Jane Eyre

[Diaxion]

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

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by azalea
That's the best I can do at this point with what I mean to say. :S

Nope, understood perfectly. My teacher said pretty much the same thing (the last bit). Thanks very much. It's rather interesting to read classic literature and taking note of all of those 'strange' things they did, which were probably common then.

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

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

... So he is deliberate about it, but he feels he is justified ..

Perfect! That's exactly it! Very well put- you summarised everything we discussed about him in one sentence.

She does not require any love in return from her leechee (although Miss Temple [IIRC] and eventually R. do give her something in return -- comfort, then love). That would be typical of someone like her, who is desparate to love.

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

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

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

[cassiopeia]

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

[azalea]

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

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

Yess! Another discusser!

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

[cassiopeia]

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

[azalea]

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

Originally posted by Linaewen


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with that.

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

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

[Linaewen]

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

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

That's a valid point. But it's also interesting to note that she's not immediately adverse (?) to Adele, considering her similarities to the Reed children.

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

[Earniel]

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

[azalea]

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

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

[Linaewen]

Sorry about the delayed response.

Originally posted by azalea
If Adele had been a brat, nasty, hurtful toward Jane, would Jane have stayed (for the time she did), or would it have been too painful to find herself in that same old situation of bearing the brunt of brattiness?

I believe she would have stayed. I think she would have tried to obtain control in the relationship, whereas previously it was the bratty child with power over her. Jane was maturing, and shedding her past frailties. To do so, she would have reversed her position in the relationship. Jane had already begun to lose her inclination to be submissive, right in the start of the book when she began resisting.

But then again, I'm the Ambivalent, remember?

I'll have to elaborate later, or if you see what I do, you can tell why you think as you do (or about others).

Ok, I think it'll be really interesting to see what qualities of Jane we can find in other people's characters.

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

[azalea]

Originally posted by Linaewen

I'm the Ambivalent, remember?

And I'm just ambiguous.

[sun-star]

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

Any thoughts?

[Rían]

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

[sun-star]

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

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

[Beren3000]

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