He's so absolutely DUPLICITIOUS! He seems to me, an older, sophisticated man preying on an innocent girl. Whatever his motivations and woes, I still find his actions deplorable and cannot romanticize them even with Michael Fassbender playing the part.
It's a beautiful movie, I watch it because I like it but... I can't stand Rochester's duplicitious ways.
[deleted]
Hi RomanceNovelist. We meet again!
I remember you thought Jane should have married St John! I completely understand your view. If this film is all you have to go on to make a character evaluation, then you can quite reasonably come to that conclusion. I would urge you once again to READ THE BOOK! Although Rochester's actions are deplorable, you will gain insight into his history and motives in a way that this film woefully neglects.
I'd like to repeat what Charlotte Bronte said in a letter to her publisher in 1848, shortly after the publication of Jane Eyre:
You say Mr Huntingdon (the abusive alcoholic husband in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall) reminds you of Mr Rochester – does he? Yet there is no likeness between the two; the foundation of each character is entirely different. Huntingdon is a specimen of the naturally selfish sensual superficial man whose one merit of a joyous temperament only avails him while he is young and healthy, whose best days are his earliest, who never profits by experience, who is sure to grow worse the older he grows.
Mr Rochester has a thoughtful nature and a very feeling heart; he is neither selfish nor self-indulgent; he is ill-educated, misguided; errs, when he does err, through rashness and inexperience: he lives for a time as too many other men live, but being radically better than most men, he does not like that degraded life, and is never happy in it. He is taught the severe lessons of experience and has sense to learn wisdom from them. Years improve him; the effervescence of youth foamed away, what is really good in him still remains. His nature is like wine of a good vintage, time cannot sour – but only mellows him. Such, at least, was the character I meant to portray.
Heathcliff....is quite another creation. He exemplifies the effects which a life of continued injustice and hard usage may produce on a naturally perverse, vindictive and inexorable disposition. Carefully trained and kindly treated, the black gypsy-cub might possibly have been reared into a human being, but tyranny and ignorance made of him a mere demon.
So Bronte took great pains to make a distinction between Rochester and the two lesser men (her sisters' literary creations), lest anyone should think of tarring him with the same brush of condemnation, as it were. She liked her progeny! She meant us to think of him as an essentially good man, who made serious mistakes but learnt from them.
If you read chapter 27 from the book, you will see how the very young Rochester was betrayed by his family and tricked into marrying the insane Bertha.
Also, have a look at some of the other screen adaptations out there. It's amazing how various productions have differed in their interpretation of Rochester. Watch them to get a rounded-out view. The best, however, are those made for TV because they are a bit more leisurely. 1973, 1983 and 2006 are the best. My favourite for a sympathetic Rochester is 2006 (although this has it's critics).
Who knows where the time goes?
Do you think she was a bit biased towards the 'older man' as did'nt she in real life fall in love with one although I think the feeling was'nt mutual.
shareLittlesue, I believe you're talking about Constantin Héger, her Belgian professor. A married man, he was only about seven years Charlotte's senior.
Who knows where the time goes?
SUPERGRAN!! Yet again, you show insight, intelligence, and plain ol' good SENSE! Indeed, the BOOK is what you need for this version.
I love to see ANY adaptation of this, my favorite book. ALL versions I have seen have their plusses and minuses. I was quite disappointed with this one, but I confess to having had high hopes. I had a ridiculous fantasy that those who made this version had studied the others and eliminated prior errors. But, just as I would be sure to do if I made a film, they created new problems.
I think the biggest disappointment for me with this version was the reveal - when they kiss after Jane accepts his proposal, it feels so stiff and uncomfortable. Like one of the actors had consumed garlic for lunch or something. Felt very awkward to me.
Well - that and Blanche's singing. It was horrible - and the way I read the book, she was completely intimidating in those ways - wealth, beauty, mannerisms, spectacular singing and playing, and extremely haughty, of course. The singing was so bad that I was confused at first - that must be someone else. No - it was Blanche. I can't listen to her, it's so bad. I wish they had dubbed someone else's singing voice in.
And I always complain about cramming this great tome into such a small period of time. As I write this, I have Netflix playing the 1983 miniseries with Zelah Clark and Timothy Dalton. I think that one best captures the story, but I may only be appreciating the length of the thing.
I always love reading your comments and you have ALWAYS given me something to think about, clever lass!
I hope "Romance Novelist" heeds your advice. You're right - the film cannot convey the complex character of Rochester. He is tormented after being cheated in so many ways by life experience and being shackled into marriage with a violent schizophrenic. He's bitter - but he's good and kind. You definitely get that from the book.
You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.
Thankyou, dbh850. You're much too kind.
I, too, had high hopes for this film. Higher than ever before because I'd never cared so much. Alarm bells started ringing when the production company began releasing short clips of the film prior to full release. One of the clips was the proposal scene which should depict Jane at her most passionate and frantic. But what we got was a lesson in restraint.
I suppose the perfect adaptation is a sort of hybrid of those already in existence. The overwhelming bulk of my perfect version would comprise of 2006, with bits of others thrown in. I like the 1983, but it's too plodding for my taste. Just ticking off the pages from the novel doesn't always make for the greatest dramatic effect.
Nice to hear from you again, dbh850, and thanks for your kind words!
Who knows where the time goes?
I've started reading on gutenberg.org , but because I am writing and publishing my own novels, I don't have enough time, and also fear that I will be contaminated by her writings, which are very good. Inspired me enough that I felt like writing an unofficial sequel since her story is in the public domain, although I shall refrain from doing so.
I have not gone deep into the novel yet, I've only gone as far as the beginning where Jane is treated horribly by her family.
If Rochester's actions are justifiable (although, he does seem to have a duplicitious nature, as does his family from what you tell me), I will wait to read it, to see if I can reconcile the man to someone a woman can fall in love with.
St. John seems to me the type of character... a bit austere and much like the people at the convent where she was educated, and that is why she didn't want him in that way.
But it seems to me, that based on her letter, that even then, she had some explaining to do about this character.
It's good to hear that you've started reading online. Do persevere. The characters of Rochester and St John are quite complex and very well written. You'll certainly enjoy the journey of discovery.
Funny what you say about the letter. And, even after reading the novel, Rochester still has many detractors. Here are a couple of the more lighthearted criticisms:
http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/a-monster-is-born/
http://www.themillions.com/2010/08/mr-rochester-is-a-creep-a-list.html
I hope, like me, you will find ER a sympathetic character upon completion of the book. After the aborted wedding, when Jane discovers the truth, she forgives him instantly. And we're never meant to think her a gullible fool.
Who knows where the time goes?
Great links, Supergran! Thanks. I especially liked this cartoon, linked from the entry at The Millions.
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=202
As much as I love Rochester, I have to admit that his seduction techniques (or those he used on Jane, anyway) were not very sophisticated. No wonder Celine Varens cuckolded him!
Sorry - I couldn't stand the "everytime" any longer. Had to correct it.
IRIS! What a clever observation! I never thought of that... how easily he was tricked by that woman. Thank you for posting that.
You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.
Good to see you still here, iris.
Just love that word cuckolded! Wish it was still in use today. Lol.
Who knows where the time goes?
You know... I was thinking today about how Rochester and St. John are in the book. I expect SuperGran will understand what I'm thinking here. And it's REALLY interesting to me that this writer, RomanceNovelist, has this reaction to the characters in the film. That's really instructive - having not read the book, she (gender assumption here - forgive me if I'm wrong) sees them in these ways. To me, that means the filmmaker didn't do a great job with those characters.
SuperGran, if you're still here - I'm wondering. And RomanceNovelist, when you read the book, I would love to know if you feel this way - here goes:
Rochester is a tormented soul who was cheated by his father and brother in a terrible way - pushing him into marriage with a woman they knew was schizophrenic (my assumption of Bertha's diagnosis.) Absolutely terrible - divorce wasn't legal and he was utterly miserable. Then Jane comes into his life with her clarity, impressive intellect, good heart, etc. and he falls hopelessly in love with her. She is COMPLETELY different from any woman he had ever known.
St. John, in the book, is to me absolutely insufferable. He's one of those religious people who have very strict, punitive views... the worst kind of faith. Punitive, angry faith. A kind of faith that really is into suffering martyrdom to an extreme degree. Jane is PASSIONATE. It's her biggest flaw, as far as Mrs. Reed and some others are concerned... and Jane notes that it is a problem for her. St. John is completely the opposite. He's so rigid he cannot see reality. I dislike him VERY MUCH in the book - and in the film, I rather like him. Plus, I like Jamie Bell, having fallen for the young lad in "Billy Elliot." I was SO impressed with that child and could see that if he didn't mess himself up in young-actor Hollywood style, he could have a great career.
In the book, St. John is pretty much impossible to like - for me, anyway. And he wants to marry Jane so he can pretty much have a slave he can control and do "God's work." His proposal is offensive to her as she knows what REAL love is - passionate romantic love.
Reflecting on RomanceNovelist's reaction, I realize the filmmaker was WAY OFF the mark for people who don't know the book well. SuperGran - if you're here, I would love to know what you think of this perspective.
You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.
I'm still here, dbh!
I agree with everything you say, and it reflects my own take on the book. You sum up St John perfectly. He's an extremely complex man and I'm so glad he's in the book as a foil to Rochester. I don't think 2011 depicted him well at all (and Jamie Bell is no Adonis, bless him).
You'd be very interested in this discussion started by RomanceNovelist, which addressed many of your points:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229822/board/thread/195668667
Who knows where the time goes?
Must admit in the 2006 version I would have preferred St John to Rochester anyday!!
shareLove your post! And the fact is, when I saw the film I kept saying to myself "Don't do it, honey, he doesn't give a rat's ass about you, he just wants a therapist"!
Seriously, he may love Jane, but never at any time does he seem to care whether he hurts or even ruins her. He engages an inappropriately close employer-employee relationship that would have made things very difficult for her in a small community, he exposes her to the ridicule of his rich friends, he wants to make her his mistress or bigamous wife. His every action towards her was a step in the same direction - her ending up jobless, homeless, and freezing on the moor, with no place to go but being unable to bear staying in his house.
Honestly, through the whole movie I kept hoping he'd get better - give me some reason to like or approve of him. But no, at the ending they're in the same place of him being a mess and her wanting to make him feel better.
" Jack, you have debauched my sloth! "
I repeat the advice I gave to RM: PLEASE READ THE BOOK. You'll understand Rochester far more than you will watching this film. Also, try to see some of the longer TV versions.
Who knows where the time goes?
I guess we are critiquing the movie. If hollywood is going to make an adaptation, it should answer all of those questions, as opposed to sending a viewer unfamiliar with the novel in search of answers. So yes, the movie failed in making us love him as Otter basically stated. She hit the nail on the head as far as how Rochester was depicted. Lovely movie, beautiful, lush, and the cinematography is great. St John comes across much better than Rochester does, in nursing her back to health, giving her her first home where she is a 'subordinate to no one', the family she never had, and a job, even if it had little pay. What Rochester destroyed, St. John helped her rebuild. How badly the film maker failed...in making St. John a sympathetic character. I totally liked him and saw someone far more passionate and less selfish than the main love interest.
shareExactly. This film is utterly deficient and I'm astounded at the praise that's heaped upon it. Great cinematography is no substitute for accurate characterisation. Get the characters right and one can forgive definciences elsewhere.
To be fair, however, you may not like Rochester even after reading the book. I hope you do, though.
Who knows where the time goes?
I can't wait to finish it! I've got it on my kindle now :)
shareI think you'll find that Mia's Jane is even less recognisable than Fassbender's Rochester.
sharewow, in what way?
shareWow... is this film a total failure as an adaptation? It got critical raves, but everyone here is saying "They weren't like that in the book".
Tell me, book fans, has this film failed to captures the personalities of Jane and Rochester? I mean, it's a story of a relationship, change the personalities and you've changed the entire story.
" Jack, you have debauched my sloth! "
I was hoping alfa would reply about Mia but, in his absence, I'll add my tuppence worth.
Mia was the right age and had the right look, but that was about all. Almost throughout this dark and dismal production she was sullen and defensive and miserable. Where was Jane's wit and spirit?
Fassbender was OK given so little air time, but again - Rochester could be witty and sparkling. We saw little of that.
I know Jane Eyre contains some very dark moments. But it's also a love story, and the repartee between Jane and Edward is a delight. One nice little scene in the book is when Jane asks Rochester for a leave of absence to visit her Aunt, and collects her wages. A delightful, rather flirtateous, scene in the book, it's as dry as dust in this film.
Have a look at this blog for a review of 2011. It's a scream! (Excuse the bad language.):
http://ifbyyes.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/jane-eyre-2011/#comment-4967
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
SUPER Gran... I wish there were "like" buttons here! Brilliant post. As usual.
You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.
Every time I watch any Jane Eyre movie, I keep thinking how much I love Rochester. :D
It doesn't matter who plays him, I still find him sexy. Even William Hurt or Orson Welles (who looks like a pillow with black hair) are attractive to me in these films. Fassbender and Dalton are my tops though. I read the book and Edward set my heart on fire. I've always been drawn to dominant, arrogant characters in books and movies and I think the fact that he's actually a truly good person (at least I think he is) is what seals the deal for me. He was dealt a crappy hand early in life but like Jane, he makes the best of it. And the guy has a right to happiness. I'd forgive him his mistakes the same as Jane.
I'm always surprised by people who dislike him (how could anyone possibly have tastes that are different from mine?). The age thing doesn't bother me, but of course I prefer my men to be old enough to be my grandfather. ;) Hello, Alan Rickman! Besides that, he is charming and loving and best of all has a sense of humour. He is definitely one of my favourite book characters ever.
I won't continue to bore you all with my opinion on St. John....
Yes, I love Michael Fassbender, because he's so freakishly talented. However, Rochester as he is depicted in the movie, I am no fan of. I felt like *sigh* for St. John. I saw him as her rescuer, someone who saved her. ANd yes, carrying her in his arms to safety - I was undone. But listen to me yapping like a fangirl.
shareI don't know if it's cause I can't separate the St. John from the book and the movie, but I just think he's a total buttocks.
shareSillyruckus:
...I won't continue to bore you all with my opinion on St. John...I just think he's a total buttocks.
Will do. I should read the 239538 posts before I contribute though so I don't repeat. :P
share
Super!!
Monty Python/
Who's your fat friend?
Hello Silly R
I, like you am drawn to dominant, arrogant *a******e and MF ,apparently has a large one, which makes him more attractive.
When I was a young 'un [a long while ago] I used to admire older men, but ,these days ,if they are much older than me , they, unhappily, are dead.
Who's your fat friend?
Lol whenim64, I can remember lusting in the 80's after Harrison Ford and Al Pacino, neither would appeal to me now. Like you say we get so old that all the men we fancied are dead so we start to look at the younger ones
shareHello LS,
Nice to hear from you again.
Thing is, old ladies look at young men.
Who's your fat friend?
Hahahaha.....yesss. I prefer the older looking guys. I also usually like darker hair and eyes. Funny enough my husband is only a year older than me (I'm 24, he's 25) and is a baby-faced blonde hair, blue eyed guy.
Morel is, you can see past all that for love. 0;D
[deleted]
Finally I read someone who labels him as I see him. This is a great story and I watch my adaptations often. But I have to apply two helpings of suspended disbelief to actually overlook the deplorable way Rochester treats Jane. What a sad life she's lived. Abused from the time she's a baby, puts up with cruelty (at first) then austerity at Lowood. Then she finally gets to a job where she attains a minimum of independence and falls in love with an older married man who treats her pretty harshly and uses jealousy and tricks to "assure himself" of her affection.
I do sympathize with Rochester's sad situation...tricked into marrying a woman who goes crazy...he has no affectionate marriage. But it can't justify what he does to Jane. Sure we're given an "and they lived happily ever after" ending but really, are we to believe a guy who'd do this to an innocent girl would actually be reliable? Would we want our sister or daughter caught up in a relationship with him based on what we know of him?
On the plus side, Bronte does have him somewhat pay a price, albeit indirectly, for his duplicitous ways...his injuries and lost eyesight. And at least she has him own to having done wrong and apologize for it. That's better 'n some stories where I believe the hero behaves badly and the author NEVER seems to "bring it to closure."
my god its full of stars
I agree. Rochester is a flawed character, of course, but he is definitely sufficiently punished for his sins, IMO.
Read my reviews at my blog- http://marspeach.wordpress.com
Nice to see you back, marspeach. Haven't seen your posts in a long, long time.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Rizdek, did you take a look at my post of April 27th? I know I'm always referring to Charlotte Bronte's letter to her publisher (I'm nothing if not predictable!), but I really find it helpful to read her appraisal of Rochester so that I can get the right perspective and understand his motives.
First of all, Charlotte attempts to distance Rochester from the rather nasty heroes of her sisters' novels. (Obviously her publisher misunderstood him, too! Lol.) Then, when she says the effervescence of youth foamed away, what is really good in him still remains, she means us to view Rochester as an essentially good man - radically better than most men. And while Rochester has to go through the whole chastening process, he doesn't metamorphose into a completely different person.
I read an interview with Sandy Welch, who previously adapted Jane Eyre, and she had these thoughts:
It’s not just the case that I find Rochester sympathetic, it is clearly Bronte’s point of view also - in fact I don’t think it possible to reconcile the very cruel and manipulative Rochester of some critics with the one Charlotte created. It is clear she created a character who had to be redeemed, but this was more for his wanton lifestyle after marrying Bertha than the fact that he was a cruel or deceitful man. Once he’s done the unthinkable, risked everything to propose, he is not immediately damned but instead, between the proposal and the wedding, he has the happiest time of his life. Is it surprising he tries to prolong this happiness as long as he can by leaving England with Jane the instant the wedding is over? Bronte wanted us to think Rochester was foolish and amoral at worst but not evil.
You may not agree with Sandy's sympathetic view of Rochester, but I think she's right when she says that this would be Bronte's point of view also. Of course, when Bronte wrote to her publisher that such...was the character I meant to portray, a person is quite at liberty to believe that she failed in her intention!
I also think that it's a misreading of Jane's character to view her as a victim. Sure, horrible things happened to her, but she's a fighter and a survivor, and she's nobody's fool! She knows how to handle Rochester! Read how she refuses to be a slave to his "sultan" during their month-long engagement. (Alhough, admittedly - and somewhat contradictory, she says that she has made Edward her idol.)
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
First installment!!!
Sorry for being so diliatory in my response.
OK, I've read Ch 27, but I think my conclusions about what Bronte is describing doesn't match yours...or even Bronte's for that matter! OF COURSE he's had a miserable history having been deceived by his father and brother and hooked to a known demented woman. BUT he married Bertha of his own free will. He was coerced but not forced to become her husband. That her mental state became obviously worse after the marriage should NOT have changed the fact in his mind that he did, at one time, believe himself attracted to her. Why should we not expect a man to respect that decision, even if he's unhappy about the consequences? When Jane asks him, very astutely, if he would treat her the same way as Bertha if SHE went crazy. He vows no, he'd embrace her while she's cursing him, biting him, acting an intemperate, sexually permiscuous, demented creature. But given how he's behaving, that rings hollow. IOW I don't believe Bronte when she has her Rochester say that. He's selfish, lacks introspection and except for apparent humane treatment of his staff, has no respect for women. Consider how he's used women for his pleasure after he was [unhappily] married. Is this what good folks are led to believe connotates moral, considerate, respectful behavior? Is this the behavior of a basically "good" man who just...blunders, as Bronte apparently thought she was describing.
The problem is NOT that Bronte has him tricking her into jealousy, forcing her to endure the humiliation before Blanche et al and then offering illegal marriage to her. That's bad enough, it's how he behaves AFTER he's been found out that really tips the scales. That is the part that stands out to me, and (it seems to me) apparently didn't register with Bronte as she wrote it. I note two things about this exchange Bronte is presenting. I note how LONG it is given the weakened state Jane is in AND how selfishly he comes across. Did Bronte not think of that as she was writing? Did she not reflect...wait a minute, everything I have him saying is about him, how miserable he will be, how sad his life has been, why HE's not really married, how much HE needs this and that to make HIM happy. Despite describing her as exhausted, she doesn't give Jane a break. She gives Rochester essentially complete control over her when she has Jane in a weakened state, emotionally and physically.
It's an entire chapter! Bronte has Rochester coming at her in every way he can think of and she has to endure it. And Bronte makes it clear she's physically exhausted and her emotions assaulted. And why should she not be. I believe she has endured just as much misery in HER short life as Rochester has in his. And the readers seem to relish her suffering as making her a better person and his suffering as justifying a manipulative, dishonest character.
A man in his situation, understanding of the misery he's felt at the hands of his father and brother, SHOULD have been mindful of the misery she has felt and was feeling AT THIS TIME. Yet Bronte has him yammer on and on trying to find the crack in her armor. Bronte forces her to endure this after she's had the rug pulled out from under her time and time again. First when she's two, her parents die. That's the first rug before she's even... aware. Her uncle would love and care for her AND THEN HE DIES, leaving her to his evil wife and children. Another rug jerked out. Then she's sent to Lowood where she hopes to be treated at least as an equal to the other children but when she arrives the rug is again pulled out as she endures the hypocrisy and abuse of Mr B. Then she goes to Thornfield, is treated well, and seemingly gets her feet under her, only to have the rug pulled out from under her again, and this time by an older man who she is led to believe is honest and caring and someone she loves and even worships. I do NOT see true love in Rochester, only selfish desire to satisfy his emotional and sexual needs/wants. Is this what some women secretly want? Someone to cast aside all that is right to fulfill his pleasures because his needs are SOOOOO great? It sounds dangerously like how Bronte seems to describes how Blanche describes her ideal man. I read this script:
“Do you know,” said she, “that, of the three characters, I liked you in the last best? Oh, had you but lived a few years earlier, what a gallant gentleman-highwayman you would have made!”
“Is all the soot washed from my face?” he asked, turning it towards her.
“Alas! yes: the more’s the pity! Nothing could be more becoming to your complexion than that ruffian’s rouge.”
So Blanch seemed to want a man of low character and dangerous personality...exactly as Rochester comes across IN HIS ADDRESS to Jane in Chapter 27. Selfish and dangerous.
I see that in this chapter, Bronte is just using Jane as a plot device for her to 1) tell Rochesters sad history AND 2) as the voice of conscious which Rochesters tries every way to break. BUT, Jane is a real fictional character{: We have been led to see her as having feelings, a spirit, a personality with wishes and hopes and fears. Please read the chapter FROM HER STANDPOINT. It's NOT romantic, it's horrible. Why is this not viewed as abuse tantamount to the abuse she received at the hands of Aunt Reed and John, then Mr Brocklehurst? He keeps her in what someone who was in her place would feel was prison to browbeat and harass her. I'm speaking of her situation immediately after the attempted wedding and before she's able extract herself from his selfish whinings. She is trying to leave but he won't take that as an answer. There is almost zero concern for her, her mental state, her shattered emotions, her attempt to maintain purity in face of his wantonness. Listen to him. He chides her for her steadfast beliefs about what is right. Badgers her about how bad he feels and HIS state of mind and how miserable he'd be without her, with zero consideration for how miserable she would be. He does everything in his power short of physical abuse...which eventually he DOES apply toward the end by grabbing her and his voice, with the violence barely subdued, makes her stone-cold with terror. IN fact, I notice about three times when it seems she feels in peril due to his manic and barely subdued agressiveness and violence.
He complains that she'd leave him with a demented wife upstairs. Jeez a flip, he'd STILL have a demented wife "upstairs" (literally AND in his head) if she stayed...wouldn't he? It would just mean he'd have both a wife upstairs and this "mistress" at his breakfast table and in his bed fulfilling his emotional and physical pleasures if she was that sort of girl. BUT SHE IS NOT and she WOULD NOT be enjoying him or the situation even if she gave in. Why doesn't Bronte even have him notice that? Based on how Bronte is having Jane talk, Jane would NEVER be able to get this wife out of her head. Regardless of how HE feels it is mere social custom that prevents her being with him, it's what SHE feels that SHOULD be important. AND JANE TELLS HIM HOW SHE FEELS, OVER AND OVER. Why do folks not notice that Bronte doesn't even seem to have him recognize that. If Bronte was describing a man who really loved her, she'd realize that a "Jane" could never be happy with that state affairs and "he," her senior by many years, should have recognized that. True, unselfish, respectful love would have him helping her pack while apologizing profusely and recognizing the wickedness of what he'd done. A man who truly loved would be concerned with her welfare once she did leave, as she was resolved to do. Why didn't Bronte have him consider her safety after she left...no offer of money or supplies, nothing. But, instead of concern for her welfare, emotionally morally or physically, he wants to pull this young innocent girl DOWN into his web of selfish pleasures and emotional dependency. He seems to have NO internal compass of right and wrong, no character... and he'd be happy if she'd become the same kind of person. SHE sees character as adhering to social customs regarding marriage. So even if he doesn't agree, Bronte should have had him acknowledge this fact about Jane and had him act on HER feelings. If, that is, he's basically a good man who just blundered. I'm sorry, but I see similarities to the apology Austen wrote for Willoughby...in fact believe it or not, I see MORE remorse in Willoughby than in Rochester. Willoughby at least recognizes that he's lost Marianne for good because of what he'd done. He says, even if I wasn't married at all, I'd still not have a chance with Marianne. But Rochester just won't "give it up." He's harmed Jane every bit as badly as Willoughby harmed Marianne...worse even, yet Bronte has him go on trying to cajole this girl, half his age to "see it his way," when Bronte should have recognized HIS WAY is depraved and selfish, the path to destruction emotionally, morally and physically. She has Jane recognize and say that, but apparently Bronte doesn't embrace that strategy for how to live one's life. Otherwise she would not believe she wrote a basically good man who just made some mistakes. She wrote a man who made gross, inexcuseable assaults on a vulnerable girl who worked for him and he NEVER really acknowledges he's done wrong. Oh, he's sorry he hurt her, but that is NOT the same as being sorry for doing evil. He didn't learn from his mistakes. All I see is:
“Jane, I never meant to wound you thus. If the man who had but one little ewe lamb that was dear to him as a daughter, that ate of his bread and drank of his cup, and lay in his bosom, had by some mistake slaughtered it at the shambles, he would not have rued his bloody blunder more than I now rue mine. Will you ever forgive me?”
Bronte has him refer to what he's done as a blunder...A BLUNDER? He asks her to marry him when he's already married and then badger her to live a life of sin just to satisfy his needs and Bronte has him call that a blunder? A blunder is when you
-accidentally spit on someone's shoe,
-accidentally mention someone's dead wife in a derogatory way when you think they aren't listening,
-accidentally back over someone's dog (Doc Martin), or
-call someone a liar because you really think they are lying and then you find out they were telling the truth.
THOSE are blunders. I'm sorry calling what he did a blunder... that's crazy talk
Second installment!
But it is NOT Rochester that interests me. He's just a fictional character with no motives, thoughts and feelings other than what Bronte imagined in her head and wrote on paper. So of course I'm not concerned with HIM. I am a bit puzzled by Bronte herself. It seems SHE felt she was building a scene to help us see how we should overlook what he did...forgive him...understand him...find some hidden value and quality in his character...but I'm sorry, I see NONE.
First, WHY did she believe his past should make us more sympathetic to what he'd done and make us feel like they (Jane and R) would be a good match and that he'd treat her well later given how he's behaved toward her in the past? He's treated her exactly the way his family treated him! Do we believe his father and brother "made a blunder" by having him marry Bertha? Maybe THEY were never told exactly how bad she might become. Could they not justifiably claim they did NOT KNOW she would become so demented as the mother and grandmother? In those days they didn't have the sophisticated means of predicting mental illness, so they are in the clear. I mean should we blame Bertha's father? He just blundered...right? Consider what he must have gone through married to a similar woman. Shouldn't we be happy to forgive him and see his hidden...DEEPLY hidden...qualities?
As I said, Bronte should've had her R be sympathetic and understanding of Jane's plight, but he seems not to be. Let me ask this. If he had married Bertha just for her money and she never went crazy, and he just realized later that he was not in love with her and wanted a woman (Jane) who he was in love with...would you view him the same way? Would you excuse his conniving deceitful ways? Would you still be inclined to see this interaction between Jane and him as merely a blunder but otherwise romantic and a solid basis for a good life together? Why should his MISERY make a difference in how we view his treatment of Jane? But perhaps you really don't feel he treated her badly? It was just a blunder afterall. Is that the case? But I can't find a place for me to feel sorry for the Rochester Bronte wrote, at least not enough to overlook how Bronte had him treat Jane. Like I said, I'm more sympathetic to Willoughby than I am to Rochester!
What if Bronte had written the story having Jane treat him that way? She's had a rough life, right? With, as I pointed out, disappointments right and left, right? Shouldn't she be at liberty to trick him, lie to him, deceive him, flirt with other men in his presence knowing it hurt his feelings, chide and coerce him if he tried to do the right and honest thing? Should we not all agree that she should be able to enjoy using him for her sexual/ emtional/ financial/ societal pleasure. Maybe you would have enjoyed the story if Jane had done that. But I kind of doubt it.
I don't really have an understanding of how you view Rochester except when you quote Bronte, "She meant us to think of him as an essentially good man, who made serious mistakes but learnt from them." Perhaps you agree with this. But if she believed that, I feel like she is a wounded abused creature herself to believe she made him thus after reading Chapter 27. She seems to have Jane act very much like an abused person...approaching a "Stokholm Syndrome." She worships Rochester, essentially the only man in her life. He's not been kind to her, tricking her into jealousy, pretending to be a gypsy to get her to talk candidly, offering illegal marriage, taking her right up to the wedding day with her believing everything is on the up and up, lying to her about the danger she was in when Bertha escaped and entered her room, badgering her for an entire evening after he failed in his attempt to marry her and...and she still worships him and loves him...so much that she rushes back even though IN HER MIND, his wife yet lives. That sound's like an abused, emotionally wrecked person who can't even think straight, not a tough survivor. A tough survivor would've forgiven him, for sure, but she'd have moved on because that's what clear-thinking emotionally stable people do when they are dealing with a deceitful treacherous person. There can realistically be NO true happiness between two people when one of them believes he/she is at liberty to trick and deceive the other and lure them into doing what that other persons knows or believes is wrong. That cannot be a good basis for a healthy, romantic or happy relationship. I don't believe Bronte and her "happy ending." Since Rochester never really owned up to doing wrong...except to fell sorry for hurting Jane's feelings, I don't see a basis for believing he's a better person now. He's learned no lessons that I can see.
Can you point to any evidence that he actually learned from his mistakes? Bronte doesn't have him show that in Chapter 27...does it show up later?
This long rambling post doesn't entail all I feel when I read Chapter 27. I've written much more commentary...blow by blow impressions of each thing he says and all his emoting. But this captures why I find this story less and less rewarding BECAUSE I read what Bronte wrote. IMHO, NO VERSION has their Rochester come across so selfish as Bronte herself has HER R come across. He seems manipulative, using his maturity, better understanding of the world and psychology all to destroy Jane's defenses and get her to be the kind of person HE is and the kind of person he knows she does not want to be. He seems to want to bring her down, rather than pick himself up to her level. I see NO redemption in his life at all. He's the same when she finally comes back and marries him as he is the day they meet. The only difference? Bronte has delivered Bertha from her (and his and Jane's) misery, by compassionately killing her off.
Dear rizdek. I've been procrastinating since reading your posts two weeks ago! They utterly exhaust me, and I'm no Sassafrass! Still, finally grasping the nettle...(just joking!)
I'm afraid I can't respond to the individual points in your posts. I haven't got the energy (I marvel at your tenacity). But I will say that I concur a great deal with what LifeVsArt has written in the Fassbender thread about Rochester being a Byronic hero. He possesses many of the characteristics listed in the article that LVA linked to. And women find such men irresistible! I can't give you an exact explanation. Perhaps it's something to do with the fact that women think that THEY will be the one to tame them! It's very empowering! And to think that the woman who does so is the one who is "poor, plain, obscure and little"! (I'm talking, of course, about literature. Most women would run a mile from such a man in real life!)
Although Bronte bases Rochester on the archetypal Byronic hero, she imbues him with humanity and a unique personality of his own. I won't repeat her words, but she creates a DEEPLY flawed yet ESSENTIALLY good man. An abiding theme of Bronte's tale is redemption. The power of the world-redeeming creed of Christ (Charlotte's own words in her preface) is open to all, but only the humble avail themselves of it. In the penultimate chapter, Rochester relates to Jane how he has been humbled, and entreats God:
"I thank my Maker, that, in the midst of judgment, he has remembered
mercy. I humbly entreat my Redeemer to give me strength to lead
henceforth a purer life than I have done hitherto!"
I want to finish by repeating that I think it's a mistake to regard Jane as a victim. She's a strong woman and she knows how to handle Rochester. Mature beyond her years is Jane! I can give you many passages in the book which show Jane having the upper hand, but this one strikes me from Chapter 27:
"Jane! will you hear reason?" (he stooped and approached his lips to
my ear); "because, if you won't, I'll try violence." His voice was
hoarse; his look that of a man who is just about to burst an
insufferable bond and plunge headlong into wild license. I saw that
in another moment, and with one impetus of frenzy more, I should be
able to do nothing with him. The present--the passing second of
time--was all I had in which to control and restrain him--a movement
of repulsion, flight, fear would have sealed my doom,--and his. But
I was not afraid: not in the least. I felt an inward power; a
sense of influence, which supported me. The crisis was perilous;
but not without its charm: such as the Indian, perhaps, feels when
he slips over the rapid in his canoe. I took hold of his clenched
hand, loosened the contorted fingers, and said to him, soothingly -
"Sit down; I'll talk to you as long as you like, and hear all you
have to say, whether reasonable or unreasonable."
He sat down: but he did not get leave to speak directly. I had
been struggling with tears for some time: I had taken great pains
to repress them, because I knew he would not like to see me weep.
Now, however, I considered it well to let them flow as freely and as
long as they liked. If the flood annoyed him, so much the better.
So I gave way and cried heartily.
Her struggle, in chapter 27, isn't with Rochester, but is the internal struggle between Conscience and Feeling.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Good reply! Thanks.
Yes, I got from LifevsArt that Mr R was some sort of Byronic hero.
Did you read the book first or watch an adaptation first? I'm interested in whether one's view of Mr R changes as they, over time, fully embrace the story and find some sort of deeper meaning. Many folks claim to have read this story several times. LifevsArt attributes deeper spiritual meaning to it. So I get the feeling I'm getting "well-simmered" views of Mr R. IOW folks have had time...years...to cogitate on the story and have found a way through what I stell very much feel.
It would be interesting to talk to a person who was just reading it for the first time and who HAD NEVER heard of the story at all...nothing. (If such a person even exists today...someone who has heard NOTHING about the story.) I'd like to hear what someone like that might have to say about Mr R. Perhaps some lurker remembers.
I rather feel like Hogan's Edward in SnS81 when he's discussing reading with Marianne. Elinor refers to Marianne's preferred reading as written "by ladies for ladies." Marianne says they are written for the heart. She likes heroes who are ruthless powerful and will call upon the devil, if need be. Edward responds, "I would not call your heroes gentlemen, Miss Marianne. She responds, "Gentlemen...so much for you." All Edward (and I) can say is, "Excuse me, Miss Marianne."
Good points, Supergran. Re the Byronic hero, you wrote "And women find such men irresistible!" I agree, and I think the term "Byronic hero" is a handy, descriptive way of putting a label on something that grew organically from the psyche and the society that influenced a woman's role. I think this figure springs up from a repressed aspect of a woman, a part that is wild and powerful, and wants to live outside social conventions and restrictions - her "outsider" side. We men have a similar thing re the siren's song of our own unconscious selves. Personally, I've had to have myself tied to the mast on a couple of occasions when I've encountered the dangerous female counterparts of Rochester - I'm probably not as strong as Jane, or as good. Both sexes want to redeem this mysterious inner figure - it is, as you say, "very empowering" but it's also an instinct on our part to put together the missing pieces of our selves, don't you think? Jane had the strength and integrity to take on this powerful force and succeed in redeeming it, without being dashed upon the rocks - and, as you showed, she knew how to handle Rochester the man. Still, there's terrible pain that's endured. For me "Jane Eyre" is a story that has deepened over the years as I see in it a reflection of what I've experienced in my own life. So when the topic of Bronte's classic comes up (or more specifically, a favorite film adaptation of mine) I feel required, as in the Middle Ages, to do battle for "my lady" whenever called upon. Rochester, as he exists in the story, is a perfect expression of an eternal conflict, he's not a perfect man.
shareWhat I find curious is that rarely do I see the caveat,
(I'm talking, of course, about literature. Most women would run a mile from such a man in real life!)associated with anyone's qualifying and quantifying the various strengths and weaknesses of Rochester. I would make it stronger, "EVERY woman should run a mile from a man like this." His redemption, if one can call it that, is probably NOT typical and certainly should not be expected.
So, rizdek, given the points that you're making, do you then feel that "Jane Eyre", the book and various film versions, should be kept away from young women, or young men, for that matter? Should responsible parents discourage our daughters from involvement in the story?
shareNo, young men and women should be allowed to view/read these and other similar stories.
But parents should take the time to discuss it with their children. And any discussion should be focused on the lessons that can be learned and how what happened in the story is probably NOT representative of real life. IOW they should contrast what happened in the make believe story with what COULD happen in real life. They should not glorify it...it is not a situation young folks...or any age folks...should seek after.
And I'm a bit disappointed that some folks posting here have been made to feel defensive for not liking Rochester. I noted this comment in another thread:
I've been torn a new one whenever I mentioned that I didn't like Rochester.It's probably a slight exaggeration, but why should someone be made to feel at all bad or even slightly wrong because they see the serious defects in Rochester's personality. He is duplicitous, selfish, and willing to draw others weaker than him into his web of deceit all so HE won't feel bad. It's not a pretty picture.
Yes, rizdek, but I personally don't see the primary reason for appreciating a great work of fiction (yes, it IS fiction, so that would make it "make believe")as being moral instruction. I don't value that in much of any art. Some great works have noble characters, like Jane, but they're still human, but there also has to be the Iago's, or someone as flawed as Rochester. The work is expressing something about human nature, and usually the greater the work the more timeless is the nature of what is being expressed, because of the flaws not just the virtues. What I find dangerous is an incident like what happened back in the 1850's when Flaubert was put literally on trial for writing a book with such a flawed, dishonest character as Emma Bovary. I've never looked on a literary character as someone I wanted to model my own character after - if I had, I might have found Captain Ahab irresistible (just kidding). I don't think it's smart to attack you for not thinking Rochester is a nice guy - that's your right - but I feel that if the book is reduced to how "likable" a character is, or how "correct" his actions, there's so much more going on that can just get lost. Still, this can make for some interesting arguments, and I sense that, like myself, you relish a skirmish now and then, as long as it's respectful, not a bunch of stupid name calling. Like I said, I don't see you as aggressively naive, but more as a benign contrarian.
shareYes, rizdek, but I personally don't see the primary reason for appreciating a great work of fiction (yes, it IS fiction, so that would make it "make believe")as being moral instruction.
I don't think it's smart to attack you for not thinking Rochester is a nice guy - that's your right - but I feel that if the book is reduced to how "likable" a character is, or how "correct" his actions, there's so much more going on that can just get lost.
BYRONIC HERO: An antihero who is a romanticized but wicked character. Conventionally, the figure is a young and attractive male with a bad reputation. He defies authority and conventional morality, and becomes paradoxically ennobled by his peculiar rejection of virtue. In this sense, Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost may be considered sympathetically as an antihero, as are many of Lord Byron's protagonists (hence the name). From American pop culture, the icon of James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause is a good example. Other literary examples are Heathcliffe in Wuthering Heights and the demonic Melmoth in Melmoth the Wanderer. Byronic heroes are associated with destructive passions, sometimes selfish brooding or indulgence in personal pains, alienation from their communities, persistent loneliness, intense introspection, and fiery rebellion.here http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_B.html
Don't worry, rizdek, I'm not taking anything you say personally - you've always been respectful, plus I've always had a soft spot in my heart for *beep* disturbers, as long as they're gracious ones. I know that stepping into certain threads can be like dipping your foot into a pool of piranha, yet when it comes to expressing your views nowhere should be out-of-bounds, should it. I like this line you quoted re the Byronic hero:
"In this sense, Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost may be considered sympathetically as an antihero, as are many of Lord Byron's protagonists (hence the name).Byronic heroes are associated with destructive passions, sometimes selfish brooding or indulgence in personal pains, alienation from their communities, persistent loneliness, intense introspection, and fiery rebellion."
To me this relates to what you said about not seeing them as "basically good guys who blunder". You know Lucifer originally meant "the bringer of light" (the mornings star). Now, this is not me getting all Satanic on ya - I'm trying to make a point. When it comes to "judgement" humanity has had a great fall - we ALL have. We are all judging each other and ourselves, all the time. Often I think we feel lacking and become like the Old Testament God when we feel our authority is being challenged, actually, though, I think we're being defensive and insecure, we feel out of control. For me Jane Eyre's relationship to Rochester has a certain significance in this regard. In Jane's life experience I see someone with a strong sense of justice and outrage, but in her position, and in her transition to adulthood (she's like eighteen when she meets Mr.R.) she's adopted the resignation of a perceptive person who sees themselves surrounded by gleeful brutality. She feels this acutely and has her defenses up, but she hasn't given into this cruelty herself - Rochester has. He is extremely intelligent and he IS sensitive, too - he's perceptive, but "the higher angels" of his nature have fallen, and he's taken on a lot of the cruel and sadistic aspects of the world that he, at the same time, loathes - so, as a result, he's self loathing. To me there's similarities to Beauty and the Beast, in that Rochester's beastly side has taken control. In the story I see Jane as being able to confront this dark aspect of human nature, in the form of Rochester, and through showing him a higher way, a path towards love, she redeems him, and for the first time in her life, is loved in return - now that IS empowering. This is very New Testament, isn't it. She forgives Rochester and offers him her hand. Not only is there a very strong christian redemption theme in Bronte's writing, as I've mentioned before, it's also extremely psychological and it has the timeless power of a fable. So, I can see where someone might consider Rochester a schmuck (or, as one person earlier called him, "a douche bag"), but, you know, if you're without sin go ahead and cast that stone of judgement, but Jane saw in him something to love, and she saw someone she understood, and someone who reflected a part of herself. I feel their relationship, and the ordeals they went through, resonate as a metaphor for purification - for me, it's not viewed in a religious way, it's more psychological/spiritual. I think it's often the situations and people in our lives that offer the greatest challenges, and put us through some of the hardest experiences that cause us to put together the pieces of our identity, to see more clearly. Sometimes these things that can be so destructive are the bringers of light.
There may be more of your post I'll respond to, but for now, I note you say (and have said before) that you consider Rochester "extremely intelligent." Is that because you see him as a "Bryonic hero" and therefore by definition must be intelligent? Or do you see things Bronte has him do or say that leads you to that conclusion?
I note things I think do not reflect intelligence. For example:
1) His getting trapped into marrying Bertha does not suggest a great deal of intelligence. It might happen to anyone, I agree, but it's not positive sign of intelligence. Now we know that happened years ago, so maybe he's more intelligent now?
2) His roaming the world for 10 years seeking the arms of various women doesn't seem all that intelligent. Normal? Yes! But it doesn't seem to be a positive sign of intelligence. There are many down sides to promiscuous sex and an intelligent person might've realized it. Adele is the prime example of the result of his philandering ways. It's just a story, but how many other children might a guy like that sire in real life and leave to the cruel and casual fate of the society of that day?
3) Using jealousy to "get to" Jane did not turn out to have been intelligent. One might forgive a less intelligent man for thinking himself shrewd and THINKING it might work but..intelligent? At least according to Bronte it did not work...because Jane was NOT particularly jealous of Blanche. So in reality it didn't help his chances with her at all...best I can tell.
4) Finally his line of reasoning here does not seem to be particularly intelligent:
“Now, Janet, I’ll explain to you all about it. It was half dream, half reality. A woman did, I doubt not, enter your room: and that woman was—must have been—Grace Poole. You call her a strange being yourself: from all you know, you have reason so to call her—what did she do to me? what to Mason? In a state between sleeping and waking, you noticed her entrance and her actions; but feverish, almost delirious as you were, you ascribed to her a goblin appearance different from her own: the long dishevelled hair, the swelled black face, the exaggerated stature, were figments of imagination; results of nightmare: the spiteful tearing of the veil was real: and it is like her. I see you would ask why I keep such a woman in my house: when we have been married a year and a day, I will tell you; but not now. Are you satisfied, Jane? Do you accept my solution of the mystery?”
When you read the book or watch a performance, such as Michael Fassbender's, you find yourself in the presence of someone who is able to perceive accutely much of what's going on around him, for example, the attributes and the intelligence of Jane Eyre, which he recognizes almost immediately - no one else seems to. Is his behavior emotionally intelligent? NO. That's the thing, he's got the raw material, but he's using it in a destructive way, to manipulate. He doesn't consider the emotional damgage - and there is a price that has to be paid.
shareOk, so it's how he seems to deduce Jane's qualities.
We aren't given much to go on as to how others perceive Jane's qualities. Certainly the Reeds didn't. Mr B didn't.
But apparently a selecting individual or committee saw fit to select her as a teacher and kept her on for 2 years until she left voluntarily. That suggests some recognition of a modicum of talent.
In watching the various adaptations they certainly seem to have Mrs Fairfax "see" her qualities. She treats her very much as an equal.
Certainly Adele takes to Jane, sensing Jane's kindness and good intentions.
Are there other examples of Mr Rochester's intelligence that would tell me he's above average? Sorry, but I am curious. I do agree, Fassbender puts on as IF he's portraying an intelligent man, so clearly the folks that adapted the story for JE11 did see him as coming across as above average intelligent. I would say Stephen's comes across as at least clever and witty. I'd say Hind's Rochester was not told to look or sound above average intelligent. And that's not an insult because we are talking about above average intelligence. He seemed of about normal intelligence.
My take on Rochester is that he is extremely intelligent and obviously sensitive, but because of his life experience he has built up incredible defenses and psychological armor. His response is to strike out and condemn what he sees around him (perhaps this also ties into his position of privilege). In truth, as the book illustrates, there is much cruelty, ignorance, prejudice and injustice for him to condemn. Rochester hasn't been able to rise above it, his response is self-destructive and abrasive to those around him, he's self loathing and he projects it outwardly. Rochester is a noble beast who strikes out at others but, on some level, wants to be tamed - in walks Jane Eyre to pierce his armor and penetrate his spiritual scar tissue, to get at the true heart of the man. Jane, who has responded to suffering and injustice in a much nobler and adaptive way, nevertheless sees his true nature, his fundamental goodness. They recognize in each other individuals who are both outsiders in relationship to society and, despite the difference in age and class position, equals in spirit. If Rochester wasn't flawed and lost, there wouldn't have been anything for Jane to discover and redeem and Bronte wouldn't have been able to create one of the great literary and archetypal love stories - one that continues to inspire films and discussion up to the present day.
shareVery good evaluation, LifeVsArt.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Thanks, supergran. You know there is a lot to this Rochester guy, and to Jane, along with the nature of their relationship. I think "Jane Eyre" has many levels to it: there is a very deep psychological and spiritual dynamic. Also, related to that, there's an archetypal aspect (Carl Jung writes about it in "Man And His Symbols"), and there are references to supernatural events and psychic connections, too. As much as the story can be taken as a gothic romance, a powerful love story and a portrait of societal pressures and woes, it also has something deeply rooted in our collective minds. Some people might not believe in such a thing, but I do, and I think great art, especially art that lasts, speaks to it through the emotions but also through a symbolic language. People don't even need to grasp it on a conscious level, but they can feel it. Anyway, Rochester, is no mere jerk, that's for sure.
shareBumping for posterity (and for our friend xman).
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Ha, I guess you can stop bumping. Lifevsart and I are doing just fine.
shareLifevsart and I are doing just fine.
Read Jane Eyre? Well, the odds are not in favor of me doing this. First, I don't sit much and just read. I mean, I can read, and I'm not saying one cannot read out of doors...sorry wrong story. But really, if I'm awake enough to read, I want to do other things (NOT just watch tv, I mean) So I could only imagine it'd take me...years to actually read it. I rate my wife's reading rate in BPD (books per day) literally. To her, and I assume to others, the words of stories pull her along. Not me.
I do read.
When I was younger, I read Mark Twain.
I read biographies.
I actually read Tolstoy's War and Peace. It was when I rode a subway to work. It took me, I think, over a year. But I did it.
I read the whole Bible through as a teenager. Not one of my smarter moves if I had wanted to stay a Christian. But I did it.
I've read several of Michener's books, Grisham's books and love Crichton's books.
I read lay-physics books...Hawkings, Green, Smolin and Carrol, and books on evolution by Dawkins and the like. Love 'em...don't always understand 'em, but love 'em.
I work through math books, play at music, work in the shop, write computer programs for pleasure. I spent my career reading and writing science documents. Reading and writing are not foreign to me...in fact I find writing quite easy.
But I think I might not ever get around to reading Jane Eyre. For one thing, NOW, I tend to enjoy all my adaptations of JE about equally. But alas, I find so many people who claim to have read the book, usually multiple times, then claim to really dislike this or that adaptation because of THEIR interpretation of the book...you included. Consider how much you dislike JE11. WHY would I ever want to stop liking JE11? WHY would I want to jeopardize my means of relaxing at the end of the day by realizing I no longer like some of my adaptations?
This actually happened with my Sense and Sensibility adaptations. By delving and debating, I came to NOT LIKE the 2008 version as much because I become resolved in how I thought various characters SHOULD be portrayed. Now I feel my world is less enjoyable by a fraction BECAUSE I read the book...and it did NOT enhance my enjoyment one iota except that I like the 1995 version a LITTLE bit better. Not nearly enough to offset my current dislike of SnS08. That is not an encouraging outcome. Especially when I don't ENJOY reading this kind of book to begin with.
I think this mantra, "oh read the book" stems from folks who enjoy reading as a relaxing pastime fail to see that others will NOT see it as relaxing, rewarding OR enjoyable. I'd say that if a person has reached their 30th birthday and have not warmed up to reading particular kinds of books after having TRIED to do so, they are unlikely to change. NOT that it's impossible, but unlikely. Do you have experiences where someone who has tried to enjoy reading such books, later in life, found they DO like them?
Good luck with the grandchildren BTW. We have two, a 3- and 5- yr old who we take care of...a lot. That's probably another reason why, in addition to all my other activities, I'm unlikely to read JE.
edit: I actually did start reading it. Have gotten through the childhood at the Reeds and she's leaving for Lowood. It's easy reading and it flows rather nicely...but for some odd reason I feel NONE of the pity/indignation for this book Jane that I feel for ALL of the portrayals in the adaptations I watch. Why is that? Nothing so far. I just read it as a casual observer and feel nothing. Interesting. I wonder if I'll ever feel anything for the story? I just don't believe it so far, it seems strained and contrived. I fear by the time I finish, I will be convinced that Bronte, while quite intelligent and a good writer was herself abused and tramuatized. That's how I feel in reading chapter 27. But I'll withhold final judgement. I sincerely hope reading this doesn't ruin me for watching some of my favorite movies.
Hi rizdek.
Thanks for your best wishes for the grandchildren. I love 'em, don't you? In fact, I love them so much, I should have had them first! Lol.
It's nice that you've started reading JE. I DO hope you enjoy it, especially when you get to the later chapters (I much prefer them to the earlier ones).
I agree that there is a risk that familiarity with a novel can spoil one for enjoying the adaptations. I'm convinced it's a risk worth taking, but it can lead to heightened expectations. It may surprise you that I don't hate JE11. It's certainly the best of all the two hour films, even though I was disappointed with it overall. I won't say any more on that subject because it annoys people and, contrary to what some may think, I don't set out to be deliberately provocative.
I'm not, however, a book purist. If I were, I would love the 1983 adaptation which is almost universally upheld as the one that adheres most closely to the book. For my part, I find it rather pedestrian. I prefer more imaginative treatments. That's why I find it endlessly fascinating how different writers and directors interpret my favourite book. I may not agree with their vision, but it makes for great discussion!
When you finish the book (grandkids and all the stuff that life throws at us permitting), I will be glad to discuss Rochester more with you.
Three fourths through. Easy read. But, as I expected, I'm bogged down writing commentary. That's what I do. Decided to delete my original comment. I'm too irritated and my comment was too irritating, I'm sure.
Finished 3/12/14
Am still assimilating my thoughts on the ending.
Edit: After reconsidering many days and many ways, I still do not think Rochester was a good man who simply blundered. He attempted an incredibly bad deception and plan on an innocent girl. It was selfish and thoughtless. And I have no reason to think he really ever changed. He finally had what he wanted so was no longer tested in the ways that led to his dishonesty so no one would be able to tell if he would have again became dishonest and even violent if he was again thwarted from what he felt he deserved.
Edit: 6/2/14
Supergran:
I will be glad to discuss Rochester more with you.
I should not have left him thus, he said, without any means of making my way: I should have told him my intention. I should have confided in him: he would never have forced me to be his mistress. Violent as he had seemed in his despair, he, in truth, loved me far too well and too tenderly to constitute himself my tyrant: he would have given me half his fortune, without demanding so much as a kiss in return, rather than I should have flung myself friendless on the wide world. I had endured, he was certain, more than I had confessed to him.
“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.
Rizdek, if only Rochester wasn't "make believe" I would force him to take a standardized intelligence test to fully satisfy you (if that's even possible). But let me just say, if you don't think he's intelligent then that's fine with me. Also, if you, along with xman, consider him a douche bag, that's also cool. We were discussing his character and he definitely is a controversial guy. As far as me continuing to act as his defender, I've been contributing my time on a pro bono basis - now I'm going to have to start getting paid. But I'm prepared to accept your judicial decision (you need not show mercy) - I will no longer plead Mr. R's case. All the testimony is in the records to be sifted over and analyzed ad nauseum, if you like - you may now cast Rochester into fictional hell. I rest my case.
shareHa, I was about to say the same thing...ie you can have your very intelligent Rochester{:
But let me clarify. I never thought he came across as UNintelligent. He comes across as intelligent, intuitive and insightful. To me, anyways, there is a difference between UNintelligent (John Reed), Intelligent (Rochester) and very intelligent (can't think of an example off the to of my head). I will gladly concede that Bronte did NOT seem to make him unintelligent.
edit: Actually there are a few characteristics that I might believe makes him above average in intelligence. 1) The fact that he was well traveled in a day and age when travel probably required substantial planning...much more so than now when helpful assistants are ready and waiting to help you at every station/port/terminal. 2) He knew at least one other language fluently...I certainly don't. 3) He did "manage" a rather large household...even if it was in absentia. Those might count for something.
And as for casting him into hell. That would do no good, hell is not for redemption but for punishment and I don't much believe in punishment for no reason...too much like revenge. Besides, I was rather enjoying discussing my views of Rochester's character with you BECAUSE you didn't seem to be making a moral judgement of his character so much as being fascinated by who he was and what he did. Actually I am also fascinated by that. Bronte did a fine job of writing a conflicted but interesting character.
But of course you all know I'm being aggressively naive.
" Bronte did a fine job of writing a conflicted but interesting character."
Hence, the timeless appeal of the story and the endless, on-going controversy. I do think it's great that, after watching nine adaptations, you've picked up the book. To me a book and a film, by their nature, are different animals, and either one needs to stand on it's own. Personally, Bronte had her hooks in me from the first couple of pages - it was her authoritative "voice" and her sharp perceptions, and definitely her conviction. See what you think. For the time being, though, I've kind of blown my wad (sore to speak) with Rochester - "I'VE written enough on him for now ... doesn't mean you can't continue to explore the subject, with Supergran or anyone else, while I recover. If something new occurs to me I won't hesitate to jump in.
If you are interested in the spiritual aspects of the story, see this writeup:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?36000-Mr-Roches ter
It focused on his treatment of Bertha, but seems to have broader application.