Jane Eyre and Boys

[Janice in NJ]

OK. No flames please. K?

 

But I'm reading Jane Eyre - Actually I've been reading it for over two months. I can appreciate plenty of things when it comes to her literary style; my copy of the text is full of notes. But sheesh; overall, this book is a real yawner! :thumbdown:

 

... I realize that it MIGHT get better. I'm in the middle of chapter 33. St. John has just told Jane that he is her cousin. Like I didn't see THAT one coming. What a boring book! I'm having a hard time appreciating the writing because of all of the sappy violin music that's playing in the background of EVERY single scene!!!!!

 

Anyway. I'll keep reading. But - tell me.... should I make a motor-head boy read this book or can it be avoided entirely? If I do make him read it, he is going to have a field day making fun of nearly every single bit of it! And honestly... I just don't want to hear it - mostly because I suspect that I'll agree with him... AND I don't want to spoil it for my daughter because I suspect that she might like the book... hmmm... not sure how I feel about that!

 

So lay it on me. Boys and this book?

... and feel free to clunk me over the head if you like the book! :smash:

... Because I totally understand that sometimes I'm a bit of a dolt. What am I missing here?

 

THANKS!

Janice

[cajun.classical]

Well....

 

I wrote my thesis on Jane Eyre, so I'm a bit fond of the book ;) As far as whether or not a boy would like the book, I taught Jane Eyre to my AP English class and the boys loved it. They even took it with them on a camping trip and stayed up all night reading it out loud to each other!

 

Now, their enjoyment of the book was undoubtedly increased by my own enthusiasm about it and my discussion with them before they read the book. If you strongly dislike the book, your son may not enjoy it either. I always tried to set the stage with my students about what to expect and to give them a framework of interpretation.

 

You don't have to like it. I remember one lit professor telling me that people either like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights but not usually both. Me? I don't like Wuthering Heights. Maybe you'd prefer that one.

[CookieMonster]

I don't know what to tell ya about whether to make your son slog through it.

 

I'm just surprised you find it so boring. :confused:

 

I loved it. I still love it. Then again, I am a strong Christian and I identified closely with Jane Eyre. I didn't find it sappy at all.

 

Maybe you're expecting too much from the book. I find that whenever I turn my nose up at a book/movie/story it's because I'm usually expecting it to meet expectations it was never set up for. If I consciously lower/change my expectations, I actually find myself enjoying what wit there is to be had. My Dh has taught me to appreciate both books and movies I previously would have found boring or stupid. I might still think they're not worth much, but I do enjoy them much more than I would have.

 

Just my thoughts...take what you will...

[LisaNY]

I read Jane Eyre last year. I didn't think it was a yawner - I liked it well enough. I don't think I'd make a boy sit through it though, unless he showed a propensity for that kind of literature. Is it on the TOG list for D level? How about Great Expectations instead? There *is* a bit of humor in this one, if you like the dry, English sort. Another suggestion would be Frankenstein, but I have not read that one, so others can advise as to whether or not it would be appropriate for D level students.

[Janice in NJ]

Why is this such a great book? Is it the ending? When I get there will I change my mind and decide that I love it?

 

...because right now I just want to shake Jane and tell her to knock it off! She's really ticking me off! All of this concern about Rochester's well-being coupled with the personal self-denial thing with little to no focus on the emotions that are tied to having your soul ripped from you is just too plastic for me. OK - maybe I get it. Maybe someone who has never had stability feels no pain when the hope of stability is removed; no hole can be felt because the hole was never previously filled with anything. You can not lose something that you never had. But honestly the whole thing is starting to flatten into a two dimensional world that won't allow me to insert my emotions anywhere anymore. I'm just not allowed to care; there is nothing to care about! It's like the characters don't need me anymore. Everything I try to feel bounces back to me; it's as if Jane's vanilla world can't reflect anything back into mine.

 

I suspect that it's because I WANT something that I'm getting nothing. FIRST mistake of an uneducated reader, eh? I know that I'm supposed to look for what an author is offering - not for what I want. But I'm losing interest here.

 

HELP!!! Toss me a line. Pretty please!

[Janice in NJ]

...and maybe I will just wait and let them read it with someone who likes the book.

 

That way they will never have to find out that I don't like it.... that is if ya'll promise to keep my dark secret.

 

But I REALLY am open to a leg-up here. I'd like to know what the buzz is about... off to Wikipedia I guess. Looking forward to your input as I suspect that your comments will mean a LOT more - I trust you guys!

[pmegan]

I'm not a big fan of it, for the reasons you state. As far as I'm concerned, it's main purpose is as a prime example of the Gothic novel. Since the Gothic Novel was pretty much the most popular type of novel for about a half-century, and influenced so much literature since, I think it's worth reading.

 

Maybe try to posit it as a comedic novel? I know it's not, but it's just so... campy. Every turn gets a bit more ridiculous :tongue_smilie:

[LisaNY]

Maybe you're expecting too much from the book. I find that whenever I turn my nose up at a book/movie/story it's because I'm usually expecting it to meet expectations it was never set up for. If I consciously lower/change my expectations, I actually find myself enjoying what wit there is to be had. My Dh has taught me to appreciate both books and movies I previously would have found boring or stupid. I might still think they're not worth much, but I do enjoy them much more than I would have.

 

That is good advice! :001_smile:

[Janice in NJ]

Yes. That is good advice. I guess. But I'm still sad. I really wanted to like this book. A lot!

I finished reading The Scarlet Letter this spring. Yup. Never read it before. Bummer, huh? (I meant what I said when I indicated that my humanities education was a joke! I wasn't kidding!) Anyway - The Scarlet Letter - I LOVED IT! I really, really liked the book. Hours of staring into space - thought and more thought. Layers and layers of wondering about LOTS of things.

... so I thought I would try a popular British novel that I've never read ...

flat. nothing to think about. except what could be there. if it was. but it just isn't. there just doesn't seem to be anything for me to grab on to. no one is struggling - at least not in the way that seems like a struggle to me. things are just happening to them. I just don't feel the tension of the human condition that I WANT to feel.

 

But I hear ya'. It is unfair to come to a book with expectations. But I am bummin' here. I really wanted to LOVE this book. Now I don't even think that I like it.

My pencil and I are heading upstairs now. Maybe I can finish it tonight. If I don't fall asleep.

 

HELP! Really - it is a sincere cry for a leg-up. Can you link me to a "why this book is the best book ever" blurp somewhere on the net?

[Liza Q]

I read Jane Eyre last year. I didn't think it was a yawner - I liked it well enough. I don't think I'd make a boy sit through it though, unless he showed a propensity for that kind of literature. Is it on the TOG list for D level? How about Great Expectations instead? There *is* a bit of humor in this one, if you like the dry, English sort. Another suggestion would be Frankenstein, but I have not read that one, so others can advise as to whether or not it would be appropriate for D level students.

 

I absolutely love Jane Eyre (first read it when I was about 16) and both my daughters love it as well. But - I agree with Lisa. You can assign him Frankenstein or some Dickens. Or Ivanhoe, Silas Marner, maybe Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - all British 19th Century titles. Maybe Captain's Courageous - American story but a British author - might work...CC is an awesome book!

 

And I agree with whoever said that you may like Wuthering Heights if you dislike JE (I personally HATE WH, so it holds true for me!)

[LizzyBee]

You don't have to like it. I remember one lit professor telling me that people either like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights but not usually both. Me? I don't like Wuthering Heights. Maybe you'd prefer that one.

 

Confirmation that I'm weird - I like them both. :D

[naturalmom]

because I just saw the movie, and really enjoyed it. I think Jane has depth of character, and deals with her emotions internally. I see some good examples for honoring God even when it tears our hearts apart to do so.

 

I can't tell you the other reasons I like it until you've read all of it:) My 14yo son really liked the movie - so maybe start with the movie for your son. If he can't stand the movie, he probably won't like the book.

[Kathleen in VA]

I tried reading Jane Eyre because my 15yo daughter begged me to read it. I liked what I was able to get through, but having seen several versions of it in film it was kind of hard to slow down the pace to reading as opposed to watching and actually enjoy it.

 

I think the main premise of the story is that Jane chooses to do what is right regardless of what her emotions are screaming at her.

 

I just finished listening to an audio message on suffering by Elisabeth Elliot at blueletterbible.com. She points out that in the "olden days" people strove for good, and in our present age we strive for happiness.

 

I think Jane Eyre shows us that when you choose good over what seems to offer happiness, you will eventually find both and this kind of happiness is distilled to its purest and most delightful form because it enjoys a clear conscience at its core.

 

My sons, 19 and 20, both enjoyed the film versions, but I never required them to read it. These two enjoyed books such as Ivanhoe, The Talisman, and Dickens.

 

There certainly is much for a young man to learn about how NOT to behave with a young lady in Jane Eyre. For that reason, it may be a good read for a young man especially if you are up for discussions about how Mr. Rochester failed Jane morally speaking. Then again, those discussions could easily be inspired by a viewing of one the many film versions available - a lot less painless I suppose.

[cajun.classical]

Okay, I just woke up, and my head is groggy. I'll post a few thoughts and try to post again tomorrow when my thoughts are more in order.

 

First, I'll say that it won't get any better (as far as you are concerned). There is no ending that will make it fall together for you. What it sounds like is that you might be expecting the novel to be something it's not. How much Victorian literature have you read? There is a serious question because I think to get the novel you have to understand what Bronte was saying in the larger context of the Victorian novel.

 

So, my starting point in studying literature is always to find out what type of work I'm reading so that I know what to expect of it. This keeps me from bringing unfair expectations to my reading. And second, I find out as much as I can about the time period the work is written in. These works are contributing to a larger discussion of issues and themes of their time--issues that might not immediately click with us as modern readers.

 

So, what type of book is Jane Eyre? Well, I would hesitate to call it a gothic novel as someone suggested, although it does have gothic elements as does Wuthering Heights. The gothic novel was already past its prime in 1803 when Jane Austen satirized it in Northanger Abbey. Jane Eyre was written in 1847, placing it at the beginning of the Victorian period. The book is sort of a combination of both the Romantic period and the Victorian period. You see the themes and techniques of both throughout the work.

 

As far as themes and motifs, check out Sparknotes, they present a nice overview of some of the themes of the book. I wrote my thesis on both the structure of the book;--it's a female bildungsroman ( a novel of development)--and the theme of women's roles.

 

The basic idea is that Victorian society had some very specific views about women. Almost every Victorian novel deals with the Fallen Woman in some way. I think you can only understand Jane's struggle if you understand what Victorian society thought about women.

 

I'm tired, and what the Victorians thought of women is a rather involved and complex topic, so I'll leave it alone for now. But I'll say this: Jane wants to become a good woman, despite numerous and serious obstacles. As a friendless orphan and then later as a governess, she has no protection against the dangers presented to her. Many many governesses ended up Fallen Women, seduced by their employers and then cast off. This was the worst thing that could happen to a Victorian girl and it was common. There are echoes of this throughout the book: characters warning Jane not to fancy Rochester because men don't marry their governesses and because Rochester already has an illegitimate daughter. He's a real threat to her. But she longs for love and personal happiness and she allows herself to fall for Rochester and then he proposes. Seems like her dream is come true. But it turns out to be a nightmare. Rochester is already marry. Her worst fear is realized. Rochester will make her a fallen woman!

 

And so she flees from him, and runs right into the arms of St. John Rivers. He's the opposite of Rochester, who is all brooding passion. St. John is all self-controlled duty. Now, I don't know how far you are and I don't want to spoil the ending. But Bronte sets up a conflict here for Jane. Does being moral and good mean being passionless? Does she have to be unhappy and unfeeling to be moral? What does it mean to be a good woman? Because what Victorian society taught was that passion in women was immoral and dangerous. A good girl doesn't feel those things! Not even toward her husband!

 

The way Bronte resolves this conflict is quite interesting and socially revolutionary. That's where the true interest of the book lies for me. I spend a lot of time talking with my students about Victorian views of women, which are fascinating. Prominent doctors offered "scientific" evidence to support their assertions about women. Some of this stuff would really shock you. Good girls didn't feel passion. Queen Victoria herself famously advised her daughter on her wedding night to "close your eyes and think of England." So when Bronte offers St. John, boring as he is, he's the socially acceptable "good" alternative for Jane. This is supposed to be what she should want. Only she doesn't!

 

Once you've finished reading it, I can say more.

[Janice in NJ]

Angelina,

 

OK. So I woke up early and finished the book.

 

The ending did help. I didn't see the whole maimed in the fire thing coming. There was just something about all of the destitute wandering around and the coming upon Moor House - followed by the recovery, the employment, and then the inheritance... I was really starting to NOT care! Way to much coincidence; too many loose ends bundled together in soldier-like fashion for me. I guess I can see now WHY Bronte flattened things; she had a lot of plot to develop in order to interest the reader in her climax; but it seemed to me that she just cranked through it. It's as if she dropped back from something; it really was a bit of a slodge for me. Maybe that was part of her point, eh? Life between the Rochester parts is just a bunch of flat nothing! :D:D

 

Thanks for the leg-up with the whole fallen woman, close-your-eyes-and-think-of-England thing. Really, thanks - I THINK I see it now. Makes more sense.

 

But I still don't think I like Rochester. And I don't think I like Jane for preferring him. Although I would have like her less if she had wandered off with St. John. So I guess she was just in a no-win situation as far as gaining my empathy.

 

And the whole Christian-duty thing really sours my stomach. As a Christian, I'm not supposed to like this novel, am I?

 

Seriously though - thanks, Angelina! I read your post and decided to finish the book. Please forgive if I don't dive into Wuthering Heights right away. I think I'll read a bit of Hawking or Penrose as a breather! ;)

 

Looking forward to hearing more of your comments!

 

Peace,

Janice

[cajun.classical]

Ooh, there's so much that I want to say. I've got a 50-page paper here I'd just love to talk about :D.

 

But I'll just give a couple of thoughts on the ending. First, Rochester isn't just maimed. He's lost his eyes and his hand. What do the Scriptures say? If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Rochester has been punished/purified for his sins. He's a new man now.

 

But when Jane returns to him, she doesn't know any of this. She returns because SHE has changed. She rejects St. John and the passionless life he offers. This is death to her. As an aside, Bronte does such a great job developing all this. What does the Rivers family represent and offer Jane symbolically. Well, his name is SAINT John and his sisters are Mary and Diana, the Christian and Pagan symbols of virginity! It's pretty clear what kind of Jane is being offered here. But she rejects it. This is a huge social comment.

 

So she returns to Rochester, finds him in this new humble state and the roles are now reversed. Whereas previously he was the aggressor in the relationship, and played games with her to make her jealous, now she is in control. She teases him and playfully flirts, kissing and petting him. She arouses his jealousy by leading him to believe she's with St. John now.

 

Now, obviously her new financial independence plays a huge role here. So is no longer dependent on Rochester for her livelihood. This definitely changes things for her. And she famously writes, Reader, I married him. Two things about that statement: 1. it's active,not passive. Just like the new Jane. 2.She places herself between the reader and Rochester. She will not accept who the reader (society) wants her to be, nor the fallen woman that Rochester tried to make her. There's that great line where she tells Rochester, I will not be your English Celine Varens! She won't be his mistress even if it's a technicality.

 

I think Jane/Bronte carves out a third option for womanhood here; the pure and passionate wife, which I think is a very Christian idea. The marriage bed is holy, not defiling, Scripture says. The Victorians were really quite gnostic about female s*xuality. They thought men were base, s*xual creatures and women were spiritual creatures. Women were to "save" men through their higher spiritual influence. That's a simplification of a pretty complex issue. Interestingly, this is the argument that suffragists used to get women the right to vote in England: that the country needed the spiritual leadership of women.

 

Now Victorian readers totally got that Bronte was challenging their view of womanhood. Reviewers declared the book to be "dangerous." Others like George Eliot, thought that she didn't go far enough in her criticism of society and so she wrote The Mill on the Floss, which is a double bildungsroman that deals with the same issues. I wrote my thesis on this book too ;). Love those Victorians!

 

Hope this helps some. I haven't thought about Jane Eyre in years and now you've got me all excited about it again. Fun. Fun.

 

Don't feel bad about not liking it. It's okay. I was turned off by some of the description and gothic elements too. To understand what's going on there, Bronte uses nature as a Mother figure for Jane. Often the moon leads Jane out of danger, etc. Nature is a big theme in Victorian literature, particularly gardens, but that's another topic.

[homewithtrinity]

My son just finished the book. But I had him watch a version of the movie two months ago knowing the book was coming. Since he remembered the movie ever so slightly, it made it easier to read the book quickly. Upon finishing, he wanted to watch the movie again. This made it easy for me to assign a paper comparing the two.

[Zoraida]

See if your library has a copy of The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde. Than supplement this book with Jane Eyre. Your son will problably love The Eyre Affair. This is a sci/fi mystery novel that takes place in an alternate universe very similiar to our own. In this world the police force has a literary detective department where the police solve literary crimes. In this book an evil guy steals a machine that allows him to jump into books. He jumps into Jane Eyre and kidnaps her. So its up to the literary department to find the evil guy and to find Jane Eyre so that they can put her back into her book. Jasper Fforde has written about five books in this series which all involve a literary plot line. His main detective is a lady named Thursday Next (love that name). Another book in the series is First Among Sequels where an evil guy takes books and makes them into reality book shows. Pride and Prejudice becomes the reality show The Bennets.

 

Jasper Fforde also has another series that takes place in nursury land. In this series the main detective is Jack Spratt and his side kick Mary Mary Quite Contrary. In the first book of the series The Big Over Easy - Jack has to solve the mystery of Humpty Dumpty's death. Was it suicide or did someone push him off his wall. All of Jasper Fforde's books are fun quick reads and are suitable for young adults.

 

Blessings

 

Zoraida

[CookieMonster]

Jane wants to become a good woman, despite numerous and serious obstacles. As a friendless orphan and then later as a governess, she has no protection against the dangers presented to her. Many many governesses ended up Fallen Women, seduced by their employers and then cast off. This was the worst thing that could happen to a Victorian girl and it was common. There are echoes of this throughout the book: characters warning Jane not to fancy Rochester because men don't marry their governesses and because Rochester already has an illegitimate daughter. He's a real threat to her.

 

I did not know this. Wow.

 

She places herself between the reader and Rochester. She will not accept who the reader (society) wants her to be, nor the fallen woman that Rochester tried to make her.

 

Yes! That is what I liked, she didn't choose either of the two awful choices before her.

 

I think Jane/Bronte carves out a third option for womanhood here; the pure and passionate wife, which I think is a very Christian idea. The marriage bed is holy, not defiling, Scripture says.

 

Yes. This is what I got from the book too. (That St. John was no saint. I detested the way He misrepresented God.)

[naturalmom]

I didn't make the connections with Victorian womanhood, but I did see Jane as a picture of grace in Rochester's life, and the novel bringing about Rochester's redemption. At first, he seems indifferent to her, because he knows so many more worldly things. She seems naive. But more and more he sees that through her acceptance and non-judgement of him, there is a path for him to return to goodness and life. But, fallen man that he is, he is still tormented by past sins, and has evidences of them in his life - some open for all to see, and others hidden away (though they can't stay hidden). In the end, he has lost everything, and Jane has gained all - a possible marriage, a fortune, a family...but she chooses him and proves the strength of her love. Now he is finally free of the consequences of past sin. But I very much see the torment that a man can experience because of a bad life. I think it demonstrates that there is still hope for people who feel overwhelmed by the weight of their sin, and unable to be free of it.

 

It's interesting that, without thinking about the Victorian issues of womanhood, I saw Jane in that pure spiritual role. But I missed the meaning of John & his sisters. I haven't read that far, though - I saw the whole movie, but I'm only up to where the previous marriage has been discovered.

 

Thanks so much for sharing all that wealth of insight and information, cajun.classical! And Zoraida, I'll be looking for the Jasper Fforde books. They sound fun.

[cajun.classical]

See what you all have started!:D I can't stop thinking about Jane Eyre now. Let me discuss one more scene to make my point about the themes in the book.

 

After Jane becomes engaged, a lot of anxiety and tension builds up as the wedding approaches. She actually says, "The month of courtship has wasted; its very last hours were being numbered. There was no putting off the day that advanced--the bridal day." This hardly sounds like an excited bride-to-be. On some level she is dreading the approaching day, or perhaps really dreading the approaching wedding night.

 

During this time, Bertha Rochester starts up with her antics. Bertha as a symbol is fascinating. She represents unrestrained passion, which led to madness. Victorian doctors believed this: female s*xuality was dangerous. So, Jane's got all this anxiety building about the wedding and we've got the madwoman in the attic symbolizing this anxiety. What does Bertha do? Well, she sets Rochester's bed on fire. Hmm? Pretty strong symbol there, right? Then she rips up Jane's bridal veil. Well, the bridal veil is a symbol of the hymen. When the groom lifts the veil, it is a symbolic deflowering of the bride. (I got of all this from reading books about wedding traditions. very interesting stuff.) So for Bertha to rip up the veil makes the event violent. So, we've got Rochester's bed on fire and a ripped up veil to represent the anxiety that Jane is going through. She fears that she will become a Bertha if she doesn't keep her passions in check. The connection between Jane and Bertha is made throughout the book. The most obvious connection being that they are both locked into red rooms--red symbolizing passion.

 

She starts to push Rochester away. She won't be alone with him. She refuses his attempts to lavish jewels on her, etc. So, all this tension builds up and then the revelation comes that Rochester is married. Her anxiety is realized: he would make her a fallen woman.

 

It's in this context that she flees to St. John. She runs away from passion only to discover that needs it. She hates passionlessness and so she returns to Rochester.

 

I really like this book. Can you tell?

This is fun. Thanks for getting my brain going this morning.

[Karenciavo]

Wow Janice, you and I have completely opposite takes on the character of Jane. This woman is having her soul ripped out of her and despite that she is not giving in to her passions, she is doing what she knows is right, no matter the cost. She knows Rochester is not as strong as she is and she's worried that he did something rash after she left. She loves him. Maybe I'm not understanding what is ticking you off?

 

As far as having your son read it, I don't find it necessary, but I do think chapter 27 provides excellent material for discussion that I wouldn't want to miss.

 

Karen

 

 

Why is this such a great book? Is it the ending? When I get there will I change my mind and decide that I love it?

 

...because right now I just want to shake Jane and tell her to knock it off! She's really ticking me off! All of this concern about Rochester's well-being coupled with the personal self-denial thing with little to no focus on the emotions that are tied to having your soul ripped from you is just too plastic for me. OK - maybe I get it. Maybe someone who has never had stability feels no pain when the hope of stability is removed; no hole can be felt because the hole was never previously filled with anything. You can not lose something that you never had. But honestly the whole thing is starting to flatten into a two dimensional world that won't allow me to insert my emotions anywhere anymore. I'm just not allowed to care; there is nothing to care about! It's like the characters don't need me anymore. Everything I try to feel bounces back to me; it's as if Jane's vanilla world can't reflect anything back into mine.

 

I suspect that it's because I WANT something that I'm getting nothing. FIRST mistake of an uneducated reader, eh? I know that I'm supposed to look for what an author is offering - not for what I want. But I'm losing interest here.

 

HELP!!! Toss me a line. Pretty please!

[Karenciavo]

And the whole Christian-duty thing really sours my stomach. As a Christian, I'm not supposed to like this novel, am I?

 

Why is that?

[Janice in NJ]

Printing Here. Thanks! Duh to me - didn't catch all of that, but thanks! THANKS for taking the time to type it all up. And please add more when you think of it. I'll be watching for it and printing.

 

And THANKS! A big thanks! OK - so maybe I like this book after all.

 

THANKS for the leg-up,

Janice :001_smile:

 

...still don't think I like Rochester though ... or Jane either. But I think I might like the book. :D

[Janice in NJ]

That notion of "Christian duty" vs. passion just irks me. God has repeatedly encouraged me to eradicate luke-warm from my personality; I think that it's a golden, golden command. Precious. The life of a Christian is the most passion-FILLED existence I have EVER known. AND it's the most amazing form of passion I have ever known - the kind that makes you just stand in the sunshine, thrown your arms wide open, tilt your chin high with your face toward the heavens, and then just bask in the glory of the warmth and the wonder. What an amazing, fulfilling existence. Beyond my wildest dreams!

 

Somehow I just think that notion of coupling following Christ with a life of tepid "duty" is one of the biggest lies out there.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Nissi]

Angelina, Wow! Thank you. I have always liked Jane Eyre, but you have helped me see all the layers of meaning underneath. I am inspired to read the book again. You should write a study guide. Thanks, again.

Nissi

[Karenciavo]

If Jane had married St. John I could see you being ticked. Jane is passionate and doing what is right despite "feelings" is not a life of tepid duty. I don't know what you would require or expect of a 19th century woman. She wants a full life, she's not settling, ever. If she were how you seem to see her she would never have left Lowood.

 

Karen

 

 

That notion of "Christian duty" vs. passion just irks me. God has repeatedly encouraged me to eradicate luke-warm from my personality; I think that it's a golden, golden command. Precious. The life of a Christian is the most passion-FILLED existence I have EVER known. AND it's the most amazing form of passion I have ever known - the kind that makes you just stand in the sunshine, thrown your arms wide open, tilt your chin high with your face toward the heavens, and then just bask in the glory of the warmth and the wonder. What an amazing, fulfilling existence. Beyond my wildest dreams!

 

Somehow I just think that notion of coupling following Christ with a life of tepid "duty" is one of the biggest lies out there.

[Kathleen in VA]

I feel like Charlie Brown in a newspaper cartoon I read once.

Charlie, Linus and Lucy are lying comfortably on their backs on a grassy hill watching fluffy white clouds float by on a warm summer afternoon. Lucy suggests they all look for "things" in the clouds.

 

Linus says something like, "Well, I see a profile of Abraham Lincoln, the Andromeda galaxy, and what seems to be an original Gutenberg Press (or something along those lines.)

 

Lucy says, "How about you Charlie Brown, what do you see?" to which he replies, "I was going to say I see a ducky and a horsey, but never mind."

 

All that to say, reading this thread has been a fascinating eye-opener. Makes me wish I were in college English again studying Jane Eyre. Thanks for all the extra insight into the symbolism ladies - absolutely intriguing!!

 

Kathleen in VA

www.homeschoolblogger.com/lavendersblue

[naturalmom]

isn't just passion or no passion. Jane is working hard to control her passion, and keep it where it belongs. If passion ruled, she would go with Rochester. But what you call duty could also be called morality, or holiness even. She subdues that passion only where it could lead to immorality and sin.

[Janice in NJ]

I'm not ticked at Jane - just Bronte, I guess. Actually I'm not really ticked at anybody! :001_smile: Really - I'm not!

 

The reality? Tough morning here. Money juggling. I HATE it when we have the money to do the things we need/want to do BECAUSE I'm a good girl about being dutiful in that respect and relatively DISpassionate :lol: BUT because of the way the current financial system is set up in this country, BEING responsible means that you have to be relatively cash poor all of the time .... so I got to spend the morning playing with + and - signs in order to make sure that the + signs and the - signs were all on the right order. TENSION CENTRAL! which of course means that I didn't get to teach anyone anything. THAT'S what really irks me. When "responsibility" dictates that I abandon MY primary objective.

 

Jane? Rochester? I don't really care THAT much about them. I was really hoping that ya'll would help me care about the book. THANKS for that! I really did want to care. I did want to find something there to like beyond her sentences. I KNEW that I could count on ya'll! THANKS! :grouphug:

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Jan P.]

I didn't make my ds read Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice. I keep hoping his girlfriend will get him to read these books! However, he might have to read them in college. He's there now, so I'm out of the loop in telling him what to read.

 

Jan

[vmsurbat]

See what you all have started!:D I can't stop thinking about Jane Eyre now. Let me discuss one more scene to make my point about the themes in the book.

 

After Jane becomes engaged, a lot of anxiety and tension builds up as the wedding approaches. She actually says, "The month of courtship has wasted; its very last hours were being numbered. There was no putting off the day that advanced--the bridal day." This hardly sounds like an excited bride-to-be. On some level she is dreading the approaching day, or perhaps really dreading the approaching wedding night.

 

During this time, Bertha Rochester starts up with her antics. Bertha as a symbol is fascinating. She represents unrestrained passion, which led to madness. Victorian doctors believed this: female s*xuality was dangerous. So, Jane's got all this anxiety building about the wedding and we've got the madwoman in the attic symbolizing this anxiety. What does Bertha do? Well, she sets Rochester's bed on fire. Hmm? Pretty strong symbol there, right? Then she rips up Jane's bridal veil. Well, the bridal veil is a symbol of the hymen. When the groom lifts the veil, it is a symbolic deflowering of the bride. (I got of all this from reading books about wedding traditions. very interesting stuff.) So for Bertha to rip up the veil makes the event violent. So, we've got Rochester's bed on fire and a ripped up veil to represent the anxiety that Jane is going through. She fears that she will become a Bertha if she doesn't keep her passions in check. The connection between Jane and Bertha is made throughout the book. The most obvious connection being that they are both locked into red rooms--red symbolizing passion.

 

 

 

Bear with me; I majored in math. I've really enjoyed the insights you've shared here (I even PMed you earlier today--don't know how to do rep points). I can see the "Victorian Woman" consensus being well-known in the society of that day and thought knowledge of that would make a rereading of Jane Eyre quite interesting.

 

But!! (not trying to be snarky) I don't get the symbolism you mention above--red=passion, veil=hymen, etc. Are you saying the Bronte had all that in mind when she wrote? Or perhaps only subconsciously?

 

In this thread, it has been easy to see how each poster's "life perspective" has greatly influenced their "take" on the book, so is this symbolism really inherent in the work itself or something that *you* with your previous knowledge of wedding customs see (apart from anything the author intended). This is the part of lit analysis I just don't get--symbolism *unless* the author has explicitly stated said symbolism (perhaps not in the writing itself but by some other means.)

 

However, since *you* seem to get symbolism, could you please explain to me how you make these connections and determine they are intended by the author?

 

TIA for shedding some light on the mysteries of Lit. Analysis,

[cajun.classical]

Vicki,

 

That's a very legitimate question and one that it is asked a lot about literary analysis. Did the author intend to put all that in there? The answer is yes, no, sometimes. How's that? lol.

 

Literature has certain archetypes that always mean the same things in all literary works. The literary scholar Northrop Frye wrote about this in his work An Anatomy of Criticism. So some things are without a doubt intentionally placed in the work. Nothing in a work of literature is there by accident. The choices that an author makes are significant. So we can safely say that Bronte was intentionally casting Bertha Mason Rochester as a symbol of unrestrained passion: the color of her room is red. Red is always a symbol of passion (think of the Scarlet Letter! AHA!). She is also associated with fire; another big symbol of passion. The very description of Bertha is also filled with associations of passion and s*xuality: swollen dark lips, eyes opened wide, and Jane calls her a vampire. There's another archetype. Vampires are symbols of unrestrained passion and threatening s*xuality.

 

When you study literature for a while, it all starts to fit together, and you recognize symbols and archetypes: there are tons. Sometimes, when people talk about symbolism, it is easy to imagine that you can make a work say anything you want to, and people do try to do this. And sometimes they go to far. You always have to go back to the text and see if it supports the claims.

 

So, with regard to the bridal veil. Was Bronte thinking of the symbolism of the hymen when she wrote it? I don't know. But we can know that she intends to connect Jane and Bertha in our minds, when Bertha puts on Jane's veil, suggesting what Jane will become after her wedding. And we can know that when Bertha rips up the veil, Bronte introduces a violent image to connect to the wedding. We can know that Bronte intends to associate the Bridal veil--at the very least a symbol of virgin purity. That's why it's white--with dangerous passion and violence. These images combined with the things that Jane says all point to a certain type of anxiety about her upcoming marriage.

 

And the book itself is filled with all sorts of symbolic imagery quite common in the literature of the period. So, I would be comfortable saying that Bronte intended it.

 

Do authors sometimes include things subconsciously in their works? Sure they sometimes can put things in a work that is more than they intended and perhaps even reveals some of their own anxieties and issues. This is true of Jane Eyre as well. The book is quite autobiographical and reading through Bronte's letters, we can see the sorts of anxieties she herself struggled with. All of that helps us to understand the work better. But I do say, proceed with caution with this type of analysis. People do get carried away.

 

In addition, really trying to grasp the historical, social, and cultural context of a work will bring these things to light. The Woman Question, as it was called was THE issue of the day, and an understanding of this debate really opens up the text.

 

Does that help at all? Symbolism is really not so mysterious once you get the hang of recognizing archetypes: light, dark, windows, doors, cages, birds, fire, water, and on and on. There's meaning inherent in the symbols themselves.

[Karenciavo]

I

The reality? Tough morning here. Money juggling. I HATE it when we have the money to do the things we need/want to do BECAUSE I'm a good girl about being dutiful in that respect and relatively DISpassionate :lol: BUT because of the way the current financial system is set up in this country, BEING responsible means that you have to be relatively cash poor all of the time .... so I got to spend the morning playing with + and - signs in order to make sure that the + signs and the - signs were all on the right order. TENSION CENTRAL! which of course means that I didn't get to teach anyone anything. THAT'S what really irks me. When "responsibility" dictates that I abandon MY primary objective.

 

((Janice)) We are small business owners, I can relate. :tongue_smilie:

[Carol in Cal.]

especially about options (or lack thereof) for women, read "The French Lieutenant's Woman" and pay attention to the many footnotes. It's a good book, and was an outstanding movie, and the footnotes talk a lot about the lot of women in Victorian England without being preachy or very dense about it.

[Janice in NJ]

Now Victorian readers totally got that Bronte was challenging their view of womanhood. Reviewers declared the book to be "dangerous." Others like George Eliot, thought that she didn't go far enough in her criticism of society and so she wrote The Mill on the Floss, which is a double bildungsroman that deals with the same issues. I wrote my thesis on this book too ;). Love those Victorians!

 

 

OK - I'll admit it; I'm studying here... ie - read... trying to self-educate so I don't look like a dolt! :D ... listening to Arnold Weinstein. Ah!

 

Bildungsroman - THIS conversation has been the first time that I have "heard" this word before. NOW that I've "heard" it, it turns out that I've bumped into it a bunch of times, but because I didn't know what it meant, I jumped over it without even "seeing/hearing" it. Funny, huh? ANYWAY - now I need a bit of a leg-up. What is a "double bildungsroman?" Loved Silas Marner, but was thinking about exploring Middlemarch next - but now I'm wondering if Mill on the Floss should hit the cue first....

 

...would anyone like to come educate my kids so I can READ?????!!!!?????:D

 

So - what's up with the double? AND can you recommend a web site or book to bring me up to speed on this whole bildubuggsybusiness? :D

 

THANKS!

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Guest Katia]

I read these posts out loud to my dds today for our "literary analysis" class, lol! We've had a good discussion from it as we all love Jane Eyre, but this symbolism stuff has been a good education for us.

 

Anyone know of any good books/curriculum that bring this sort of stuff out just this way for other novels? I'd love to use something just like this for our classes here on a regular basis.

[cajun.classical]

Sorry for throwing around terms like that. Let me explain. It's not complicated. A bildungsroman is a novel of development. So any book that starts with a child and follows him through adulthood is a bildungsroman. David Copperfield (the Dickens novel not the magician ;)) is an example of a bildungsroman. Jane Eyre is significant because it is a FEMALE bildungsroman, quite unusual for the period. A DOUBLE bildungsroman then follows the development of TWO people. In the case of Mill on the Floss, the book follows the development of a brother and sister.

 

I heartily recommend Mill on the Floss. You won't find any of those pesky Gothic elements in there! It's one of my favorites. If you read it, keep in mind that ELiot is commenting on The Woman Question, but she is also making a pretty strong comment on how society's view of gender roles affects the male too.

 

Oh and I don't know of any books about bildungsroman, other than a book of literary terms--which I don't think would be terribly helpful without someone to talk you through them.

[cajun.classical]

I read these posts out loud to my dds today for our "literary analysis" class, lol! We've had a good discussion from it as we all love Jane Eyre, but this symbolism stuff has been a good education for us.

 

Anyone know of any good books/curriculum that bring this sort of stuff out just this way for other novels? I'd love to use something just like this for our classes here on a regular basis.

 

Glad to be of help. I don't know of any curricula that teaches this sort of stuff. Several of the ladies here have encouraged me to write some study guides and I think I'd like to do that. I think it would be fun, and I've already done all the research. I've spent the last 2 days really thinking about how I would put it together.

 

I'll post a separate thread about how I'm thinking of putting it together and I'll ask for everyone's input on what would be most helpful.

[Janice in NJ]

Alrighty then...

 

Reading....

 

Hmmm... so Jane IS Bertha, eh?

 

Sheesh... It's official. I'm a BAD reader!!!!!! No secrets here. :D:D:D

 

The whole red room where Jane looks in the mirror as she loses it at the beginning of the book coupled with Jane seeing Bertha as reflected in the mirror WHILE she is wearing Jane's veil... Boy did I miss ALLL of that!!!!

 

Honestly the whole tortured, suppressed other-self thing makes me edgy. I think I like a simpler world of milk and cookies served up by a June Cleaver type. And I really don't think I'm suppressing anything ... I only get nervous when I ponder the notion that I might be suppressing my lack of suppression. :001_smile:

 

Hmmm.... wonder what color June Cleaver's bedroom is!

 

Peace,

Janice in NJ

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Christy]

I did enjoy Jane Eyre, although Janice, I can totally see your point of view, there were a lot of things I thought were a little cheesy.

A book I would recommend as a replacement is "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Charlotte and Emily's little known middle sister, Anne Bronte. Her books were shunned at the time because they implemented such scandalous themes as, leaving a husband because he's a total creepy weirdo, etc.

I really loved this book and I liked the fact that it stressed marrying not just for love, but also compatibility. In Jane Eyre I kind of disliked the whole, "of course she and Rochester were made for each other because that's how all happy fairy tales work". On the other side though I could not stand the horrid circumstances and unlovable characters of "Wuthering Heights". Also, most of "The Tenant" is from the perspective of a guy, so boys might appreciate that. My other favorite British Novel is David Copperfield, although that one is kind of slow starting.

[Lori D.]

bumping… just 'cause this was such a great book discussion and I love this thread! :D

[Jenny in Florida]

I did enjoy Jane Eyre, although Janice, I can totally see your point of view, there were a lot of things I thought were a little cheesy.

A book I would recommend as a replacement is "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Charlotte and Emily's little known middle sister, Anne Bronte. Her books were shunned at the time because they implemented such scandalous themes as, leaving a husband because he's a total creepy weirdo, etc.

I really loved this book and I liked the fact that it stressed marrying not just for love, but also compatibility. In Jane Eyre I kind of disliked the whole, "of course she and Rochester were made for each other because that's how all happy fairy tales work". On the other side though I could not stand the horrid circumstances and unlovable characters of "Wuthering Heights". Also, most of "The Tenant" is from the perspective of a guy, so boys might appreciate that. My other favorite British Novel is David Copperfield, although that one is kind of slow starting.

 

It's so cool to "meet" someone else who likes Tenant of Wildfell Hall! I love Jane Eyre to little bits and pieces -- I re-read it every couple of years, and it's on my short list of books I wish I could read again for the first time because it was such a wonderful experience -- but Tenant is a close second for favorites among the Brontes' work.

 

It took me many years and several tries to finally get through Wuthering Heights, and I still can't say I like that one. I found both Heathcliff and Catherine utterly unlikeable and just so unpleasant. I'm glad I can finally say I've read it, but I have no desire to revisit it ever.

 

For what it's worth, I am not a Christian, and my love of Jane Eyre (both the book and the character) does not depend on an appreciation of Jane as an exemplar of Christian duty. I love Jane because she is smart and independent and determined to make a life for herself on her own terms, despite the lousy hand she is dealt. Even though her society repeatedly tells her that she isn't valuable because she possesses neither money nor beauty, she doesn't just survive but thrives.

 

It's interesting that you mention fairy tales, Christy, because I've always heard echoes of Beauty and the Beast in Jane and Rochester.

 

By the way, I read Jane Eyre for the first time when it was assigned in a college class. (I know, I know. I resisted reading it before that, largely because it was one of those "classics" that adults kept pushing on me.) The book we had read just before Jane Eyre was Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea, which is told from Bertha's point of view. Needless to say, Rochester is not a hero figure in that novel. So, I brought a negative impression of him with me when I started reading Jane Eyre. It was an interesting way to experience that book, because I had to go along with Jane on the journey to find the good in Rochester.

[Heather in WI]

I missed this thread the first time around. Thanks for bumping.

 

My new word of the day is bildungsroman. 

 

I'm in the love Jane Eyre & strongly dislike Wuthering Heights camp.  :lol:

 

But, I love Jane Eyre for Jane.  I can't stand Rochester! I do want to re-read it now with all Angelina's notes side-by side. I feel like there is an entire layer of symbolism that I missed. 

 

 

[MtnTeaching]

Ds had to read Wuthering Heights and really, really disliked it.  When Jane Eyre came up, he was despondent.

 

I decided to cheat and he, dd, and I started to watch the BBC mini-series with Timothy Dalton on Amazon Prime.  We watched it every day during our lunch hour and were hooked.  We all loved it and were very sad when it was over.  I found an online study guide and we had a Socratic discussion regarding the "book".

 

As far as I am concerned, Jane Eyre is done.

[swimmermom3]

Lori, thanks so much for bumping this. What an enjoyable read. Janice has made me lose more coffee over the years through her rather descriptive writing style. It always gives me lots to think about - in a good way.