I wanted a breather after I finished the first Foreigner trilogy, ginger between the sushi courses you know, rinsing between wines ;) , and so I picked up Jane Eyre since it's on my list for this year. (also on the list is Wuthering Heights, Shirley, Villette, and the Professor; they're in an omnibus I have--- Charlotte and Emily Bronte: The Complete Novels)
I hadn't read any of the Bronte's works before, although I have read The Brontes: A Life in Letters (I highly recommend it: I give it a 5).
first I should say that I didn't really think of valentine's day coming up, or that the Bronte's novels are considered to be some of the earliest romantic novels... (although I'm pretty sure the earliest romantic tales would be attributed to Captain Blue Bear.) I just wanted a change of pace.
you'd think going from space-based sci-fi on a distant alien planet to early 19th century England romance would be a change of pace. but, really, it wasn't much of one! lol. Charlotte Bronte is quite eloquent, and the way she expresses things in writing is at times simply phenomenal. she knows how to use just the right words. and Carolyn Cherry is very much an equal in this regard. their respective texts might differ sometimes in vocabulary, but only in the necessary manner relating to differing circumstances, ie: slosh baffles vs peregrination. both Cherry and Bronte know how to pique my interest from the very beginning. both Bronte and Cherry have an unadulterated love and respect of nature which they show us through their characters' admiration of such things (and their characters' suffering at the hand of nature as well). both of these stories (the Foreigner series and Jane Eyre) involve courtesies and courtiers, lords and ladies(sometimes when Mr. Rochester was needling Jane, I could almost think it was Tabini and Bren, and vice versa). and, of course, they share a theme of finding one's place in society, or the world, or the greater scheme of things. very similar, these authors ;)
spoliers follow
the plot is quite... convenient in some regards. this is, on the one hand, Bronte deliberately setting up comparisons. so I shouldn't quibble... I suppose. but what are the chances of finding yourself at the house of your long-lost relatives just as you are about to pass away from the world? and the part about her gaining an inheritance and therefore rising up in society is very well-timed also. these things tend to rub me the wrong way. maybe I am too sensitive. maybe this is why I have never written anything substantial. I want a work to sound... authentic? and not like a deliberate effort by the author...
but setting that aside. I enjoyed it immensely up to the point where Jane left Thornfield Hall. of course I think differently from Jane Eyre, and my modern sensibilities would ill-suit her and her times. I would have pointed out to her that the clergyman had just pronounced the very words "for be ye well assured that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful." To which she might have said, yes, but Mr. Rochester married Bertha Mason in the house of God, etc etc. and then I would have said, so if Mr. Rochester had been tricked into marrying a chicken in the house of God and that marriage had been blessed by the clergyman, do you think that God himself had joined them together for life? you may now kiss your chicken?
I agree that laws are not meant to be changed when they become inconvenient, but I would have argued to better understand the spirit of the law.
of course I come from a time of casual divorce when none think of being struck down by The Creator, and a time when if your marriage partner dies or, um, goes insane, then the church will usually let you remarry with a clean conscience. and Jane did not. goodness.
that whole business with St. John really rubbed me the wrong way, but I know that it was just a contrast between him and Mr. Rochester. still... she actually came close to agreeing! what a thought! at one point I said to myself, if she agrees then I'm going to regret ever reading this story at all---would that I could go back and never pick it up. then I remind myself that Charlotte Bronte is also contrasting choosing a life for love and choosing one for devotion to God (or something of the sort), but the circumstances were so wrong that it still rankles. she wanted it to rankle me; she succeeded! lol
one could very well guess that the first wife would come to an end, if not so soon then even years in the future, and that Jane would then return. it would have been unthinkable otherwise; it would have been that Jane's feelings or Mr. Rochester's were untrue, or that time had changed them too much and it was too late.
to have Mr. Rochester blinded and moderately disabled rubbed me the wrong way... but that was also forseeable since the whole "judgement of God" idea was so pervasive in the story (in Bronte's society). still, it rankles. one wishes that not to have happened; it changed so much. I would rather not have been so harsh on the fellow; he'd not been a murderer or something; he had a good heart. just temporarily losing Jane and going through that anguish was hard enough on him. to lose his estate and his sight and his strength too? he might have been *temporarily* blinded etc since he did confess that it was only when he was blinded that he realized how proud he was and how he needed to humble himself before God. and yes he gained part of the sight in one eye back after 2 years and could almost see his baby... that's not what I mean! that seems still so severe. again, he was not a serial killer, and he was wronged himself. eh but that's divine retribution for you.
I have to remind myself, an unspoken moral is that if Jane had stayed with Mr. Rochester, likely she might have died, if indeed she'd been asleep at the time that Bertha had lit the fire in Jane's bed! which I also think is too harsh lol but then I should try to understand what Bertha might feel if she ever has moments of lucidity.
and it was symbolic how she was raised in class and he was humbled, by their corresponding judgement of God, to a more-equal level where marriage was not unthinkable by their society. still, it rankles. why do they have to be made "more equal"? those positions in society are assigned by birth, not merit, and if you know me you know that I do not recognize worth by class.
eh but I think the ideas are to be expected of their times, and that the writing is a 4.
my favorite quote:
"Pity, Jane, from some people is a noxious and insulting sort of tribute, which one is justified in hurling back the teeth of those who offer it; but that is a sort of pity native to callous, selfish hearts; it is a hybrid, egotistical pain at hearing of woes, crossed with ignorant comtempt for those who have endured them. ..."
my favorite part was the gypsy woman :)
No comments:
Post a Comment