Forgive the deliberately provoking title, I was feeling dramatic.
I’m determined to finish Jane Eyre because I want to read “Wide Sargasso Sea” but jeez, Edward Rochester is the most unpalatable pos. Obviously this book was written in the 1800s, well before the suffragette movement but other writers of the time (Charlotte’s own sister even) were examining domestic abuse in their work so it’s interesting that Jane Eyre might show the most subtle examination of the machinations of controlling abusers.
After Rochester proposes, he tells Jane that the best part of marrying her is that she has no relations. He also wants to send Adele off to boarding school when they marry. Isolate from people who care about her? Check.
He tries to dress her like a doll, bedeck her in jewels and silks. She rebels and instead of recognizing her as a person, he delights in making her anxious. Controlling her appearance? Check.
Mrs. Fairfax says Jane is Mr. Rochester’s “little pet” and tries to warn her off him. This annoys Jane and puts distance between them.
Mr. Rochester is always calling Jane weirdly possessive and diminutive pet names while the writer hints at his lust in the moment- “my good little girl” etc. At some point, Mrs. Fairfax points out that he’s more like a father to her than an equal which makes Jane balk.
I can’t help but feel, especially because Jane is really chaffing against these aspects of Rochester’s courtship, that Charlotte was trying to explore how abuse looks early on, how to tell when something is going to be toxic before it goes to far. She also is very frank about the things that make Jane vulnerable to Rochester: her loveless childhood, her lack of family support, the reliance of women on men to provide for them financially…
But then, the ending. Why put them together in the end after all this exposition that the man is, tbh, awful? Am I putting too much of my modern sensibilities into reading this?
Thoughts?
by Nervous-Revolution25
18 Comments
Read “Can Jane Eyre be happy?” by John Sutherland – I think it would appeal to you
Edit – typo!
I can’t convince you otherwise, because I read it just in exactly the same way as you.
I think it reads true to the powerlessness of women in that society.
She had to find peace with the best life available to her in a world where she is an accessory to another family, or man.
It could also simply be what Charlotte saw as the truth of her or some of her sisters. That their paths were at best a quiet misery.
Charlotte Brontë always has a particular… dynamic in her works, yes.
But look at it this way – she has more power in her relationship with Rochester than she ever could with St John. She wants finite, consensual domination.
Why read any older classics at all if you’re just going to judge them through our modern society’s lenses?
There’s plenty going on today that would be abhorrent to them morally.
The gothic genre in general does often deal with some morally complicated themes, it isn’t advocating for them. Not being able to separate a story from your own moral compass is strange to me.
This is a complex book and Charlotte Brontë had so much to say. Yes, Rochester isn’t Darcy, but he’s far more real than many other main male characters. Jane Eyre’s life is one of extremely small boundaries – just like all the Brontë sisters. She has little scope to experience life independently, going from her aunt’s to the Lowood to Thornfield Hall. It’s all set within a very small geographical area and is meant to feel this way because as a woman of her class and status and financial situation she has few choices. In fact, when she does strike out on her own, she nearly dies and even when taken in by St John, the expectation is that she will follow him abroad in a loveless marriage.
It’s only by refusing this loveless marriage and returning to Rochester on her own terms that she finds him weakened enough to make her his equal. It’s not ideal but I think it is beautifully profound.
There’s also the whole aspect of the Madwoman in the attic and how Jane Eyre doesn’t become her ally – how can she when they are two women struggling in different ways and are can only succeed if Bertha Mason fails. This is why Bertha tries to attack her, she sees that this young woman, who bears no animosity to her, is her successor and that she will have to lose for this to happen, which is in itself tragic.
I think if Rochester had been more feminist, it would have been unrealistic.
A little of column A a little of column B.
Some of the things that are chaffing you are things that weren’t really seen that way when Bronte wrote the book. I can’t stand Jane Eyre, because, to my modern sensibilities, Rochester is a complete POS and Jane isn’t nearly the independent and strong woman she seems to think she is, but I acknowledge that we’re talking about a book written over a century and a half ago; things have definitely changed.
I don’t *think* that Bronte was intending Rochester to be seen as a completely abusive asshole; I think he’s really supposed to be a bit of a tragic figure. Jane ends up with him at the end of the book, and that’s *supposed* to be a good thing, I think.
But, yeah, I find him repulsive.
It’s notable that when written, the only way this “happy ending “ is possible is by Jane inheriting enough money to become his social equal.
It’s a Gothic romance book in the old style of romance, which is to say, about wild passion and deep feelings and creativity. It’s not a relationship manual.
EDIT: welp somehow I missed that you haven’t actually finished the book yet, and I spoiled the hell out of it in my original comment. Sorry.
Here, let me amend it. Come back when you finish the book, because trust me, the book isn’t really about excusing or glorifying Rochester. 😂
I think Charlotte Bronte was very deliberately playing with power dynamics, and that Jane’s relationship with Mr Rochester was supposed to feel uncomfortable because of the overly skewed power imbalance in favour of Mr Rochester. The relationship mirrors Jane’s general arc in the story >!where she goes from being a disenfranchised orphan with no power of her own to proper independence and freedom (since when she goes back to him the power dynamics have been flipped).!<
This isn’t supposed to be an ideal relationship, Bronte was commenting on women’s disempowerment and subjugation in her time.
I mean yes and no. The Gothic has always been a place to metaphorically explore taboo sexuality, hence why it’s such a queer genre in modern contexts, but in this case we’re talking about the 1830s and Rochester is behaving the way a man of his age and class was supposed to. I agree about the POS thing for sure, but within the confines of her own worldview and period, Bronte tries to be feminist. It was truly radical for a woman to have equal money to her husband it meant she wasn’t as dependent on him.
So I get your point, it just depends on if you want to read it from a modern or historical perspective.
> Obviously this book was written in the 1800s, well before the suffragette movement but other writers of the time (Charlotte’s own sister even) were examining domestic abuse in their work so it’s interesting that Jane Eyre might show the most subtle examination of the machinations of controlling abusers.
Ah, quite the opposite. The Suffrage movement was only a smaller part of the First Wave Feminism that was formed in the modern sense by the time it was published.
1WF really kicked off with Marty Wollstonecraft’s writings, but feminism had already started to form with groups and individuals, The Blue Stockings Society was already pushing for more political discourse for women in the public sphere in the 1750s and women like Jane Addams also pushing for women’s rights and suffrage in colonial America.
Even later on, 1WF was a formalized movement in the Americas and elsewhere with the Seneca Falls Convention happening just a year after its publication.
That’s not to say these ideas were fully formed or used in works like Jane Eyre, but that these types of issues and political discourse were already fomenting by the time the novel was written.
If it was a “work of kink,” would you suddenly find the “grooming,” acceptable?
I read Rochester completely differently. While I don’t think he’s a perfect person, he is someone who experienced betrayal from his own family for monetary reasons and let that affect him and compromise his character. But he saw Jane as a reward of sorts for his “punishments,” and I always took it as he wanted to be a better person for her, which is why he’ll go off on tangents while talking to her, trying to convince himself it’s okay to commit bigamy. At no point is it an examination of domestic violence; if so, Charlotte wouldn’t have gone out of her way to say that Rochester restrained her with care and never hurt Bertha when he easily could have killed her let alone hurt her. He also wouldn’t put her in an asylum which were utter dog shit in the 1800s. So I think he’s a character with plenty of compassion… he’s just incredibly flawed and has a strange way of showing his compassion. I mean he took in a kid that wasn’t his and provided a good life for her.
> he tells Jane the best part of marrying her is she has no relations.
Yes, he said that. Not because he’s an abuser, but he is a liar and needs to hide his lie. He wanted to take Jane abroad so he could runaway from his current life and always hide the fact that he already has a wife. If she has no family, they can easily leave and never return to England thus keeping his secret. This also why he wants to send Adele to school… so they can leave.
> he tries to dress her like a doll.
He also did that with Celine, and he was happy to do it… until she cheated. Maybe it’s to show that gifting is how he shows love. He ultimately relented and respected what Jane wanted when she wanted it.
> Mrs. Fairfax tells Jane she’s is little pet and warn her off him.
I’ve read this book 3 times so far this year. At no point does she try to warn her off him. She suspects they have feelings for each but doesn’t know for sure. She was simply making an inference with the “little pet” thing that they’re always together. I’m not sure Mrs. Fairfax even knew about Bertha.
> always calling Jane weirdly possessive and diminutive pet names.
I’ve always taken this as him trying to flirt with her, but he’s not good at it because he’s so abrupt and gruff so she doesn’t recognize it. He calls her an elf and fairy because of how suddenly he bewitched her on the side of the road that one day, that she had to use magic.
> Jane is always chaffing against these aspects
Yeah, to show that she’s strong-willed, has morals and is sure of her self. I think the purpose of Jane is to show that a woman can be independent and remain entirely themself. Which is why she left Rochester after his lie was discovered, but she still loved him. And that’s why she went back to him after she established herself and he was knocked down a peg or 12.
tbf, i always read his happiness that she is without family as just a commentary on how terrible his family was to him and Bertha’s family to her. well, and i suspect that he’d be henpecked about their age difference, but back in the day he was seen as quite the eligible bachelor despite the age.
However, I do think that this isn’t a book to be read by girls coming into their sexuality. it can definitely lead to some submissive thoughts in regards to relationships. It should be read after a girl has started to discover how she wants to be treated in a relationship and established her own personality.
I’d take this over the romance of Wuthering Heights though. People are all “ooh heathcliffe is romantic AF I can fix him”. No. Tom Hardy is hot. Every relationship Heathcliffe touches ends up completely fucked.
It’s my favorite book of all time. I read it first when I was 14 or 15. And I totally agree with you.
It’s gotta be some “saved by a man” kink. I remember daydreaming about my own Mr. Rochester and be saved from my family.
I read it again for a class two years ago, and yeah. And as someone who was 27 at that time, I also thought “Gee, that’s kinda problematic. I shouldn’t have daydreamed about that as a teen, could have been groomed.”
Yet, a lot of people married young back then and Jane Eyre constantly stood up for herself and she left Mr. Rochester after he lied to her, she didn’t tolerate it. She only went back to him on her own terms.
I think IT IS our “modern sensibilities”. I wonder if I would even think of it as problematic if it wasn’t for MeToo Movement. If it wasn’t for it, I probably wouldn’t even know the concept of grooming.
It is still my favorite book of all time. I think it’s important to acknowledge the problems of the book. (Don’t forget the racism regarding Mr. Rochester’s wife). It is still nice to have a rescue fantasy once in awhile from a fiction book, while acknowledging the problems of it. It did help me cope with life back then and I had a rough childhood.
Also, what I loved about Mr. Rochester was that he saw Jane as an intellectual equal. As a women that’s chronically online, it’s even rare today! Imagine it back in the day?
I do not agree that he enjoyed making her anxious, I think he enjoyed having banter with her, and in my opinion, she did so too.
Was Mr. Rochester a groomer? I would say so. But was he abusive? I don’t know, maybe I’m delusional or have too much nostalgia for this book, but I don’t think so. Like I said, Jane Eyre left on her own terms. A lot of abuse victims struggle to do that. And even tho Rochester was in a lot of pain, he did not chase after her, he understood and respected her choice. A lot of abusers do not do that. That’s why addresses for domestic violence shelters are kept secret.
Sorry, didn’t mean to write so much, but that’s my two cents.
I enjoy the book and Rochester *because* he’s such a craggy POS.
I have nothing profound to add to this discussion, I just want to say that.
You didn’t find it unnecessarily verbose? I did not like her writing style AT ALL. Emily is the Bronte.