Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë ~ 1847. This edition: Penguin, 1985. Edited and with Introduction by Q.D. Leavis. Paperback. ISBN: 0-14-043011-3. 489 pages.
My rating: 8.5/10
Let’s see if I can pull off a 100-word summation:
- Wee orphan Jane is despised by her only (that she knows about) relations and ends up in a charity-girl’s school, where she emerges at the age of 18 to take on a governess post to the illegitimate ward of the moody Mr. Rochester. Romantic sparks fly, despite a series of disturbing nocturnal events, and Jane is at the altar when an appalling allegation is made and everything is off. She runs away, finds shelter with a stern clergyman’s family, inherits a fortune, has a moral crisis, and passionately races her way back to Rochester’s now-mutilated arms. (There was this conflagration…)
Confession time: I have never read this book before, not even in my library-haunting adolescence when I tackled so many of the weighty greats. I do wonder what my younger self would have thought about it? I suspect much the same as my older self does: Rochester is bad, bad news, and Jane, you’re a fool.
This initially harsh reaction is salvaged by the author letting both of her main characters disarmingly confess the above about themselves a number of times. (Okay, it’s more like Jane knows she’s a fool. Rochester knows he’s bad news but he rather thinks that he gets a pass on his bad behaviour because…well…he’s rich and upper-class. And a man. A man has needs, don’t you know? Hence the three mistresses and the attempted bigamy.)
If the voice of Jane wasn’t so ardently introspective, I would have absolutely despised this deeply melodramatic tale. As it was, I quite enjoyed it, especially the orphanage saga at the beginning, and the “Should I be a missionary wife and go to India?” complication near the end. Engaging, most of it, though it took some work to wade through the romantic twaddle in the middle, before the aborted wedding ceremony and the Big Reveal about the insane first wife locked away in the attic.
If you have so far dodged this novel, you’re likely backing away slowly, thinking life’s too darned short for this sort of antique concoction, but let me reassure you that the thing has classic status for a reason, and that it’s well worth taking a go at it, if only to be able to at last identify the hundreds of references you’ve no doubt bumped up against in your other reading.
Can I stop right here? Though I could of course go on for thousands of words, picking the novel to pieces and putting it back together again, rambling on about symbolism and feminist elements (or the opposite) and the merits and demerits of the styling and plot, and should we be relating to Miss Eyre or despising her, and is Rochester really for real.
But I won’t.
This would be an awesome book to tackle with a real-life group of like-minded readers. No shortage of conversational topics, and it would be great fun to wax eloquent about the more outrageous bits, and to bounce favourite characters and scenes around.
So if you haven’t yet read Jane Eyre, here’s your nudge. Do it. You’ll love some bits, you’ll cringe at others, you’ll laugh (for there are some funny bits, both deliberate and unintentional), you’ll want to rattle some sense into Jane at least once or twice, and you’ll also yearn for Mr. Arrogance – oops, Rochester – to receive his much-deserved comeuppance. (Or maybe you’ll find him wonderfully romantic?)
Then come back and tell me what you think.
Oh my–we are studying JE in AP Lit at the moment and for once ALL my students are totally into how amazing this book is for so many things like narrative voice, imagery, lit terms (Gothic Romance, Bildungsroman), and how Jane is such a paradox of personality–a passionate introvert. Love this story…
It was most pleasing. So glad I FINALLY read it. How lovely that your students are enjoying it!
Now on to Charlotte’s sister’s epic, ‘Wuthering Heights’ – another of the obvious ones I’ve inexplicably missed reading.
Heathcliffe is no Rochester, that’s for sure!
Well now, that sounds promising! I will keep you posted. 🙂
I read this book in school and it was probably my favourite group reading experience I’ve ever had. In a class full of twenty 14 year old girls, pretty much the target market for Jane Eyre, only one girl liked the book. The amount of hatred expressed towards Mr. Rochester and Jane’s flights of excessive passion was heart warming. The next year we all read Pride and Prejudice and fell hard for the quieter charms of Pemberley, Elizabeth, and Mr Darcy (in that order).
Oh, Claire. “The amount of hatred expressed…was heartwarming”. You just made my day. So glad you were all such sensible girls! 😉
Great review. It’s not my favourite novel but I can see why people find it so interesting. And I must admit to a fondness for romantic heroes — Rochester, Heathcliff, Byron — which I know shocks many people I know. Too bad.
It is indeed interesting! And I found that Jane’s inner conflicts being so well portrayed kept my interest throughout; I found her likeably believable, in a heroine-of-a-romantic-novel sort of way. And I can see the “bad boy” appeal of Rochester, and I never did quite buy into the Miss Ingram courtship, but what was that gypsy disguise interlude all about?! And the bigamy attempt. Jane – run away! Far away!
I read a “children’s classics” version of this in school, when I was eight or nine. I was so traumatized by Helen’s death that I couldn’t go on reading, and it was years before I came back to this book. I have no idea how they handled the Mr Rochester storyline!
That would be traumatic at that age. It gave me pause. Dying in Jane’s arms… I also wonder how the Rochester element could be made “child-friendly” – it’s all about S.E.X., isn’t it? For all that he and Jane are presented as (eventually) kindred souls, Rochester is pretty keen on reaching a point where conjugal relations will be possible. And those mistresses! That tragic first wife! (Heck, the small child in residence, parentage shady…)
I absolutely devoured this book when I was about 13, but I read some years later a woman (Germaine Greer?) who said that it should be banned for young girls as it was a bad influence on them!
I can see her point! Not exactly a model romantic relationship, is it? But such an absorbing story. I say we keep it on the shelves. If the “young girls” can make it through the elaborate 19th century prose, they deserve to enjoy whatever fantasies it inspires! 😉
I first read this book back in mists of time, starting with the Classics Illustrated version, and then the full book, over and over again. I’ve seen nearly every* movie and TV adaptation, of an amazing variety of quality and lack thereof.
Reader, I love this book.
Yes there are aspects of it I abhor, such as Rochester’s appalling treatment of his mad wife (would she not have been far better off living in Jamaica with a well-paid and decent guardian than locked away in an attic room in Yorkshire?) Oh right, story.
But overriding that is Jane’s determination and independence, her capacity for standing up to Mr. Rochester. And for all his faults, he realises he has met his intellectual equal (or rather, superior) in Jane.
And then there’s Jane’s famous feminist statement, “Women feel just as men feel….” (Full text to follow).
I could go on and on, but yes, it bears reading. And rereading.
(* Okay, not nearly every version. According to IMDB, it’s been filmed 35 times, so far, since 1910. The latest was in 2011, so it’s probably due for another outing soon.)
Jane’s cri de coeur, chapter 12
“It is in vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquillity: they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it. Millions are condemned to a stiller doom than mine, and millions are in silent revolt against their lot. Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people earth. Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.”
Okay, this sort of thing was what kept me reading. Lots of thoughtful inner monologue in there to contrast with the melodramatic romance. Thank you for sharing the excerpt!
So, what did you think of the 2011 version? I haven’t (yet) seen any of the filmed versions, but I did take note of the movie stills and the visuals of that most recent film look gorgeous – the actress cast as Jane definitely has the right look. (But Rochester is mostly too conventionally handsome in the stills of many versions, in my opinion.) Recommendations most welcome – I know our library has a few of these on the dvd shelf.
My all-time favourite is the 1973 BBC miniseries, with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. Very true to both the letter and the spirit of the book. (though I think some find it talky). I’d avoid 1943 and 1970 (Orson Wells and George D. Scott, respectively, as Rochester. I recall 2011 as being on the higher end. There are soooo many, some run together in my mind. :^)
Thank you, Susan. There’s a good chance of finding this one (the 1973) in our library system. Lots of BBC productions on file. I think I will also see about the 2011 – for viewing en famille. I’ve been giving my people a play-by-play as I’ve been reading – general consensus is that they’re not about to try it themselves any time soon because they don’t need to – they now know the story! We do enjoy the occasional well-made adaptation. Prefer the British productions – their people look much more real (as a rule) than American films.
Oh – and yes – the wife comment – I totally agree. Why cart her all the way to England?!
Fab review. This book unites 3 generations in our family, my mother hated it, I read it at 13 and was unmoved and dd loves it. I think it’s one of those books that matter when you read it ie what age and what your generation is up to when you’re reading it.
Isn’t it wonderful how passionate the responses are to novels such as these? (Even if the response is dismissal, or negativity?) It’s a thought-provoking novel in that I think one readily identifies or at least sympathizes to a certain degree with the narrator; she came alive for me, and I ended up enjoying her thoroughly, even when I wanted to shake her on occasion. I was so glad and relieved when she found the inner gumption to refuse the St. John Rivers’ proposal.
I have absolutely no chill where this book is concerned, as I read it when I was eight. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite characters in all of literature, and although Rochester is indubitably bad news, I love how crazy about Jane he is. Bless his heart.
Holy smokes, you were a precocious reader! Attagirl. 🙂 And yes, well, I guess we can give Rochester the “besotted” award. 😉
I first attempted to read Jane Eyre when I was ten, but at that age, lost interest once she left the charity school. Later, in college, reading Jane Eyre helped me through the worst crises of my life, so I’ll always be fond of Jane. I also enjoy some of the film adaptations, particularly the ones with Michael Fassbender and Toby Stephens as Mr. Rochester. The low-budget BBC version from the 1980s with Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester is also really good.
I did think the charity school part was one of the strongest. I struggled a bit to keep going during the more romantic interludes, but ended up liking the novel quite a lot. It was different than I had expected – actually I’m not quite sure what I expected – I think my prior idea of the story was something just a little different – for some reason I had always envisioned Rochester as a benevolent, upstanding-citizen type, not as a moody womanizer (!) which is really what he was, wasn’t he? But I suppose his love for Jane redeemed him. Somewhat. 😉 Thank you for the film recommendations. I am looking forward to exploring at least one or two of the adaptations, now that I’ve at last read the novel.
[…] to do with the inevitable comparison of these two sisters’ novels. Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre I know I will reread with pleasure. Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, not so much, though […]
I love this novel. I love Jane and her prickliness and her strong statements of self (as shared above). I don’t mind Rochester, though in film, I think that Toby Stephens as Mr. R. was the best depiction, one that made me believe that Jane would be besotted with him.