Jane Eyre

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?

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.

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.

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 *

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.

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

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. Did anyone else get strong urges to want to take him outside and beat him relentlessly with very large spikey sticks?

[sun-star]

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

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

[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.