalent, too! :D If I say something incorrect, I have those ambivalent statements to fall back on! ). Sorry if I've written unclearly, I have a cold and I think it's temporarily impaired my expressive language abilities. ::rolleyes::

[Linaewen]

Ach! Now I'm pressed for time! :rolleyes: Thanks, I will reply to your posts soon. In the meantime, you can reply to this.

Throughout the book, Jane frequently becomes very attached to/dependent on another being. First, the doll when she is small, (and perhaps Bessie, to a lesser degree), then Miss Temple, then Rochester. I think that the person she becomes attached to (or "leeches onto" as my friend said) and a certain stage of her life signifies her mentality and development at that point. As a child, she wants love, but has no-one to turn to -->doll.
Later, she requires a motherly figure, a companion, a teacher (as she grows up) --> Miss Temple
Then, she is a mature adult, someone whose life lacks one thing. Love. -->Rochester.

Do you think this is valid? Do you have more to add?

Perhaps this is really clear to you already. I don't know (I'm 'braindead', honestly, right now). Anyway, are there any other reasons that Jane may find herself "leeching" onto others? Is she not strong enough on her own, or what?

[azalea]

Belated response -- sorry.:o
That's an interesting fact that I hadn't noticed before. Yes, I think it's valid and again is a facet that makes the story realistic. Jane has no one. Everyone (esp. children) must have someone, so she leeched onto the person she felt safest with at the time (and like you said, her mental stage affected her choice). Going further, it is almost "masochistic" in some ways (that's too strong a word, but...). She does not require any love in return from her leechee (although Miss Temple [IIRC] and eventually R. do give her something in return -- comfort, then love). That would be typical of someone like her, who is desparate to love.

[Diaxion]

I only saw the play but that was really good so i might read the book but its the last on my list. Afer seeing the play it doesn't interest me as much as other books would.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
That's the best I can do at this point with what I mean to say. :S
Nope, understood perfectly. My teacher said pretty much the same thing (the last bit). Thanks very much. It's rather interesting to read classic literature and taking note of all of those 'strange' things they did, which were probably common then.

RE: the family thing, did they really believe that? So one family would pass down their traits from generation to generation? That's also demonstrated partially by the Reed children. They are selfish and uncompassionate, like Mrs Reed. However, their father, as we are led to believe, was not like that. (Well, he cared for Jane and his sister- her mother) I would have liked to know more about Mr Reed.

There again is that thing about ordinary people being kinder etc. All of St. John's family (can't remember their surname) were lovely, humble, poorer people. Hold on, were they poor? I don't recall- I think they were middle class. (We haven't gotten up to that part of the text yet)

... So he is deliberate about it, but he feels he is justified ..
Perfect! That's exactly it! Very well put- you summarised everything we discussed about him in one sentence. :)

She does not require any love in return from her leechee (although Miss Temple [IIRC] and eventually R. do give her something in return -- comfort, then love). That would be typical of someone like her, who is desparate to love.
No, I think that she began leeching them because they did offer her something to leech off. (I believe we need a synonym here :D)
Before she leeched onto Miss Temple, the latter was kind and treated her with respect. This is what caused her to ...leech onto her. Rochester intrigued her --> bait for leeching.

Do you know what's interesting? In class today we discussed significant characters and their impact on Jane. Helen Burns, we think, represented an aspect of Jane. (albeit maybe a small one). We have only read up to volume two. (When R.'s wife sets fire to his bed).

Getting back to the WAY earlier point, it does seem that Brontë uses characters to encompass a whole theme/element or something. Sort of like how Jane adores Adele, though she is very much like the Reed Children- demonstrating her willingness to forgive.

[cassiopeia]

I just realised that Jane Eyre has been sitting in our bookcase for years and I have never read it. I suppose it's because I prefer fantasy and science fiction. But since you're having such a long discussion I think I may read it. :)

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I just realised that Jane Eyre has been sitting in our bookcase for years and I have never read it. I suppose it's because I prefer fantasy and science fiction. But since you're having such a long discussion I think I may read it. :)

It's a long discussion because Azalea knows all. :D (The book is also quite good. ;)) I love classics, and if you're into a book that you can get stuck into and discuss (there's evidently much to discuss), read it! Then pop in and make it a Jane Eyre Trio. :)

[azalea]

...or can at least fudge her way through it! :D

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I just realised that Jane Eyre has been sitting in our bookcase for years and I have never read it. I suppose it's because I prefer fantasy and science fiction. But since you're having such a long discussion I think I may read it. :)

Yess! Another discusser!:)

(Edit: I'll respond to your other stuff later, Lin:) ).

[Linaewen]

S'ok 'Zales (:D), take as long as you need. I won't be online for a while, I think. Maybe when I come back, Cass will have read the book- then we can get really stuck into it! Woohoo! :)

PS: You're very good at fudging your way through literature, from what I've seen. :D

[cassiopeia]

I just started to read it last night. Give me two weeks and by then I should have read it, so I can join in. :D

[azalea]

Okay, I'm finally ready to make a couple of responses here.

Originally posted by Linaewen


RE: the family thing, did they really believe that? So one family would pass down their traits from generation to generation? That's also demonstrated partially by the Reed children. They are selfish and uncompassionate, like Mrs Reed. However, their father, as we are led to believe, was not like that. (Well, he cared for Jane and his sister- her mother) I would have liked to know more about Mr Reed.


Right, it wasn't a hard and fast rule, but it was used in literature as a way of telling something about a character without having to spell it all out -- the reader would know what was meant. But you see in the case of Reed -- Jane was his blood relative (right?), and he was good. The children had inherited their mother's temperment, and she was not Jane's blood relative. Another example from a book I love is Pride and Prejudice where the younger sisters inherit the silly mother's personality traits, while Elizabeth and Jane are more like their father. And that is why when the sisters show their silliness, Elizabeth feels it reflecting on her, because she knows people will think that she too has inherited those traits.

There again is that thing about ordinary people being kinder etc. All of St. John's family (can't remember their surname) were lovely, humble, poorer people. Hold on, were they poor? I don't recall- I think they were middle class. (We haven't gotten up to that part of the text yet)

Right, I would say the equivalent of a modern-day middle class.

No, I think that she began leeching them because they did offer her something to leech off. (I believe we need a synonym here :D)
Before she leeched onto Miss Temple, the latter was kind and treated her with respect. This is what caused her to ...leech onto her. Rochester intrigued her --> bait for leeching.

I meant the same thing, but just that Jane perceived them to be "safe to love" from the beginning (R. from afar).

Do you know what's interesting? In class today we discussed significant characters and their impact on Jane. Helen Burns, we think, represented an aspect of Jane. (albeit maybe a small one).

I agree with that.

Getting back to the WAY earlier point, it does seem that Brontë uses characters to encompass a whole theme/element or something. Sort of like how Jane adores Adele, though she is very much like the Reed Children- demonstrating her willingness to forgive.

Of course the Adele situation was different -- she liked Jane. So you bring up an interesting point: it is like a correction (can't think of a good term) for her, that she finally has the love (?) of the type of child that always hated her (although I think Adele, though spoiled, had a much better temperment than the other children), and she has the (relative) control in the relationship, that she didn't have with the others.

[Linaewen]

So do you think there are any more characters that may represent aspects of Jane? Maybe Rochester?

Of course the Adele situation was different -- she liked Jane. So you bring up an interesting point: it is like a correction (can't think of a good term) for her, that she finally has the love (?) of the type of child that always hated her (although I think Adele, though spoiled, had a much better temperment than the other children), and she has the (relative) control in the relationship, that she didn't have with the others.
That's a valid point. But it's also interesting to note that she's not immediately adverse (?) to Adele, considering her similarities to the Reed children.

Ah, my mind is linking what you are bringing up; I just can't figure for the life of me what. I will get back to you. Maybe by then Cass will join us. :)

[Earniel]

Oh, I wouldn't really compare Adèle to the Reed children. Though she may equally have been spoiled, her character struck me as very different from the Reed children, more warm and curious. I don't think Jane really regarded her as the type of child that used to hate her. But then again, it's been awhile, 5 to 6 years I think, since I've read Jane Eyre so my memory isn't of the greatest.

[azalea]

No, you're right, she is different in personality, but she is the same type in terms of situation -- a child of privilege who gets what she wants, etc. So this time Jane is accepted and loved by the child, whereas when she was a girl the children of privilege with whom she lived were so mean and hateful. So looking at it from a psychoanalytic POV, she now has both the control in the relationship and has the admiration of the child, and in a way that is a kind of "redemption" or a correcting of the situation.
If Adele had been a brat, nasty, hurtful toward Jane, would Jane have stayed (for the time she did), or would it have been too painful to find herself in that same old situation of bearing the brunt of brattiness?

Regarding others who reflect aspects of Jane's personality, I'll have to get back to you. But I will say that I can see Miss Temple, the Reed children, and St. John all mirroring tiny parts of Jane that come through at one time or another. I'll have to elaborate later, or if you see what I do, you can tell why you think as you do (or about others).

[Linaewen]

Sorry about the delayed response. :o

Originally posted by azalea
If Adele had been a brat, nasty, hurtful toward Jane, would Jane have stayed (for the time she did), or would it have been too painful to find herself in that same old situation of bearing the brunt of brattiness?
I believe she would have stayed. I think she would have tried to obtain control in the relationship, whereas previously it was the bratty child with power over her. Jane was maturing, and shedding her past frailties. To do so, she would have reversed her position in the relationship. Jane had already begun to lose her inclination to be submissive, right in the start of the book when she began resisting.

But then again, I'm the Ambivalent, remember? ;)
I'll have to elaborate later, or if you see what I do, you can tell why you think as you do (or about others).
Ok, I think it'll be really interesting to see what qualities of Jane we can find in other people's characters.

We haven't done any Jane work for about a fortnight in class, so I'll need to refresh myself, then get back to this thread and discuss away! :)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen

I'm the Ambivalent, remember? ;)


And I'm just ambiguous. :D

[sun-star]

Has anyone read any of Charlotte Bronte's other novels? In the past few weeks I've read Villette and The Professor and I'm currently reading Shirley. It's interesting to compare them - Villette and The Professor are very similar in subject matter (they've got practically the same setting) and theme, focussing on the individual, while Shirley has a much wider range of characters and broader social concerns.

Any thoughts?

[Rían]

I read Villette quite a few years ago, but I remember being frustrated because of all the French, and I couldn't understand a lot of it.

[sun-star]

I had the same problem actually, and The Professor is the same. I realised too late that I should have got an edition which had notes in the back...

I wonder if in the 19th century authors just expected their readers to know French?

[Beren3000]

I'm not a Bronte reader, but I stumbled upon this thread out of curiosity.
I happen to speak French, so I volounteer to translate for you any passages you'd like; just post them here or PM me with them :)

[Rían]

Thanks for your offer :) That's very nice!

However, in Villette, there are many sections where there is dialogue in French on every page, many paragraphs - too much to type in for me! There's probably a footnoted version out somewhere, but the story didn't grab me enough to re-read it.

Yes, I imagine those authors just expected that people knew French. Times have changed...

There IS a French phrase that Agatha Christie used in one of her mystery books that I've always wondered about, tho - if I find it again, I'll run it past you :)

[Mercutio]

In Sayer's Lord Peter books he says so much in Latin and French (similarly to Jane Eyre)! And quotes millions of things. It just blows my mind (lol)

[Rûdhaglarien]

I've read most of this discussion... but I'll need to scroll through the rest of it.

Y'see, I read Jane Eyre for English class this summer. I am currently (as in, I have my Microsoft Word minimized right this very instant) writing a paper on the book to be handed in on the first day of classes. My paper's topic? In five pages, give or take a half a page, please explain why Jane Eyre is specifically an English novel....

Yeah. School sucks. Anybody want to pitch in? Thus far, I've got

the setting
the tone
the language
the characters' situations and actions

Or summit'.

[sun-star]

What a strange question :confused: I don't think of it as a specifically English novel at all. A specifically Yorkshire novel maybe (is it set in Yorkshire? I know Charlotte Bronte was very proud of being a Yorkshirewoman, and liked to make her characters very Yorkshire - I'm thinking of Shirley in particular - so I might be just making an assumption.)

Obviously the setting and language would make it English, but what do you mean about the characters' situations and actions?

[Rûdhaglarien]

What a strange question :confused: I don't think of it as a specifically English novel at all. A specifically Yorkshire novel maybe (is it set in Yorkshire? I know Charlotte Bronte was very proud of being a Yorkshirewoman, and liked to make her characters very Yorkshire - I'm thinking of Shirley in particular - so I might be just making an assumption.)

Obviously the setting and language would make it English, but what do you mean about the characters' situations and actions?

What I mean about the characters is that English society constrains and dictates their actions to the situations around them. And that their situations are dictated by their society in the first place.

[sun-star]

Surely that would make it typical of the society where it is set, but not necessarily the country.

[Rûdhaglarien]

I know... but I've sort of taken liberty with the topic and am turning it into "an English novel from a distinct time period" because I can't really make it work any other way. (But maybe that's just because I'm dumb, or something.)