Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

I like to think I’ve outgrown my youthful overreliance in wild hyperbole and dismissal of other people’s opinions when it comes to books and life in general. However, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte elicits such a knee-jerk revulsion from me that I fear I can never be generous or objective in my estimation of it. This despite the fact that several readers I know whose tastes have often aligned with mine thinks highly of this novel. I simply can’t move forward in a conversation about this novel without the other person agreeing to the premise that Edward Rochester is objectively The Worst.

Written in 1847, Jane Eyre is a bildungsroman that traces the life of the eponymous Jane as she builds her own self-identity despite her often dire circumstances. Orphaned early with no memories of her parents, she is forced to live with callous relations before being shipped off to a rigid boarding school where she experiences injustice and loss. As an adult with no inheritance or relations to support her, she takes on the job of a governess at a gloomy manor called Thornfield, where her life becomes enmeshed in the tempestuous affairs of its owner Edward Rochester. This relationship has become so totemic in literature that it’s the template of an entire literary tradition. The novel is told solely through Jane’s point of view, an unfiltered transcript of her thoughts and feelings as she struggles to actualize who she is and reconcile her passions with her own sense of morality.

I should start off by saying that I have often had very negative, visceral feelings about disenfranchised orphans in novels. Even with a series that I love like Harry Potter, I get physically sick whenever the story moves back to the Dursleys. I also tend to feel that this trope is not a little bit manipulative in trying to elicit the readers’ sympathy for the main characters. Because what kind of monster would be rooting against a poor orphan, right? I guess I’m the monster, then.

I found the first chunk of Jane Eyre so difficult to get through because of all the injustice that Jane faces with scant few adults to give her support. It speaks to the kind of oppressiveness I felt in this section that I was ghoulishly relieved when her school is overrun with typhus, if only because it stopped the abusive proprietors named the Brocklehursts from visiting the school. I also felt the same relief once Jane managed to move away from the boarding school and attempt to make her own way in early Victorian society. Little did I know, reader, how much fondly I would look back on typhus in the face of Edward Rochester.

While the horrible childhood was an ordeal to read, it was really the depiction of Rochester as the most creeptastic of employers that really turned me against this novel. Subsequent cultural criticism of the work often depicts their love story as the triumph of passion over propriety. But the power differential between the two, not to mention the fact that Rochester is the only thing between Jane and abject poverty, makes the pairing problematic at best and downright objectionable at worst.

Removed from his feelings for Jane, let us further evaluate Rochester’s actions. First of all, he won’t acknowledge Jane’s student Adele as his daughter even though she may be his, because her mother slept around. But out of the goodness of his heart he has house and educated her, so he’s a stand-up guy. He also crossdressed as a gypsy in order to trick Jane into revealing her attraction to him, which I guess is the Victorian equivalent of putting a nannycam in the house.

And oh, he kept his wife locked in the attic because she’s a “savage” madwoman, who tricked him into marrying her and did I mention she’s half Haitian? You never really know with those colonials.

See what I mean about my entire lack of generosity? Because yes, I recognize that Bronte is a pioneer in depicting female agency and personhood. Yes, I recognize the book’s contribution the cultural conversation. Yes, I can acknowledge that the book deploys Gothic motifs effectively, with such a gripping control of the first person point of view as to elicit suspense and claustrophobia. But for me, all of this is negated by how much of a toxic, odious jackwad Edward Rochester is, how the narrative glosses over and forgives Rochester’s jackwaddery, and how Jane ultimately prostrates her life in the service of his imperious, negging ass. Barf.

If Jane and Rochester never got back together by the end of the book, I could probably live with the idea that Jane considers him the apotheosis of her romantic life. But the fact the she went back to him (when he is laid low by a house fire the conveniently killed his wife and made him marriageable, isn’t that interesting?) made me feel that the narrative didactically approves of him and considers him as character of goodness who made small mistakes that cost him dearly. Such a reading of him makes me feel so gross. I like Jane Eyre the person a lot, but this facet of her actually compelling life colors my perceptions of this book’s value.

7 thoughts on “Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

  1. First, I agree that Rochester is horrible. I can’t agree though that he’s The Worst. There are so many characters that are in contention for this title (first that comes to mind is H. H. and the villains from Dickens’s novels). What I really like about this book is that there are so many layers of mystery, such as Rochester’s intentions, the mad woman at the attic (check out Wide Sargasso Sea for an imagining of her history), and Adele, as you have pointed out. I didn’t feel that Bronte intended Rochester to be forgiven. What I feel is that it is the women, after all, who are needed instead of the men, like Jane Eyre can pick up Rochester just because she can, haha!

    • Yep, I’m aware of the Jean Rhys work and what she aims to do with the retelling (I do intend to read that one of these days), but the bulk of what we know about her and the source of her alleged madness comes solely from Rochester’s telling of her, and I hardly think of him as a reliable narrator.

      Re: other awful literary characters, I think Nabokov made it very overt in the text that H.H. is a monster, but by virtue of being that intended romantic partner of the protagonist, Bronte puts forth Rochester as an example of an achievable, even desirable partner. (I also think that the narrative absolves him symbolically, having gone “through the fire” and all.)

      I actually think that it’s a symptom of the time that Bronte didn’t present singlehood or ownership of property as an advantageous or attractive future for a woman. Austen falls under this marriage trap as well, but I prefer the way Austen frames relationships as often built with compromise instead of heady passion. I just feel like Jane could have gone herself a nice soldier instead of having to rebuild a dessicated carcass of a manor. :P

      (I do know that there are legitimate reasons for people to like this book, and I’ve tried to examine my feelings years after first reading it. But while I can analyze it like a scholar, I got no pleasure from how it ultimately played out.)

      • Weren’t the Bronte sisters isolated from the rest of their community? Emily’s Wuthering Heights also has detestable characters, and now that I rethink of it, the sisters’ novels have strong similarities in tone and mood, and are symptomatic of their, the Brontes’, time if I am correct in my first assumption. Anyway, Jane is obviously a masochist and likes bad boys, probably in a perverted way (but that’s taking it too far!). I would like to read a modern retelling of this novel.

  2. I wonder if you’ve read Pride and Prejudice (I haven’t; I couldn’t finish it because, to borrow your words, I have a knee-jerk revulsion at the portrayal of the women) and if you have, what you thought of it. Because, as it may be evident by now, I’d read Jane Eyre a million times and stomach Rochester every single time rather than waste my breath with the P&P sluts. :D

    • I actually vastly prefer Jane Austen over Bronte. I found the language in Bronte overwrought, manipulative and slightly moralistic. There’s a lot of cynical edge to Austen that I actually kind of prefer. And everything I learned about English land rights I learned from Austen. :P

  3. I had this stupid juvenile joke stuck inside my head during my teenage reading years but told no one: that if Jane Austen’s plots were all about comedy of manners, the Bronte sisters’ works were about the tragedy of manners. I’m lame like that, lol.

    I think a character repulsive enough to evoke such extreme dislike is also a kind of triumph, in the sense that they effectively elicit violent reactions (albeit the opposite of sympathy or compassion) as opposed to rousing zero feelings from readers . At the top of my head I can also count a couple of literary characters I have grotesquely hated but nothing beats mediocre characters on my hate list. I’ll definitely pick detestable over dull any of the day of the week.

    Yay for your honest and sassy review! :)

    • That’s actually pretty insightful as a joke! A lot of Jane’s conflict in the story is about societal boundaries and how to become a genuine person despite all the restrictions.

      I think Rochester is quite a rich character in so far as he forces me to articulate things that I find objectionable and view my expectations for a piece of literature through that lens. I felt the same thing (to some degree) when having to contend with the main character in Erica Jong’s “Fear of Flying.”

      Haha, thanks! I try not to fall back to reflexive snark when experiencing art, but some feelings just need to be expressed. :P

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s