soph (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophia_sol) wrote2010-11-27 06:38 pm
sophia_sol) wrote2010-11-27 06:38 pm
Jane Eyre
I reread Jane Eyre this last week, for the first time since I read the book in grade seven. In grade seven I adored it unreservedly; these days I am a little more reserving in my love for it, but I have discovered that I still can't help but like it. Though my feelings for it are complicated....
See, Mr Rochester is kind of a creeper. He's all, "Oh I've been a terrible person in the past but now I am atoning for my sins and turning over a new leaf, and you, Jane, innocent and unworldly and young as you are, are the angel helping me do so." Which. Um. GOD NO. RUN AWAY FAST, JANE!
And then there's the bit where he's got a wife in the attic, and intends to marry Jane ANYWAYS, without telling her. Translation: he's a lying manipulative liar. (further evidence of his manipulative lying: pretending to be interested in Miss Ingram, to the point of making Jane think he's going to marry her. Augh.) Again: RUN AWAY FAST, JANE!
And there's the way he's forever referring to Jane in terms of her being a little innocent lamb. Which is proof he does NOT see this as an equal relationship, but in terms of him being older, worldly, knowledgeable, protective, etc, and her being young and sweet and innocent and NEEDING protection. Again: RUN AWAY FAST, JANE!
And I could keep going, about how Mr Rochester is really kind of a terrible person, and he should not be cast in the role of the romantic lead.
BUT.
Jane tells Mr Rochester she is his equal. And despite her constantly calling him "sir" or "my master", she acts his equal. Look, for example, at the way she behaves towards him during the month before they are to get married: He's all peremptory and commanding, and she just downright refuses to comply with him. She does what she wants, she acts how she wants, she constantly gets the upper hand, and he loves her the better for it. No quiet submissiveness for her.
If you compare this to the way she behaves with St John, there is a clear difference. With him, she finds herself submitting to his desires, even when it is not something she wants (like, say, learning Hindustani instead of German). The one and only time she says no to him is on the subject of her marrying him, and even there it's in large part because she knows that if she DID go to India as his wife, she would end up subjugating herself even more to him, working herself to the bone to be who he wants her to be, even if it does not make her happy, even if it is antithetical to who she really is.
And Jane chooses against the life of being an obedient wife on a godly mission, in favour of a life where she has both love AND the space to be herself with her own opinions and independence. And in the end it becomes more explicit, the direction that the power in their relationship really lies, in the way that it becomes so clear that Mr Rochester NEEDS Jane, so badly. He's needed her emotionally all along, but now -- parallelling their meeting scene -- he needs her help physically as well, because of his new disability.
So. A book that gives as a romantic lead a total creeper of a man: Not good. But a book, from 150 years ago, that portrays in positive light a woman who has thoughts, feelings, emotions, intelligence, a desire for independence, and a tendency towards being in charge; that makes the woman in the relationship the one who is admirable, the one who is in control?
It is hard to argue with that.
(Of course, I'm not even getting into the problematic bits like the terrible stereotypes against the French, or the way that Bertha's madness is inherited from her Creole half (Hello racism!), just to take two examples off the top of my head.....)
See, Mr Rochester is kind of a creeper. He's all, "Oh I've been a terrible person in the past but now I am atoning for my sins and turning over a new leaf, and you, Jane, innocent and unworldly and young as you are, are the angel helping me do so." Which. Um. GOD NO. RUN AWAY FAST, JANE!
And then there's the bit where he's got a wife in the attic, and intends to marry Jane ANYWAYS, without telling her. Translation: he's a lying manipulative liar. (further evidence of his manipulative lying: pretending to be interested in Miss Ingram, to the point of making Jane think he's going to marry her. Augh.) Again: RUN AWAY FAST, JANE!
And there's the way he's forever referring to Jane in terms of her being a little innocent lamb. Which is proof he does NOT see this as an equal relationship, but in terms of him being older, worldly, knowledgeable, protective, etc, and her being young and sweet and innocent and NEEDING protection. Again: RUN AWAY FAST, JANE!
And I could keep going, about how Mr Rochester is really kind of a terrible person, and he should not be cast in the role of the romantic lead.
BUT.
Jane tells Mr Rochester she is his equal. And despite her constantly calling him "sir" or "my master", she acts his equal. Look, for example, at the way she behaves towards him during the month before they are to get married: He's all peremptory and commanding, and she just downright refuses to comply with him. She does what she wants, she acts how she wants, she constantly gets the upper hand, and he loves her the better for it. No quiet submissiveness for her.
If you compare this to the way she behaves with St John, there is a clear difference. With him, she finds herself submitting to his desires, even when it is not something she wants (like, say, learning Hindustani instead of German). The one and only time she says no to him is on the subject of her marrying him, and even there it's in large part because she knows that if she DID go to India as his wife, she would end up subjugating herself even more to him, working herself to the bone to be who he wants her to be, even if it does not make her happy, even if it is antithetical to who she really is.
And Jane chooses against the life of being an obedient wife on a godly mission, in favour of a life where she has both love AND the space to be herself with her own opinions and independence. And in the end it becomes more explicit, the direction that the power in their relationship really lies, in the way that it becomes so clear that Mr Rochester NEEDS Jane, so badly. He's needed her emotionally all along, but now -- parallelling their meeting scene -- he needs her help physically as well, because of his new disability.
So. A book that gives as a romantic lead a total creeper of a man: Not good. But a book, from 150 years ago, that portrays in positive light a woman who has thoughts, feelings, emotions, intelligence, a desire for independence, and a tendency towards being in charge; that makes the woman in the relationship the one who is admirable, the one who is in control?
It is hard to argue with that.
(Of course, I'm not even getting into the problematic bits like the terrible stereotypes against the French, or the way that Bertha's madness is inherited from her Creole half (Hello racism!), just to take two examples off the top of my head.....)