Jane Eyre

[Linaewen]

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

Yes, that bit was quite unexpected (for me).

I have watched one version of Jane Eyre - a recent one, but can't tell you which one 'cause Amazon doesn't have it, and I forgot who was in it. Anyway, don't you think

Mr Rochester's mad wife is really weird? Sorry, that's just not the way I imagined her to be.

[azalea]

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

[Linaewen]

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

[azalea]

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

[Linaewen]

Azalea, is this the one?

Originally posted by azalea
In the book it seemed like she was almost supernatural in her madness, possessed or something.

Here are excerpts from the book: (Fortunately, I found these passages quickly: otherwise I wouldn't bother)

From Jane Eyre
Mr Rochester flung me behind him: the lunatic sprang and grappled his throat viciously; and laid her teeth to his cheek: they struggled. She was a big woman ... she showed virile force in the contest...

Mr Rochester
'That is my wife ... compare these (Jane's) clear eys with the red balls yonder- this face with that mask- this form with that bulk; then judge me, priest of the Gospel and man of the law...'

Mr Rochester
'...because no servant would bear the continued outbreaks of her violent and unreasonable temper, or the vexation of her absurd..orders...'

My emphasis added (bold letters).

[Linaewen]

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

Hehe. I liked the movie too.

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

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

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

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

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Azalea, is this the one?

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

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

Bwahaha- red eyeball mad.

Do we still need to put spoilers in this thread? I think it's pretty much us two that post in here, anyway. Anyway, I think that

It is really sad that Mr Rochester is blind - but I think it was a very interesting and unexpected twist in the story- I'd rather he be blind than not (in the end, that is)

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen

Why? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding you )

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

[Linaewen]

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

[azalea]

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

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

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

[azalea]

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

[azalea]

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

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

[azalea]

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

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

[Linaewen]

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

to demonstrate to us further Jane's "goodness" because as we know family ties at that time in England were looked upon as clues to a person's character

Would you mind elaborating on this?

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

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

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

[azalea]

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

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

Would you mind elaborating on this?

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

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

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

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

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

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

[azalea]

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