"In Our Time" Millington

Pros

• There were similarities between Jane and Bronte brought to light that I had not thought about before.
• Gave a more in depth view of Charlotte's life, which makes it easier to understand her writing.
• It refers to some of the themes that we have talked about in class, especially gothic and autobiographical.

Cons

• Sometimes I got lost or just didn't know what they were talking about.
• I have trouble just listening to things without being able to read them myself so I had trouble comprehending parts.

Love story?

• I enjoyed the way that described Jane and Mr. Rochester as an average love story and not a love story.  They describe him as a kind of ironic hero.  He is incredibly funny and charming.  The woman describes him as more of an archetype than an actual hero.  An archetype is a character that represents human nature.  This is interesting because to me, Rochester doesn't really seem like a hero at all.  He seems like a depressed man who gets angry when he doesn't get exactly what he wants.  So in the sense of his humor and charm he would seem like an average man in a sappy love story but in the way that he represents human nature he would not. 
• They also explain the necessity of having Jane be short and plain.  It was very important to Bronte that Jane be short and plain because Bronte herself was.  It shows simplicity, which implies honesty of character.  They believe that Jane's looks affected everything about her story, especially her love life.  The way that she thought about herself changed as she matured and fell in love.  This was interesting because I wondered why it was so significant that Jane was plain.
• This article ( http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-11/entertainment/ct-ae-0313-jane-eyre-main-20110311_1_edward-rochester-doodles-charlotte-bronte ) says that Jane Eyre is not, in fact, a love story.  I thought that it was very interesting because it says that the book is more about Jane's self-expression and respect.  

Did they get what they deserved?

• I thought it was very interesting how they brought up the fact that every character got what they deserved.  I hadn't thought about it until they mentioned it but when I did, I realized that every character who wronged Jane ended up getting injured or dying.  The people Jane didn't like ended up being punished, while Jane always ended up getting what she wanted. 
• Also they imply that all of the readers are always on Jane's side and want her to get what she wants.  I disagree with this statement because at times I felt like Jane didn't deserve what she wanted because she's the one who got herself into the messes that she needs to fix.  Most of the time I did want Jane to succeed but not always like the podcast implies.

Bertha Mason

• The part about how Bronte had to try very hard to make Bertha Mason a character that no one could sympathize with was interesting.  Jane had a very brief moment where she questioned Rochester's lack of sympathy for his wife, but that was the only time where Bertha was even briefly pitied. She had to be treated like an animal, so that no one would be able to feel sympathy for her.  There is an air of mystery surrounding  Bertha which makes her hard to relate to.  She is a foil to Jane and a way to make Rochester seem better than he really is.  At the same time though she relates to Jane because of the way that Jane was treated as a child.  So that contradiction is very thought provoking.

Overall the podcast gave me a much better understanding of the author and the characters.  It made it a lot easier to interpret certain parts of the book.  The only thing that I disliked about the podcast was that sometimes I had no idea what they were talking about but most of it was understandable.