Some questions regarding Jane Eyre
* What is wrong with Jane's character?
Surely she cannot have been perfect. True, she did have a hot temper before she came to Lowood. Although she feels like giving into temptation, she overcomes it.
Is she not passionate enough? Is she too naive (why didn't she question Rochester's double-dealing even more? How could she have just accepted what others told her about the "strange laugh?"). Is she too uncertain about her own feelings? (she was almost about to accept St.John). Was she a sly coquette by any means? (did she encourage Rochester?)
They are just a few questions...but
Tell me, what is wrong with Jane?
11 comments:
Hi Frankengirl
hmm...I guess her thinking of Rochester as an "idol" could be seen of as a fault if she "worshipped" him as she would God, including obeying his every command. However she does say, when he insists on her staying with him, that "it would be wrong (for her) to obey" him. Hence, even though she might say that she idolizes him, it is not the same treatment she would give to God.
Her "idolizing" him could just be that she feels intense love for him, which is not a bad thing at all...admirable actually. So on both counts, I would not say Jane is doing anything by saying that she "idolizes" Rochester.
YES!!! I LOVE your point about the contradiction idea. She does indeed mistreat(?)Adele and Blanche by not giving us their side of the story and not developing their characters enough. However, if I were Jane, I would not be pleased if another flashy woman as Blanche set ought to seduce the man I am in love with. So in this way, Jane is not to blame for not developing Blanche's character in the novel. Perhaps Jane felt nothing for Adele (although I would expect her to have felt at least some pity for the orphan). Charlotte did not particularly care for the children she taught: she thought tiresome and boring (if I am not mistaken). Hence, considering that Jane was herserf a teacher in Lowood (much like Charlotte the teacher), it is not too surpising to me that she felt little affection for a wealthy, rather stupid child (Adele). So once again, I can argue that Jane was in the "right" all along, that there is nothing wrong with her on this matter as well.
You do bring out the point about Jane perhaps wishing to be superior to Rochester (or taunting him so). I would not be surprised if she feels that he is no longer the overbearing idol anymore and that she can control him instead of him controlling her. The feminist interpretation of Jane Eyre loves this point! It says that Rochester was a controlling man, all out to possess her like a material object, suffocating her (the diamond chain he puts around her neck just before the wedding sympbolizes some kind of bondage, entrapment, a leash, where the man controls the woman). In this sense, when we look at Jane's words to Rochester at the end, one could think that she is indeed pleased to come out of that bondage, that she is pleased that he can no longer control her, and isntead that it is OK if she can now excersice the her own powers that Rochester would have earlier blighted out of her. Once again, Jane would be right. She would not be blamed again.
So what else can we blame Jane for??? I am at a loss...
One thing I find wrong with Jane is that although she objects to the bad treatment she receives as a servant, she is willing to treat other servants badly. I admit my democratic impulse is offended by the way she talks to certain "inferior" people she encounters in her travels. (Sorry I don't have a specific citation to provide--I'm at home and my copy of JE is in my office. But if you want one, I'll try to find one.)
A governess is higher on the social class than a mere servent, so it is not too suprising that Jane addresses them that way. However, I would think she might have been a bit more humble about it...
Also, although she addressed Rochester as "master", besides him being her employer, it was also teh custom the time to address one's superiors so. Hence, this could also be the reason why Jane would address people lower than her in such terms (some citation would be helpful here, I am sure :)
Because this is Jane's story I suppose she must be at liberty to write it however she chose, even if she just focused on herself without much regard to the suffering of her inferiors. Jane Eyre is in a class by herelf, too fiesty (and feminist?) but also neither upper nor lower class.
She is so hard to classify that she becomes almost mythical (Rochester calls her an "elf" and "fairy").
However, we can discern a lot about what she does NOT directly state. For example, her descriptions of Blanche (about her being dressed finery, paraded around to become a source of attraction to a man and then bonded in marriage) suggest that Blanche is not too different from Jane herself: they are both trapped women. By not giving voice to Adele, Jane as author is suggesting that we as readers MUST question why Adele was ignored. Our own inquiry makes Adele important. Our thirst to even know about her validates her existance: the orphan, illegitimate girl child. From Jane's description and treatment of her inferiors, we sense the injustice done unto such people by others, including Jane herself. Hence, if these people are ignored, then we are even more aware of their plight.
I am not sure how much Jane Eyre as author intended to address these issues to us. On the otehr hand, it could be Charlotte Bronte's voice criticizing Jane Eyre, her heroine.
yeah...I guess then that how we veiw Jane Eyre depends on factors such as the time, religous beliefs, and cultural differences.
Like you said, JE was indeed criticized in the Victorian age because of its "radical" themes and for that headstrong, passionate nature of Jane's. I can see how someone can debate about adherence to religion in JE and consequently dislike Jane. I can also see how someone from a different culture might not be able to relate to Jane's nature at all as well.
That said, I would still like to find something wrong with Jane. With Lucy Snowe, for example, I could say that she closed off her emotions so much that she almost repelled any one touching her heart. It was not that she did not feel, but that she was too afraid to show her feelings. In Jane's case, her feelings too were repressed at Lowood but when she got to Thornfield, they (were free to)burst forth. Do we wish she was more expressive though?
And then I think...is it because we are Jane Eyre fans that we cannot find much fault with her? Maybe we like her too much? She certainly is a part of each of us..and if we found fault with her, then we'd find fault with that part of ourselves. And that is much harder to discern, and admit..? :-/
Sorry I made it home yesterday without my copy of JE, so I can't provide a citation today, but I'll write myself a note to grab the book tomorrow.
I find it pretty easy to find fault with Jane, but then, I am not a Bronte enthusiast. My best friend in grad school was a Victorianist and originally planned to do her dissertation on the Brontes, so I know more about them than you might expect for someone who did her PhD in contemporary American literary nonfiction, but I'm not really much of a fan.
I've read "Jane Eyre" three times and watched I don't know how many adaptations. (I admit to thinking Orson Welles is the most compelling Rochester I've ever seen.) The first time I read the novel (back in about 1985) I thought, "Well, this is good, but it's not as good as Austen." The second time (1993, first year of my PhD program) I loved it. The third time (1999) I thought, "Why did I like this so much? Jane is really kind of repellant." I tried to read it again a few years ago, to see if my feelings changed yet again, but found it too annoying to proceed.
I've been thinking of a way to summarize my objections against her, and here's what I've come up with: Jane is a frustrated elitist. She wants to feel not merely equal but SUPERIOR to people around her, but her plain looks and inferior status prevent her. If she were as pretty and rich as Blanche Ingram, you can bet she'd be even more of an insufferable, condescending snob than BI is.
I hope that's not too offensive-- I've posted it in the spirit of a lively grad school seminar, where you accept that people disagree with you about books you really love. And I trust you'll find a way to argue against this criticism and figure out why Jane still appeals to so many women. :-)
hmm...
I am not sure if she softens considerably though. I guess it depends on how one defines "softens".
I do think that the older Jane would not lash out against a woman like Mrs. Reed (and so you could say that is softened) but then again, she does take control of her feelings (she manages to run away from Rochester). Now this involves a lot of hardening. And so yes, she is contradictory even to the end.
Because Jane is a misfit throughout the novel (except with Rochester at the end in Ferndean), she will be contradictory (and therefore vacillating between feelings of superiority and inferiority).
Jane is very passionate, and thus her reactions can be extreme. She can hate too much as well as love too much. She loves Mary and Diana because they were really kind to her. But it could also be because they were just family. If they were NOT family, would Jane have loved them just as well? Maybe it was family that she was after and not really kindness. Jane loves Rochester as well..but even in this case, she feels that wherever he is is her home (I remember something to this effect...not sure if it is from a movie or a book?!), thus implying that he is like her family. So yes, Jane values kindness, but also family.
We can, however, question how much her words really mean what she feels. Like someone might often find themselves saying far more than what they actually feel in some situations...the words just seem to pour out. For example, Jane's rage against Mrs. Reed caused her to lash out against her, but was she really that angry with her aunt? Or could she just merely not control her words more than her feelings?
In a smilar vein, if Jane's language against people lower than her are also harsh, you could say that perhaps it was just an excess of words, not actual feelings.
I am not sure how much she wants to feel superior than other people. She does not directly disapprove of Blanche but only says (if I remember correctly) that Rochester does not love her. Rochester is the one who directly disapproves of Blanche. Jane wants justice, whether is is to be treated as an equal or whether it means getting what one rightly deserves. It is not that she wants to be treated like the Reed children necessarily (because she does recognize their seflishness) but she fights for what is her due, she fights against, what we can all agree, is "unjust", the way she was treated in the Reed household. She is not asking for extravagance of materials or affection, but only justice considering her situation. I believe that Jane only considers herself superior in terms of her ideals reagarding the sincerity of love. She recognizes that St. John cannot love her as much as she deserves, the way Rochester can. She recognizes that Rochester and Blanche's relationship is shallow. She runs away from Rochester because she thought she deserved more than what she would get if she stayed with him, as in this time, you could argue, she loved her freedom more than being Rochester's wife. Although she "says" that she believes Rochester is sincere in his love for her, she was sincere to her own feelings: she did love him, but she loved herself more.
bored dominatrix, I am curious to know the reasons as to why you think that Jane would be worse than Blanche if she had been rich and pretty. What actions/dialogues of hers point to this possibility?
I do believe it depends on how each of us percieves Jane. Her want for freedom and justice could be seen, if one does not see the importance of these qualities, as snobbish. From personal experience, certain circles I am part of do not "see" the need for a woman being independant, unsupported by a man. So when I talk about how I value independence, the people in these circles think that I am snobbish and acting "high and mighty".
My ideas might be rather
jumbled up in this post but I tried my best to be coherent...
And finally bored domintrix, what you said is totally not offensive. I actually like such a comment. If anything, it sharpens me to think even more critically. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Besides, this allows all of us to be engaged with the novel even more closely. :D
In matters such as these, I don't mind severe criticism..its better than mere indifference
Hey mysticgypsy--wanted to apologize for my silence and let you know I haven't stopped thinking about the questions you've asked and raised for me; I've just been cranky and busy and not up to doing the kind of reflection your question deserves. But I'll be posting something of substance in a day or two.
Hi bored dominatrix
aww it is alright. Glad to know that I have your response to look forward to! :D
OK, I'm finally back with some citations.
The passage where Jane condescends to a servant is in Chapter 29. Hannah, the servant at the Rivers' home who refuses to admit her, has managed to smile a little when she sees Jane "tidy and well-dressed."
Jane says of Hannah that "prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education."
Hannah notices that Jane hasn't been used to "sarvant's wark," and asks if she has been a dressmaker.
Jane replies, "No, you are wrong. And now, never mind what I have been: don't trouble your head further about me: but tell me the name of the house where we are."
I find it really remarkable that when Jane has lost her station and has no support in the world, she would be so condescending and demanding. A little gratitude would be in order: it's true this woman wouldn't let Jane into her mistresses' home, but once St. John brought Jane into the house, Hannah tends to her recovery--probably washes the clothes the allow Jane to look clean and well-dressed.
The conversation becomes even more annoying as it progresses. After learning how Hannah has served the Rivers family for 30 years, Jane says, "that proves you must have been an honest and faithful servant. I will say so much for you, though you have had the incivility to call me a beggar."
Who the bloody hell is Jane to go offering her opinion of this woman's role in life? It's only traditional class roles--the "caste" system Jane herself chafes against (see, for instance, the beginning of chapter 17)--that allow her to act with such superiority to this woman, and that have trained this woman to endure such condescencion at all.
Hannah replies that Jane "munnit thing to hardly of [her]."
Jane says, "But I do think hardly of you...and I'll tell you why--not so much because you refused to give me shelter, or regarded me as an imposter, as because you just now made it a species of reproach that I had no 'brass' and no house. Some of hte best people that have ever lived have been as destitute as I am; and if you are a Christian, you ought not to consider poverty a crime."
Fine words for someone who has fixed and pegged Hannah because she lacks education--and of course what is it but poverty that dooms Hannah to the live of an uneducated servant?
Then there's the way Jane treats the "gipsy" who shows up to give palm readings. It cracks me up that Jane thinks palm readings are bunk, but, when the gipsy begins to practice physiognomy, Jane states, "Ah! Now you are coming to reality. I shall begin to put some faith in you presently." Again, she treats the woman with preemptory condescencion: "Humph! Not exactly. Your witch's skill is rather at fault sometimes" and "Never mind: I came her to inquire, not to confess."
"Listen, lady," I want to say to her, "if you really think that people shouldn't assume you lack heart and soul and understanding just because you're poor and plain, don't go dissing the heart and soul and understanding of others just because they're poor, uneducated and itinerant."
It really bugs me.
As for my assertion that Jane is a "frustrated elitist," I haven't read the book recently enough to marshall adequate defense of the statement.
I thought about posting something on my blog about the difference between Austen and the Brontes--I'm planning to teach "A Room of One's Own" later in the semester, and I've been thinking about Woolf's discussion of Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte. I've also been mulling over Charlotte's dislike of Austen, and wanting to say something about the Brontes' sensibility vs. that of Austen, but to do that I should probably read "Villette" and "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall," which several people have told me are their favorite works by any of the Brontes. And it will probably be the summer before I have time to read those.
But I want to thank you for making me think about this more, and for making me drag my copy of JE off the shelf. It's so old and brittle and worn that I've got to keep the pages in place now by wrapping a rubber band around the whole thing--and books don't get that way because they have nothing to say to you and never require you to take them off the shelf :-).
Hi bored dominatrix!
Thanks for the comment :)
hmm..I do see how Jane's treatment of Hannah could seem condescending. But on the other hand, because Jane is an anomaly, in a class on her own, neither upper-class nor lower-class, this might be one reason she might fail to understand (and more effectively empathize) with the plight of servants such as Hannah. If I imagine myself a destitute woman, begging for a morsel of bread and shelter from the rain, and a servant of the house (not even the owners themselves) throws me out, cruelly refusing me any aid, I would most probably have reacted just has Jane as done. After all, if I was indeed poor, I would have thought a servant could relate to my plight more than anyone else since a servant does know about poverty. I could see that Hannah tried to protect her Master's house, but she also should have been more understanding towards a beggar woman. It is ironic because (we find this even now all over the world), it is often the case that it is the repressed who repress thier own people. This is what Jane finds wrong with Hannah and this is what she fights against.
Jane is not angry with Hannah because she called only her a beggar, but she would not have tolerated anyone being treated unkindly the way she was treated. In fact, Jane could as well have been against the cruel treatment of beggars of any sort. Basically, Jane fights for justice. She even wants beggars to be understood and treated kindly. She knew what it was to be destitute, what it meant to live the life of a beggar for a few days. When she says "that proves you must have been an honest and faithful servant. I will say so much for you, though you have had the incivility to call me a beggar", by "incivility" she does not mean her being classified as a "beggar" by Hannah. Instead, the incivility refers to the Hannah's unkindness, including unkindness to beggars.
In her quote about education, Jane points out the need for education for the working classes. It is lack of education that has made them prejudiced. But according to Jane's definition of "education", it could mean kindness (which needs no formal schooling) the ability to treat a fellow human being as equal. I think that ultimately Jane wants to everyone to treat her the way she would like to treat them. She could have got disgusted with Hannah's treatment of her because it was devoid of human kindness. Jane would have been angry with people of any class if they were unkind to her.
I can see how poverty could deprive one of the means for education, but I think in this context Jane could be refering to the kind of education that needs little or no money: kindness for fellow beings.
As for the gypsy scene, her reaction against the gypsy could not have been because the gypsy was of a lower class. I think it could have been Jane's reluctance to believe in the supernatural...which, if she allowed herself to dwell too deeply, will make her Imagination flourish, and with it comes the danger about her rising passion for Rochester. Jane is indeed very imaginative and is influenced by mythology and some superstitious beliefs. When she sees a dream before her wedding, about a child, she thinks it forebodes evil. Through talking to Rochester, she also wants to assured that her superstitious beliefs will not over-rule her. She wants to be able to go along with the wedding. She wants to infact suppress some of her superstitious beliefs in order to get what she wants. When she hears the strange laugh, Jane's curiousity is roused (and so is her imagination), but because she does not want to dwell in it (which will pose more of a danger to her sanity and her freedom), she tries to rationalize and find answers she can be tolerably satisfied with. When she tries to convince herself that the laugh was caused by Grace Poole, her imagination can be suppressed. Basically, the Red Room scene is crucial in that it showed Jane that she must not dwell too much on her imagination. It is dangerous since it arouses feelings she cannot control. It could literally destroy her if allowed to be expressed fully and if the situation is not favoroable. In the last few chapters of the book, when Jane hears Rochester and is convinced she is meant to go to him, she does still cling onto her superstitions beliefs but this time, the condition is more favorable in that she knows that she has a back-up plan if those beliefs don't come to fruition. Even if she did not see Rochester despite hearing is "voice", she can still have her freedom, she is still an heiress, she still has her family. Hence, her distaste for the gypsy actually shows her fear of herself, her fear of indulging in her Imagination. Her fear of facing the waves of passion seething inside her.
Post a Comment