- Did bring great insight to the backstory of Charlotte Bronte
- Described Rochester in detail, which I enjoyed listening to.
- You can tell the professors knew what they were talking about!
Cons:
- Spent a little too much time on Charlotte Bronte's backstory instead of Jane Eyre
- Slight feedback of one of their mic's felt distracting
- As much as I love listening to accents, sometimes I'm trying to understand them and I just... can't!
What I found interesting right off the bat is the description of Rochester in the way of a typical romance novel. The professor describes him as a type of character, rather than a new original character. Rochester is described as having a mysterious sinful past that we aren't fully shown until the tail end of the novel. He has a sense of playfulness in his dialogue, which itself added more character to him as a whole. This is shown to be a general archetype of romance men.
When we first met Mr. Rochester, I had honestly just considered him a thought of him as a plot point for Bronte to pivot off of for the story. I'm not saying this is what he actually was, I'm saying this is how I thought of him at the time. But once I got more exposure to this man, I couldn't help but absolutely adore this character. Yet I can see what the professor was saying. Having a character like this makes him more relatable for readers, since this type of character may be in several other romance novels during this time period.
Although I enjoy Mr. Rochester (he is by far my favorite character in this book), I don't know what to think of the final chapters of the book. Did he really deserve the girl in the end? Did he deserve to get forgiven for lying to Jane Eyre? I am personally iffy. I feel like he should have told her from the beginning, even if that means Jane running off. Yet that wouldn't make a very satisfying book, would it?
To start, Mr. Rochester is also my favorite character. I think he deserved Jane in the end. First of all, he took in Adele when he knew that he might not be his. Yes, he did this because of his sin for what he did to his wife, but it still contributes. He also ended up losing a hand and his sight (for some time) so that also makes up for his sins. I think he also deserved to be forgiven for lying, because I'm sure that everyone has lied about something. It's always right to be forgiven, because it helps the other person (Jane) to let go of this grudge. Yet, I do think he should have just told her in the beginning just go avoid this conflict now.
ReplyDeleteI think Jane could have been perfectly happy with a tragic ending as well. A "satisfying book" is one where the reader is, not necessarily happy with the events, but proud of the character and what they stand for. For example, Bronte could have had Jane marry and become Rochester's mistress, but that would ruin the entire book because the reader would not longer be proud of Jane's independence and passion. Rather Jane, instead of having a happy ending and going back to Thornfield, could have died a begger, could have died as a child when Mrs. Reed kicked her out, could have lived lonely as a governess. And the book would still be satisfying because Jane could still retain the readers respect. I think that Bronte put he happy ending in place to help her book sell better, and also to show readers that what she is suggesting is not impossible, but rather probable with a good chance of a happy ending, even if there may not have been at the time.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't like Rochester. Throughout the novel, I've found myself questioning why Jane is so fond of him. She's represented as a woman with strong morals, shown when she leaves Rochester. Going back to him right after 'the other woman' is out of the picture just seems cliché and weak in character to me. The end of the novel doesn't follow the pattern of the rest of it. I agree with you when you say Rochester should have told her right at the beginning, maybe if that were the case then I would like him more.
ReplyDeleteWow, this post has sparked some great discussion. Rochester is definitely a debatable character. I still can't decide if I like him or not. As for Jane returning to him, I find this quite realistic, as it shows their deep connection. However, I am glad when she does go back to him she has more power and money than him because then it is as if he needs her rather than the other way around. Relationships rely on a balance, and if one has more power than the other then it can be detrimental. Yet, at the time this book was written, men typically had the upper hand in most things. Bronte puts a twist by having it end with Jane being financially sound and Rochester being disabled and without anything. Thus, for me, it is more believable than if she had been his mistress or married St. John (yuck).
ReplyDelete