Hol

Someone at my book club mentioned this and said that Jane Eyre was what every woman wants. I assumed by this she meant that she viewed it as a love story. I would disagree with that. I saw the romantic element as being only one thread in a diverse narrative which comprised of themes such as abuse, feminism and poverty. If I had to choose I would say that feminism was the theme that resonated the most with me, but I was also struck by the contrast between the poor and wealthy. It just so happens that I’m reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists at the moment and this highlighted the stark contrast.

There seems little point in me narrating the story as I assume that by this point everyone knows it. What I will say is that even though I enjoyed it and appreciated the feminist aspect (which was far and away ahead of its time) there were some things that I thought slightly ridiculous. A full review of this seems redundant as there are already so many, so I’ll concentrate on those aspects I found unrealistic and comparatively the very strong points.

Firstly there was Jane’s reaction to what amounted to nothing less than abuse by Mrs. Fairfax. Emotional abuse or neglect is something which is very painful. Despite the magnitude of this Jane remained wilful. There is an argument for the fact that Jane had Bessie, but this relationship was scant at best and certainly not enough to sustain a young child. A child will often go to extreme lengths to secure love, so I found it unbelievable that she remained so wilful. Of course it’s something to be praised, remaining true to yourself. It also set the tone for the rest of the novel, but I did find it a bit unbelievable.

When Jane was an inhabitant of Lowood she met a girl called Helen. The way that Helen spoke was laughable as it was so mature. I can see people getting angry already, but that won’t affect the fact that I didn’t like Helen much. I don’t like passive characters, regardless of their age. Her strength as a character was how she reflected Jane. The relationship between Mr. Rochester and Jane was fraught with angst and as such was satisfying. I’ll admit that I wanted Jane to submit to Mr. Rochester’s demand that she be his mistress, but only because I wanted them to be happy. Of course the fact that she didn’t is one of the chief reasons why this book has such feminist ties and why its lasted and will continue too. That Jane never sacrificed her beliefs or standards for the sake of happiness was at once both laudable and depressing to me. Laudable in the fact she had deep respect for herself and depressing as she had to sacrifice happiness due to societal norms. People would argue this was her own belief, but isn’t most every belief shaped by what is considered acceptable at the time? Unless of course the person is a visionary.

The disparity between the rich and poor was an aspect of this novel that deserves attention. This was highlighted when Jane ran from Mr. Rochester’s home. A part of the novel that was quite depressing, it really helped inform my understanding of the difference in living standards between the lucky privileged few and the poor.

Towards the end of the novel I thought Jane would marry John River. This section of the novel where John refused over and over again to accept Jane’s refusal of his offer of marriage amounted to nothing more than emotional manipulation when he started spouting God’s will as a reason they should be married. I lost a little respect for Jane here when I thought she'd submit, but it was regained when she re-joined Mr. Rochester at the end. A perfect ending.