Book Review: Jane Eyre
Nov. 2nd, 2009 07:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerFinished Jane Eyre! It's a lovely book - the prose is graceful and fluid, and the story engaging even when it meanders, as it does for the first hundred pages or so. Charlotte Bronte could probably give a discourse on dust bunnies narrative pull.
I really enjoyed it, and I would recommend it unreservedly to pretty much everyone - especially anyone who is fond of older books, because the narrative style is somewhat antiquated. (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense; I mean it in the sense that every era has its own narrative conventions, and getting used to another eras' can be difficult.)
I didn't mean to root for Jane and Mr. Rochester, but in the end I did. It does help that the fact that he has Bertha Rochester imprisoned in his attic makes much more sense in context - the poor woman is clearly completely off her rocker, and it's either lock her up in his house or send her to an insane asylum, and given the state of most insane asylums lock her up is probably kinder.
Which doesn't excuse him from not telling Jane; that was a very poor action on Mr. Rochester's part. He seems to be capable of heroism in extremis (for instance, his attempt to save Bertha even though she was in the attic of his burning house), but not goodness for the long haul - at least, not without someone (like Jane) to make him toe the line.
St. John, Jane's other suitor - that isn't really the right word for him, given he doesn't love her; but nevertheless - is quite awful, as I think he's meant to be. Until he decides that they ought to get married he's all right - I did appreciate the fact that he's a good guy despite having no sense of humor. But he went all downhill after telling Jane "You're made for labor, not for love" - I suppose it's better that he should be up front about the fact that he doesn't love her; but his single-minded devotion to the idea that they should marry, and if they don't Jane is thwarting the will of God, makes him seem like a stalker.
I'm not sure why St. John is so devoted to that plan. Of course it would be helpful for him to have a wife to help with his missionary work, but if it was really necessary he would have procured one long ago. In some ways it would make more sense if he really were in love with Jane, and just completely in denial; but I can see why Bronte wouldn't want to go that way. Having multiple men fall in love with Jane would take some of the force out of the repeated assertion that she is not pretty.
I really appreciated the fact that Jane isn't pretty. It's so rare for a heroine to be plain, and remain plain, and to have other characters confirm her plainness rather than informing her repeatedly that she's gorgeous.
And I liked the fact that Rochester is plain, too. The reason why their relationship is good is because they have equally strong wills (although Jane also has a moral compass, and is therefore quite right when she tells Rochester she's his superior); their looks don't matter.
If you will forgive a digression into a different fandom - I remember on Criminal Minds there was an outcry when Garcia went on a date with a conventionally attractive man, got shot by him, and ended up with a less conventionally attractive man. And, okay, there is an insidious "Handsome men don't go out with fat girls" message there.
But at the same time, being irritated that Garcia ends up with a less handsome man is quite as biased in favor of conventional good looks as the original storyline. Shouldn't it matter more that Kevin is a good man with a sense of humor who adores her, while Handsome Fellow was a psychopath? But no, the only way the worth of a romantic partner can be measured is his looks. Garcia was obviously trading down.
One of the more irritating things about fandom is its obsession with pretty.
But anyway, back to Jane Eyre. It's a really well-written book, with compelling characters (although Bronte does focus on her major characters occasionally to the detriment of the development of the minor), a cracking good storyline and a delicious ending. I highly recommend it.
I really enjoyed it, and I would recommend it unreservedly to pretty much everyone - especially anyone who is fond of older books, because the narrative style is somewhat antiquated. (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense; I mean it in the sense that every era has its own narrative conventions, and getting used to another eras' can be difficult.)
I didn't mean to root for Jane and Mr. Rochester, but in the end I did. It does help that the fact that he has Bertha Rochester imprisoned in his attic makes much more sense in context - the poor woman is clearly completely off her rocker, and it's either lock her up in his house or send her to an insane asylum, and given the state of most insane asylums lock her up is probably kinder.
Which doesn't excuse him from not telling Jane; that was a very poor action on Mr. Rochester's part. He seems to be capable of heroism in extremis (for instance, his attempt to save Bertha even though she was in the attic of his burning house), but not goodness for the long haul - at least, not without someone (like Jane) to make him toe the line.
St. John, Jane's other suitor - that isn't really the right word for him, given he doesn't love her; but nevertheless - is quite awful, as I think he's meant to be. Until he decides that they ought to get married he's all right - I did appreciate the fact that he's a good guy despite having no sense of humor. But he went all downhill after telling Jane "You're made for labor, not for love" - I suppose it's better that he should be up front about the fact that he doesn't love her; but his single-minded devotion to the idea that they should marry, and if they don't Jane is thwarting the will of God, makes him seem like a stalker.
I'm not sure why St. John is so devoted to that plan. Of course it would be helpful for him to have a wife to help with his missionary work, but if it was really necessary he would have procured one long ago. In some ways it would make more sense if he really were in love with Jane, and just completely in denial; but I can see why Bronte wouldn't want to go that way. Having multiple men fall in love with Jane would take some of the force out of the repeated assertion that she is not pretty.
I really appreciated the fact that Jane isn't pretty. It's so rare for a heroine to be plain, and remain plain, and to have other characters confirm her plainness rather than informing her repeatedly that she's gorgeous.
And I liked the fact that Rochester is plain, too. The reason why their relationship is good is because they have equally strong wills (although Jane also has a moral compass, and is therefore quite right when she tells Rochester she's his superior); their looks don't matter.
If you will forgive a digression into a different fandom - I remember on Criminal Minds there was an outcry when Garcia went on a date with a conventionally attractive man, got shot by him, and ended up with a less conventionally attractive man. And, okay, there is an insidious "Handsome men don't go out with fat girls" message there.
But at the same time, being irritated that Garcia ends up with a less handsome man is quite as biased in favor of conventional good looks as the original storyline. Shouldn't it matter more that Kevin is a good man with a sense of humor who adores her, while Handsome Fellow was a psychopath? But no, the only way the worth of a romantic partner can be measured is his looks. Garcia was obviously trading down.
One of the more irritating things about fandom is its obsession with pretty.
But anyway, back to Jane Eyre. It's a really well-written book, with compelling characters (although Bronte does focus on her major characters occasionally to the detriment of the development of the minor), a cracking good storyline and a delicious ending. I highly recommend it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-02 08:21 pm (UTC)And then I remembered that that's because I read it ten years ago. Holy cow, where hast the time gone?!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-02 08:38 pm (UTC)You might try Wide Sargasso Sea--it's the story of the first Mrs. Rochester. It's kind of violent, but I thought the language was really beautiful, and I liked the story (though of course it has a bad ending).
That's an interesting point you make about people claiming that it's no fair not to let the "fat girl" get a "handsome" guy--it shows the same preoccupation with conventional beauty!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:05 pm (UTC)The one problem with my copy of Jane Eyre was that the footnotes had spoilers. Foolish footnote writer, giving away the existence of Bertha!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-02 10:08 pm (UTC)All of the not-the-point stuff is to hide the fact I read Jane Eyre before high school and don't remember any of it. Did you catch that?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 08:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-02 10:13 pm (UTC)Re Mr. Rochester: Of course, Jane is the better person, but since Rochester "suffered for his sins," he was allowed to marry her. And what a beautiful description of their relationship, there at the end. It always makes me sigh.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:01 pm (UTC)And thus he is worthy of (if not quite equal to) Jane Eyre.
At least that's my interpretation. Rochester committed a number of sins, and different people would probably disagree on which were most important and whether he atoned.
My favorite book
Date: 2009-11-03 09:19 pm (UTC)I read the book about twice a year and always find something new, interesting, challenging, whatever... Jane is such a spitfire and Rochester has so much potential. He's trying SO hard to be happy to do right, but he's thwarted by his time and his natural tendencies. GAH! I just love it.
The BBC Masterpiece Theater version is really excellent -- VERY entertaining and well-produced (and breathtakingly romantic). Big screen versions, I like the Charlotte Gainsbourg/William Hurt version.
I wrote about Jane Eyre on my blog, too... http://theclothesmakethegirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/jane-eyre-and-jane-austen.html
Re: My favorite book
Date: 2009-11-04 08:29 am (UTC)I'll check out the movies, too.
Re: My favorite book
Date: 2009-11-08 10:32 pm (UTC)The BBC Version = best thing ever. They do an interesting job of dealing with the "pretty" issue by picking two very lovely actors who fail to meet conventional beauty standards. They recreate the scene where Jane draws a picture of herself and a picture of Blanche and places them next to each other, and you can really see the difference in the conventional v. unconventional beauty. They also add a (very) little bit to the story, rather than report everything verbatim from the book. And it's wonderful.
...except...
The proposal scene. The Charlotte Gainsbourg/William Hurt version, which is more faithful to the book in choice of actors (Rochester, for example, is clearly older than Jane in this version) if less faithful in its compression of events to fit the film time, has my personal definitive version of the proposal scene. The BBC version doesn't nail it anywhere near as well, in my opinion- it's the kind of thing where I always watch the movie's scene on youtube or wherever to supplement my miniseries watching...
...As I do utterly love my Jane Eyre. : P
Re: My favorite book
Date: 2009-11-08 10:36 pm (UTC)