The unsettling ending of Jane Eyre
We just finished discussing Jane Eyre in my Bronte seminar and I am yet again full of questions regarding the (rather strange) ending of the novel.
Jane and Rochester's relationship seems too perfect, as if it cannot exist in "real life". As I had explained in response to Bronteana's post a while ago, it seems as if Charlotte Bronte uses a lot of "flowery" language in the ending that she didn't use at any other point in the novel. The phrase "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" directly alludes to the Bible and gives the impression of Jane and Rochester as the new Eve and Adam. Ferndean, with its isolated setting and rich greenery represents the new Eden.
Just as she fills us with hope of a "New World", Bronte undercuts that by stating that Ferndean is very "damp" and "unsalubrious". How is it that though Jane is afraid of going to India because of it's unsanitary conditions, she is prepared to live the environment at Ferndean at the risk of her health? My own take on this would be that this morbid state of Ferndean presents a death-like, albeit more gothic, life for Jane. Almost as if it is unreal, fleeting, cannot exist. Bertha's dying is symbolic of Jane's inner fire being quenched and perhaps the woman we are left with is no longer the Jane we have come to know.
And why does Jane wear a blue dress in the end when she had clearly stated earlier to Rochester that she does not desire finery or showy clothes? When her son is born with "eyes like Rochester", does this, along with her wearing a blue frock, mean that she is forced to conform in some way (either to Society's view on beauty or her own need to satisfy her cravings)?
5 comments:
When I had to read Jane Eyre 10 years ago as a university student, i did not like the ending of the novel. I wanted Jane Eyre to become independent and find a better man for herself. However, now I realize that Bronte has depicted reality of her time in this novel.
Hi Razib!
Hmm..a better man for Jane?
I did think about this but then figured that Rochester did love her very much and like she said, perhaps he will love her the most out of anyone she could have encountered. It is unfortunate that he had such a dark secret, but he does have some redeeming qualiites. If anything, I'd prefer him way over St. John.
"Bronte has depicted reality of her time in this novel"
As for reality..I am not sure how much Bronte adhered to it. The supernatural elements do suggest that she was attempting a somewhat "unrealistic" novel (at least not in the line of those like Agnes Grey).
The ending seems to highlight the unrealistic elements.
I think Jane Eyre is very unconventional for its time :)
Hi Frankengirl!
"Suddenly, we’re in fairy tale land, not the harsh landscape of the novel…"
Exactly! Why does Bronte resort to this? Is she so cynical of "perfect" unions? Can a union like Jane and Rochester's never exist? In this sense, it is not very different from Wuthering Heights where soulmates Cathy and Heathcliff can never be together on earth.
I wonder though if the fault rests with Bronte or with us, the critics. Are we so eager to interpret that we tend to be cynical rather than hopeful?
btw, Frankengirl, I do like your picture so! It reminds me of a cover from one of L.M. Montgomery's books! :)
Hi Frankengirl!
The one thing I find common in the works of all three of the Brontes is the portrayal of intense love (and desire). Also, since all three of the Bronte children took part in their imaginary worlds, I do think their ideas wouldn't have differed very much from each other. Although Charlotte's work is considered more "conventional" than Emily's, there was a time (when the books first came out), when critics thought that Wuthering Heights was a piece of early writing by Currer Bell. They couldn't help noticiing the similaries as well.
I always wonder about the limit of idealism. When does the ideal not become "practical" and when should one stop hoping.
One could be very skeptical about Jane and Rochester's relationship but does this mean that such a thing can never exist? And if one were to answer in the affirmative, then how can one settle for any other? And more importantly, why should they?
Hi, MysticGypsy!
Ah, yes, the confusion over the "Bell" identities!
“I always wonder about the limit of idealism. When does the ideal not become "practical" and when should one stop hoping.”
I love idealists because I believe they are the ones who create positive change in our world. I even admire somewhat delusional ones (yes, I have a soft-spot for Don Quixote!).
Well… if we are speaking of our own aspirations and personal goals for ourselves alone, then I don’t think we should ever stop hoping, as long as we are not overly suffering for it. Thus, my “suffering” clause may constitute a “practicality.”
In terms of love, romance, passion (as portrayed in much of the Brontes’ work), it might seem that Charlotte herself set aside or altered her “ideal” when she married in real life. I do sense that women’s desires change over time. So what we want when we are twenty-one may be different than what we want when we are twenty-seven…
I struggle with idealism and practicality all the time so I don’t think this question disappears (at least in my experience!), but since everyone is unique, your own navigation of idealism and imagination and the practicalities of the world will be entirely unique unto you...
Post a Comment