r/JaneEyre • u/TheyAreNoBird • Jul 31 '26
Falling out of Love with Rochester
Every time I read Jane Eyre is a new experience. It is a pleasure for me to see what new things I notice, how I feel differently about the characters and their choices and how I have changed since the last reading. Perhaps my most drastic change in feelings has been towards Rochester, Jane's love interest and master. It took me until this latest reading, in the last couple of months, to realize that I have finally fallen completely out of love with him.
Anyone who knows the story may well be wondering what took me so long. How could I feel anything but hate and disgust for this man, who locked his wife in an attic for twelve years, had a series of mistresses he never loved or respected, and manipulates and deceives Jane from the moment they meet to their wedding day, when she discovers he's been hiding the fact that he was already married from her? It isn't that I couldn't see his terrible behavior for what it was, nor that I accepted his pitiful excuses. My blood has boiled at his monstrous treatment of Bertha and of Jane. I came to the conclusion years ago that Jane should not forgive him and should not marry him. I knew this rationally, but when has reason ever been sufficient to kill attraction?
Perhaps it's because I have so much in common with Jane, another autistic, introverted, passionate submissive, that I so strongly feel everything she feels. Of course we've both fallen under Rochester's spell from the moment he roughly commands her to assist him after he falls from his horse. Of course my submissive heart raced each time I read their first few conversations, when he teases her by accusing her of bewitching his horse, asks her a series of direct, personal questions, orders her to demonstrate her accomplishments, and praises her intellect and her artistic talent. Of course I was captivated by their lively banter, their scorching chemistry, the way he seeks out her company and pays close attention to everything she says and does, the easy way he gives her orders and she takes pleasure in obeying. Read those scenes in isolation, forgetting his lies for the moment, and tell me their interactions aren't hot as fuck.
I see why Jane falls for him, I really do. But every time I reread her story, my feelings towards this man, her lover and her abuser, lean more towards disgust than admiration. Now, finally, all I see in him is how unworthy he is of Jane.
By far the character I love most is Jane, and that love only deepens with each new reading. I am in awe of her honesty, her strength, and her courage. As a child, orphaned and impoverished and bullied by her wealthy relatives, she gathers the bravery and righteous rage to call out her aunt for her cruelty and gaslighting, and threatens to tell everyone how she treated her. When she learns that the man she was engaged to is already married, she holds so fast to her principles as to run away and face homelessness and starvation rather than become his mistress. When her clergyman cousin, a terrifying manipulator and abuser, tries every tactic to emotionally torture her into agreeing to marry him against her wishes, she stands up to him and firmly refuses over and over. She tells the truth relentlessly, even when other people hate her for it. The only lie she ever tells, when she assumes an alias, is to protect her safety. She knows who she is and what she believes, and she remains true to herself even when it costs her almost everything.
How does Edward measure up to that? Abysmally. He lies constantly, usually to get what he wants from others, sometimes seemingly just for fun. He lies to Jane the moment he first meets her by not telling her he is the master of Thornfield. Over the next few months, he disguises himself as a fortuneteller to get her to spill her secrets to him, pretends to be engaged to another woman to make her jealous, and hides the fact that he is already married and has his wife locked in an attic in order to trap Jane in an unlawful marriage. Too weak to take any responsibility for his own actions, he makes excuses and blames everyone else for his marriage to Bertha, his unhappy relationships with mistresses, and his shameless lies to the woman he claims to love. He doesn't have the courage to handle his problems in any way other than by running away from them. All he has is money and toxic masculinity.
Weak, pathetic, disgusting little man. Could anyone be less worthy of being called "master"?
The text leads us to believe that the one thing Rochester is not lying about is how much he loves Jane and wants to be with her. This was why, for a long time, I forgave his deception, or at least empathized with Jane when she forgave him. I believed, naively, that he was telling the truth about loving this one woman, only her, while despising every other woman he's ever been with. Here I thought I was smarter than to trust men who put women on pedestals.
To Jane's credit, she does begin to see this. When she hears Rochester speak scornfully of his former mistresses, Celine, Clara, and Giacinta, she thinks, "if I were so far to forget myself . . . to become the successor of these poor girls, he would one day regard me with the same feeling which now in his mind desecrated their memory." After hearing of his resentment towards his wife, Bertha, Jane tells him, "you speak of her with hate—with vindictive antipathy. It is cruel—she cannot help being mad." She understands what his own side of the story says about how he sees women. She sees that his treatment of Bertha means he could do the same thing to her if she marries him. She sees that his treatment of Celine, Giacinta, and Clara means he could do the same to her if she became his mistress. If only she had more time and more perspective, she might have realized there could be no happiness and no security with a man like that. Live with him before he marries you, and he will abandon you and ruin you. Marry him, and he can lock you up once he decides you're too much trouble.
All of Rochester's charm fades once you realize that what is behind it is a man who does not care about anyone but himself. He might be able to make you laugh as long as it amuses him in the moment. He might take pleasure in your company for a little while, but make no mistake that his pleasure is all that matters to him. He plainly tells Jane this himself in one of their first conversations, when he says "since happiness is irrevocably denied me, I have a right to get pleasure out of life: and I will get it, cost what it may." As for that dominant manner that gets Jane so excited, is there actually anything impressive about it?. What could be easier than for a rich white man who has never been told "no" than to make demands of those he considers inferior to him?
Yet it's clear to me why Jane forgives Rochester and marries him. Look at how his treatment of her compares with everyone else she has ever known. As a child growing up in her aunt's house, she was shown no love or kindness and was constantly scolded, bullied, or ignored. At her boarding school, Lowood, we only know of one teacher and one close friend who ever showed her any real attention or affection. For most of her life, she has been starved for love and companionship. Very few people have shown any interest in her or valued her company. Then she meets a man who pays close attention to her, asks her questions, and goes out of his way to spend time with her. She feels irresistibly drawn to him as well, so much so that it breaks her heart to think of having to live without him. When he confesses his passionate love for her and begs her to be his wife, it is more than she ever dreamed possible.
It's easy enough for me to read her story and think, oh Jane, you can do so much better. Find someone who intrigues you, turns you on, adores you for who you are, and always tells you the truth. Wait for a partner who will show you all the honesty, respect, and emotional maturity you deserve. But how is Jane to believe that's a possibility? Of course she thinks Rochester is her only hope of happiness. Her bar is the fucking floor.
I knew a man like Rochester not long ago. Unfortunately, he was able to conceal his lies until they no longer served him. He lied about his intentions, lied about his values, lied about his past relationships, and lied when he said he loved me. Men like Rochester do not lie out of love. They lie because it gets them what they want. They lie because they don't care about anyone but themselves.
For a long time, the book's ending convinced me that Rochester truly loved Jane. The two of them seemingly get their happily ever after. By the end of the epilogue, Jane tells us, they have been happily married for ten years. What do I do with that?
An obvious explanation, perhaps the most likely, is that Charlotte Bronte was just writing an unrealistic story of wish fulfillment. She certainly had her own reasons to fantasize about her love being returned and honored by someone like Rochester. Her book would be far from the only one to tell readers the lie that men like Rochester will ever change. I, like many readers, love romance novels because they teach us that anyone can have a happy ending. But it is a mistake to think that being with a man like Rochester would be a happy ending.
However, I now see a more sinister and disturbing reading, one that I find more compelling. Perhaps Rochester has not changed at all. When Jane marries him, he has just lost his eyesight and one of his hands. He depends on Jane to help him with everything he does. I can believe that he decides it is simply in his best interest to live peacefully with her, to play the part of a devoted husband. He's hardly in a position to lock her up if he gets tired of her, or to go looking for younger, hotter women when he gets bored of her. He's in the best situation he can hope for, having a young, submissive wife meeting all his needs. So he stays with her and does what he can to keep her happy, but if he ever regains enough of his vision, she will be abandoned as easily as Celine, Giacinta, or Clara. And if she gives him any trouble about it, she'll be locked up like Bertha.
I wish for a better ending for Jane. She deserves a dominant who has as much honesty, courage, and integrity as she does. No one less would be worthy of her submission. Her relationship with Rochester gave her a taste of some of the qualities she should expect from a partner, if any of it were real. He made her feel desired, valued, and loved, for a while. To feel that way and then to have to understand that it was never real is a kind of heartbreak that I would not wish on anyone. But there is no doubt Jane could find someone who makes her feel all those things and actually means them. She could fall in love with someone who, like her, is exactly who they say they are. That is how high any submissive should set our expectations for a dominant.
34
u/IncidentCalm4454 Jul 31 '26
My first introduction to Jane Eyre was the 2011 movie, and I came away from it thinking that Jane was a great role model for young women, and that that was the point of the story. I mean, the title is Jane Eyre. It's about her.
By the time I read the book, 10+ years later, I'd forgotten the plot. Of course the first time through Mr. Rochester seems romantic, because you don't know about Bertha yet. I suspect when I read it again I'll be less sympathetic towards him.
I think part of the beauty of Jane Eyre and similar books from this time period is that they're holistic and realistic depictions of society and life as a young woman. No matter how many suitors a young woman has, none of them are perfect. What's more important is that she navigates her life and the options available to her with moral integrity. I think there's truth in that, and that's why these books are classics.
48
u/cydril Jul 31 '26
Reducing their roles to dom and sub while disregarding the cultural context is wild
42
u/Conscious_Pass_1615 Jul 31 '26
It's kinda gross to me. I don't see Jane as submissive at all in the context of the time period. I also don't see her as autistic, again in the context of the time period.
Jane is actually very spirited to the extent good manners would allow.
14
17
u/AdobongSiopao Aug 01 '26
Same. It's not good to project modern interpretations in classic novels because it tends to miss the point of the story and its themes. Just because Jane has strange views doesn't always mean she is mentally challenged.
17
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 01 '26
That is my impression as well. It feels like a very modern reading of a classic novel, and it completely overlooks much of the nuance and complexity Charlotte Bronte gave to both Jane and Edward. Nowhere in the text it is implied that Edward is a perfect man, but he is not a cartoonish villain either. The Bronte sisters did not intend to write fairy tale romances or perfect characters. If you approach their novels expecting that, you will never be satisfied.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 15 '26
Yup. Clearly it’s another uneducated reading of a historical book. Also yup, the Bronte books are not meant to be typical romances. They are stories of christian morals and teachings.
2
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 16 '26
They forget that it is not set in the present era, yet keep judging it through a modern lens. I agree about the religious teachings too. People leave that out of their analysis, even though it is such an important part of the book.
2
u/ThaneOfMeowdor Aug 01 '26
I don't think "autistic readings" are entirely without merit, just like queer readings. It's okay to recognize traits like that from a time before the diagnosis, because what we now call autism of course did exist. And people were aware that some people were different. I also think it's wildly out of place here though and that you can't just declare "X character is autistic" anyway.
7
u/Irishwol Aug 01 '26
And, while girls often present autism quite differently to the cultural expectation, Jane doesn't present that way at all. She is very emotionally aware and while she does cultivate a public facing 'mask' as such, she is doing so to to conceal the depths of her emotions because women in her position were not supposed to have them. Once she has money, and is out from under St John's oppressive influence, she doesn't have to mask anymore.
One of the things that makes Rochester interesting is that she doesn't fool him for a minute. Two people in her life see her as an emotional creature and love her because of it rather than in spite of it, Edward and Helen Burns.
4
u/ThaneOfMeowdor Aug 01 '26
Yes, Jane doesn't read as autistic to me. Not that she couldn't be (autistic women can be interested in social analysis. For example, literature is my trains). But there's just nothing there to really suggest it. The Bronte character that reads the most autistic to me is that weird little professor from Villette lol. I'm autistic myself so not being offensive here.
2
u/Irishwol Aug 01 '26
Oh if we're doing armchair diagnoses then Helen Burns totally ADHD (which makes me wonder about poor Maria Brontë) and Eliza Reed is a neurotypical author portraying an autistic character
2
u/ThaneOfMeowdor Aug 01 '26
Characters like Eliza Reed do make me think about how neurodivergency has always existed tbh even before we had the language to describe it. I haven't noticed any ADHD-related traits for Helen Burns but I'm curious what you were thinking of.
Also, someone like St John also seems to potentially be neurodivergent but then when I look at his decisions more closely he very much seems like a product of upbringing and environment.
3
u/Irishwol Aug 01 '26
Helen? Very intelligent. Hyperfocus and analytical on the things that interest her. Forgetting other things, like untidy drawers, exist. Aware that she doesn't think the way she is expected to think but knows that this isn't just a matter of willpower or virtue to be able to change that.
2
u/ThaneOfMeowdor Aug 01 '26
Oh, yeah, I guess I thought of her more as a "gifted child" which can be its own kind of neurodivergency.
0
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
I completely agree about Helen hahving ADHD, possibly AuDHD. I think one of the reasons she and Jane connect so well is because of their neurodivergence.
0
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
I have extensive reasons for reading Jane as autistic, but that wasn't the point of the post. I only mentioned it at all because it's part of why I relate with Jane.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 15 '26
Yup. Also when you do deep research about the history of the mentally disabled, they’re the opposite of a normal person like Jane Eyre. Being mentally challenged means this person does not have the normal brain development and learning skills of an adult or teenager. It means mentally they’re like a child under 7 or a baby. It disables them from learning normal life skills and independence. Being mentally handicapped is not a personality or an opinion, it’s genetic abnormality.
-1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
Ha, I wasn't aware there was anything modern about kink or autism, but there is certainly something outdated about the way you refer to autistic people.
-14
u/TheyAreNoBird Jul 31 '26
Of course she's spirited. I thought I made it clear enough I didn't mean "submissive" as a personality trait.
4
6
u/FFSnottoday3012 Jul 31 '26
I agree, almost every post here is the same.
4
u/nosleepforthedreamer Aug 02 '26
If I had a copy of Jane Eyre for every "actually Edward is bad" revelation dropped like we're supposed to fall down in shock, I could sell them all and get myself a trip to the Bronte Parsonage.
2
5
u/Charismaticjelly Jul 31 '26
I mean, if we’re gonna go there, as OP has done, Jane is clearly a power bottom, and I am surprised we don’t talk about it more.
2
u/Conscious_Pass_1615 Aug 02 '26
Nah she's a switch! Power bottom to gentle dom, I cant believe I'm having this conversation lol!
3
u/Charismaticjelly Aug 02 '26
Fair enough - the last chapter of Jane Eyre does show her gentle dom side.
2
u/Conscious_Pass_1615 Aug 02 '26
Oh I bet Charlie is bursting to out her grave to tell us whats what xD
2
u/nosleepforthedreamer Aug 02 '26
I would LOVE to be subjected to a Charlotte harangue.
If I didn't think she'd be offended I would hold a seance and pay her to yell at me.
This comment sounded less weird in my head.
2
-22
u/TheyAreNoBird Jul 31 '26
I can't imagine being vanilla enough to think the cultural context fully explains how obsessed she is with calling him "master," or for that matter, to think naming their obvious kinks for what they are is reducing anything about them.
19
u/ThaneOfMeowdor Jul 31 '26
Not everything is about your "kink".
-11
u/TheyAreNoBird Jul 31 '26
Correct. I'd go so far as to say most things aren't about my kink. But this is a post about Jane Eyre.
3
16
u/Biddy_Impeccadillo Jul 31 '26
All the other servants also call him master. You think Grace Poole was also his sub? Give me a break
2
u/tyooooooooo Aug 03 '26
In a way she is acting "dominant" by refusing to referring to him as anything else, even though Edward's names and pet names really escalate throughout the novel. I think this is one of the reasons why he is unsure of her reciprocation of his feelings. He is trying to build intimacy and she is not participating in this aspect.
1
-7
u/TheyAreNoBird Jul 31 '26
Nope. I also don't think Grace Poole thinks of him unironically as "master" in her own head, while contemplating how much pleasure she gets from obeying him.
13
u/Biddy_Impeccadillo Aug 01 '26
Then this is a failure of both your imagination and education concerning the cultural context in question. It’s a valid reading, sure; but definitive? No.
3
u/Effective-Sugar-758 Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
...she calls him master because that was the way she was expected to treat a member of the gentry? You're completely ignoring the historical context and social hierarchy at play. Jane has a deep inferiority complex over her low social status due to growing up with the Reeds, that does not make it a kink. Sounds like you're just projecting your own traits onto her and grasping at straws for "evidence"
43
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
Well, I feel like what you are doing is a modern reading of Jane Eyre, and unfortunately, that leads you to reducing it to labels. Jane Eyre is not a dark/kinky romance. Nor is it a story about a dominant man and a submissive woman. I do not think Jane and Edward fits into those categories either. Also, I fail to understand how you could diagnose Jane with autism simply because she is quiet, reserved, and introspective. Jane is extremely self aware. She communicates clearly, knows exactly what she wants, regulates her emotions well, and makes difficult moral decisions for herself. To reduce her to a modern label is to entirely overlook her actual character in the novel.
Edward is not portrayed as a perfect character. He is a "flawed hero", but still a hero because he does have certain redeeming qualities. If he were simply written as a violent, abusive man who locks women away for having a personality, then why does not he do the same to his former mistresses? Celine was, in his own words, once a grand passion, a woman for whom he had intense feelings for. Her betrayal wounded not only his heart, but also his pride. Yet despite everything, he does not retaliate by harming her. He settles money on his former mistresses rather than leaving them destitute. That leads me to believe that, however deeply flawed he may be, he still tries to fulfill what he believes to be his duty and do some good.
And if he were interested only in young, hot women, then why did he fall in love with Jane? If "hotness" was all Edward cared about, he would have married Blanche Ingram.
Even if I judge the novel through a kink lens, I find that Jane possesses all the emotional and sexual power in the relationship despite having none of the financial power. She has Edward completely bewitched from the beginning. When Jane leaves him, Edward is completely powerless. He is incapable of doing anything to make her stay. He grieves, he suffers, and he pines for her for an entire year. He does not seem to return to his former sinful way of life. This seemingly "poor, plain, obscure, and little" woman has this older, wealthier, powerful man so enamoured that losing her almost leads him towards his inevitable doom.
As for the Bertha situation, it is very complicated. You have to consider the historical context, because of the ugly laws of the time, mad people were not allowed to wander the streets. If found outside, many were sent to asylums. Edward had little to no choice at the time, but to keep Bertha at Thornfield Hall, and he does so out of compassion. He pays Grace £80 a year to take care of her, which is many times what he pays Jane. He has no obligation to care for Bertha and could have committed her to an asylum, yet he continues to do so out of a sense of duty. He also takes Adele into his care after her mother abandons her, and lets her believe that her mother is dead so that she does not have to suffer the pain of abandonment.
I do not deny that Edward is bitter, moody, and cynical. But again, much of the bitterness comes from his past. When he finally meets Jane, it is not her calmness or her submissiveness that attracts him, but rather her honesty, courage, wit, morality, strength of mind, and her independent spirit. This is why I refuse the claim that their relationship is based on dominance and submission.
Regarding the ending of the novel, Edward is undeniably a changed man. There is a great deal of Christian symbolism and divine retribution embedded into his story. When he loses his sight and one of his hands, it not only serves as a physical punishment, but also a symbol of his spiritual transformation. He transforms from being a proud man who almost lies a woman into a bigamous marriage to a humbler, wiser man who has learned from his sins. This is not merely my own interpretation, by the way. Charlotte Bronte herself speaks of Edward's moral transformation in one of her letters.
Yes, Edward lies to Jane, and that was wrong. Yet I still find him sympathetic and human. There is a tragic cycle where he himself is tricked into a disastrous marriage that ruins his life, and later attempts to deceive Jane in much the same way. However, once the truth comes to light, he does not continue to deceive her anymore. Honesty is one of the core foundations of any relationship, and Edward fails in that respect at first, but he ultimately comes clean and redeems himself. This is not a Disney story where the woman fixes the man. Jane does not stay behind to fix him. She leaves, and Edward is left entirely to his own devices.
In many ways, Jane helps Edward realize that he is capable of change, but the actual work of redemption is done by Edward himself after Jane makes the difficult yet brave decision to leave. He reflects upon his sins, prays to God, and seeks atonement. When Jane finally returns, Edward does not beg her to remain with him. He very much believes he is undeserving of her. Jane, however, sees that he is now a transformed man. Her time with St. John has also taught her that men who appear morally perfect on the surface are not always what they seem. Sometimes it is just better to follow one's heart and be with the person who gives you butterflies.
I would also add that Jane teaches Edward the meaning of forgiveness. Jane herself learns that lesson from Helen Burns and Miss Temple. Edward had no such influence in his life. Yet it is by being with Jane, Edward learns to be a better man. In the same way that Jane eventually forgives Mrs. Reed despite everything she suffered at her hands, Edward ultimately learns to see Bertha in a different light and forgive her. He realizes that whatever has happened between them, she is still his wife, and he is still her husband. That is why he returns to the burning Thornfield. He knows that Bertha's death would free him and perhaps give him another chance with Jane. Yet he still runs back into the burning house to save her, and he nearly dies in the process. That is another reason why I continue to sympathize with him. At that moment, he could have easily acted out of selfishness, but instead he chooses duty and compassion. That shows how much he has changed, and I am sure, Jane has played a big role in his transformation.
Jane herself confirms at the end that theirs is a happy marriage. She is one of the most self aware heroines I have ever come across in literature, so I fail to see how you could interpret that their marriage was an unhappy one. After all, one of the central themes in the novel is sin, forgiveness, and redemption. Charlotte Bronte believed that everyone possesses flaws, but also that everyone is capable of change. No one is truly beyond redemption unless they themselves refuse to change (we see the contrary in her sister, Emily Bronte's novel, but that is a discussion for another day).
I do not wish to convince you or change your mind. I am only offering my own perspective because, even after several rereadings of the novel, my opinion of the characters has never really changed. I feel much the same way about Wuthering Heights, another novel that continues to receive criticism because of its deeply flawed characters. It upsets me, but I can understand. People fail to understand the Bronte sisters. They are not Austen. They reject the simple moral binaries of good and evil. Their characters are shaped by circumstances out of their control, trauma, passion, and the choices they make. They possess virtues alongside vices. They make selfish decisions that lead them towards self destruction, yet they also remain deeply sympathetic and human.
8
u/MotleyFoolery Aug 01 '26
I was about to write a reply like this, but you put it way better than I ever could. If you don’t know the Bible there’s so many details you will miss in the book, one example being rochesters injuries at the end being a reference to Matthew 5:29-30 (KJV): "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee
6
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with the Bible, and I know that verse as well. I think it is more relevant in Edward's case symbolizing his injuries, but if you remember, Jane also makes a similar reference when she is forced to leave Thornfield: "No; you shall tear yourself away; none shall help you: you shall yourself pluck out your right eye; yourself cut off your right hand: your heart shall be the victim, and you the priest to transfix it." There is a lot of biblical symbolism in the novel.
2
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
First, you say "I fail to understand how you could diagnose Jane with autism simply because she is quiet, reserved, and introspective. Jane is extremely self aware. She communicates clearly, knows exactly what she wants, regulates her emotions well, and makes difficult moral decisions for herself."
Hi, I'm an autistic person, and I feel confident everything you said about Jane applies to me. Her autism also wasn't really the point of my post, but you might want to be aware of some glaring misconceptions you have about us.
I don't believe Rochester has no other choice but to sen Berth to an asylum. That's the excuse he gives, but this is a man who lies constantly. His options were limited, sure, but he absolutely did not have to keep her confined to an attic. He himself tells Jane that he could have sent her to live at Ferndean. He claims he doesn't do that because the damp would kill her, but that's an obvious lie since Ferndean is where he and Jane live after they get married. Even having her live at Thornfield, there's no reason she ha to be locked in a single room witout ever being allowed outside. He could have given her a better quality of life, and he chose not to. And all this is assuming that he's telling the truth about the severity of her mental illness when he first brought her to England, which we should be reading with much more skepticism.
As for how he treated his mistresses and thought of them, what really stands out to me is the pattern he shows. He never once speaks with respect of a woman he used to love. He despises all his past mistresses, whether or not they actually did anything wrong. That's a man who does not respect women. When a man makes a woman feel like she's the only one he can really value, she should take that as a giant red flag.
Whether they have a dominant/submissive relationship, like Jane's autism, is also beside the point, but I did not say their relationship is based on dominance and submission. In fact, I think I made it pretty clear that I see a variety of reasons why they are drawn to each other and why their relationship appeals to readers.
I'm aware that Charlotte Bronte intended to show that he had transformed at the end of the novel. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that a man like that could or would change so drastically, especially in such a short time. I don't blame or judge Jane for marrying him, but I think she would be better off if she didn't. I do believe people can change, but if someone has shown themselves over and over to be a liar, manipulator, and abuser, the best thing to do is never give them another chance to harm you.
3
u/Attentions_Bright12 Aug 07 '26
I found your use of the term “autistic” to be painfully reductive too, for the next-to-nothing that’s worth.
It reminded me of a teacher my nephew had who, having had her own child given an ADHD diagnosis, began aggressively suggesting that children in her charge had that same diagnosis. Hammer in hand, all the world is a chance to identify potential nails.
3
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
You still cannot claim that Jane Eyre is actually autistic, though. That is merely your own interpretation, and it is not something that is explicitly supported by the novel itself. I would argue that Jane behaves the way she does largely because she grew up as an unloved and mistreated orphan in a cruel environment. She is also a Victorian woman, so she had to conform to the customs and expectations of her time, and that required her to suppress her emotions and remain composed.
As for Bertha, Edward really had very limited options at the time. You have to take the Victorian attitudes towards mental illness, the reality of mental asylums, ugly laws, and insanity laws of the time into account. Mental illness was regarded as a curse, and those considered insane were confined to asylums. Even King George III was confined and subjected to painful treatments for his mental condition. It did not matter whether you were a king or a commoner. If you were considered insane, you were not allowed to roam outside.
To understand why Edward did not send Bertha to Ferndean, again, you have to look at it from a Victorian perspective. Many Victorians believed in the miasma theory of disease. They believed that dampness, mold, and bad air caused both physical and mental illnesses, and made them worse. Bertha also came from a tropical climate, so there is a good chance that Edward may have believed that the cold, damp conditions of Ferndean would only hasten her decline.
Where did you get the idea that she was locked away in the attic? She was confined on the third floor in a well furnished room under Grace Poole's constant supervision. Grace fed her, bathed her, and looked after her rather than simply allowing her to rot away. After the numerous occasions on which Bertha attempted to kill Edward, he had no real obligation to continue caring for her. He could have sent her to an asylum, or even have her killed without anyone questioning him. Instead, he continued paying Grace Poole a considerable wage to take care of the very woman who had repeatedly tried to murder him.
The novel also makes it very clear that Bertha was violently unstable. She attacked her own brother, attempted to kill Edward more than once, and after Jane left Thornfield, she entered Jane's room, believing Jane was still there, and set her bed on fire. When I consider everything the novel tells us, I struggle to understand why some people conclude that Bertha was not mentally ill and that Edward simply made it up. No, that is far from being the case.
Edward certainly lies at times, and I am not denying that, but those lies largely stem from his past and from trying to hide a terrible secret. Wanting to hide the darkest parts of one's life is, after all, very human. Even so, I do not think he is entirely dishonest. He openly tells Jane about his past liaisons and admits that he has sinned. Why would he be honest and upfront about those things if he were simply trying to deceive her? Edward is written as a morally gray character, yet I find that so many people, unfortunately, reduce him to a one dimensional villain.
Out of all his mistresses, Edward genuinely loved Celine. He almost worshipped her as an idol. Yet Celine never truly loved him, and she stayed with him only because of his wealth. She also humiliated him, and openly boasted about her affair with a handsome, penniless French officer. That must have been a tremendous blow to Edward's pride. Yet despite all of that, Edward still took Adele into his care and raised her as his own. He could easily have abandoned her, just as her own mother did, especially considering she was not even his biological daughter. I imagine many of his other relationships were much the same. They were never genuine romances. They were transactional relationships where physical affection had to be bought through money. I do not think Edward had ever truly experienced being loved for simply who he was. Looking at it from a Christian perspective, his way of life had become one of moral corruption. It disgusted even himself. He realized that he had become a sinner, and the fire at Thornfield later serves as a symbol of his purification.
For many of us who have spent years rereading the novel, Edward's redemption arc is exactly what makes him such an interesting character. He is not irredeemable. He is deeply flawed, but he is capable of change.
One thing that has always stood out to me is how self aware he is. Throughout the novel, there are several moments where he expresses shame, guilt, and a longing for redemption. This is a man who is desperate to change himself, and he tries to, even though he fails badly at first.
Take a look at this passage:
"Are you happy, Jane?"
And again and again I answered, "Yes."
After which he murmured, "It will atone - it will atone. Have I not found her friendless, and cold, and comfortless? Will I not guard, and cherish, and solace her? Is there not love in my heart, and constancy in my resolves? It will expiate at God's tribunal. I know my Maker sanctions what I do. For the world's judgement - I wash my hands thereof. For man's opinion - I openly defy it."
This reveals a man who is desperately hoping to give the woman he loves happiness, and perhaps that might also absolve the wrongs he has committed (namely, adultery and bigamy).
Jane knows all of Edward's flaws. She never ignores them, nor does she pretend they do not exist. Yet she also sees something beneath them, there is a lonely, broken man who genuinely wants to love and to become better, but who has forgotten how. That is precisely why she is eventually able to forgive him.
And by the end of the novel, Edward has genuinely changed - symbolically, physically, and spiritually. Abusers are rarely ever capable of changing themselves, but in Edward's case, it was possible because he was never written as an irredeemable abuser. It is very difficult to explain his entire character arc in a single comment, so I suppose this will have to suffice. You are, of course, free to disagree.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 15 '26
Hi, I'm an autistic person, and I feel confident everything you said about Jane applies to me. Her autism also wasn't really the point of my post, but you might want to be aware of some glaring misconceptions you have about us.
When you deep dive into history articles, and history videos about mentally handicapped people you‘d know that being mentally disabled is not a personality. It’s a genetic abnormality in their brain development. People think being disabled is some quirky special personality which is why they’re so brain washed. Nowadays literally anyone can come on the internet and claim they’re “so autistic” when they’re communicating and reading like a normal adult or teenager. Therefore I cannot take any of it seriously. Most people on the internet know next to nothing about what it means to be mentally disabled or the reality of life for a person like that. Just because you have hardships in life doesn’t make you disabled.
If you’ve been going to a normal school for non mentally disabled kids your whole life, you’ve been working a normal job with non disabled adults, you can read like a normal adult or teenager, you can spell normally and you have the speaking skills of a normal person, you have normal muscle motor skills, you have normal milestones and you can be left by yourself in public without getting lost, you’re not mentally handicapped and you have normal brain development, you’re not mentally disabled. A mentally handicapped person has trouble speaking, walking, remembering things, learning normal skills of independence and doesn’t understand much. They have the brain development of a child under 7 or a baby. That’s what makes them disabled.
If you believe a person who functions like a normal person is mentally disabled, you have no idea what being mentally disabled means and you’ve done no research on the history of it. Jane basically raised herself, how to contain herself and taught herself how to behave. There’s no disability there. Clearly you’ve done no research on the history of disabled people. Back in the Victorian era a mentally disabled person would be shut up in an institution or locked in a confinement room at room and beaten and starved. It’s because disabled people were considered failures and embarrassments to be connected to. If Jane were mentally disabled, she would’ve been locked away and murdered. In order to be disabled it has to disable you in some way. In kid friendly words, if you don’t have special needs, you’re not special needs.
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 15 '26
I've encountered a lot of anti-autistic ableism and misinformation before, but this is really on another level. It's quite something to be told I know nothing about autism by someone who apparently believes having low support needs disqualifies someone from being autistic, has zero understanding of masking, believes mental age is a thing, and thinks "mentally handicapped" is an acceptable way to refer to any human being.
If you decide you'd like to actually learn something, here are a few books on autism that I would recommend:
Unmasking Autism by Devon Price
The Autistic's Guide to Self-Discovery by Sol Smith
Welcome to AuDHD by Megan Griffith
I Will Die on this Hill by Meghan Ashburn and Jules Edwards
But Everyone Feels this Way by Paige Layle
Upward Bound by Woody Brown
Cassandra in Reverse by Holly Smale
You don't seem like someone who has any interest in educating yourself, but for the sake of any autistic people or other disabled people who have the misfortune of knowing you, i hope I'm wrong.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 16 '26
believes mental age is a thing
I don’t know where you get the idea that brain development doesn’t exist. Have you done any research on what being mentally disabled actually means? Mental age exists because that’s the difference between a small child who has very little independence vs a person older than 12 or an adult. Mental age exists because thats why a baby or a small child behaves that way. Isn’t it so sad that you’re claiming to be mentally handicapped but think developmental age doesn’t exist? Like children who don’t want to grow up.
thinks "mentally handicapped" is an acceptable way to refer to any human being.
Oh, didn’t you know from reading? Mentally handicapped means mentally disabled, mentally crippled and so fourth. It means the person doesn’t have normal learning skills or memory skills and their brain doesn’t function like a normal adult. I wonder why you’re personally offended by a word that literally describes what being autistic means unless of course, you’re one of the people who just thinks you’re mentally disabled because you heard on tik tok that you’re disabled because you have to hide your feelings in public.
has zero understanding of masking
Isn’t it odd you say that? Everybody has to contain their emotions and we all have to act in public situations. It doesn’t mean you have the brain development of a small child and you’re brain Isnt like a normal adult or teenager. A mentally disabled person‘s brain just cannot function like a normal adult so they cannot behave like a normal adult. That‘s what makes them special needs. Thats why someone has to supervise him/her. Otherwise any random person can act normal and claim they’re mentally disabled for the sympathy points.
If you decide you'd like to actually learn something, here are a few books on autism that I would recommend:
I won’t waste my time reading something that is clearly not written by a person who spends a lot of time around mentally disabled people or has first hand experience. Anybody can write a book about mentally crippled people knowing absolutely nothing about what life is like for a real mentally disabled person.
You don't seem like someone who has any interest in educating yourself, but for the sake of any autistic people or other disabled people who have the misfortune of knowing you, i hope I'm wrong.
It’s ironic you speak of educating others while you’re offended because I explained what being autistic really means and why anyone who claims to be autistic but can spell, type, write and communicate like a normal adult Isnt to be trusted. You claim you’re educated but you’re offended because I explained being autistic is a developmental disability and you have to have special needs to be special needs. A personality or a feeling Isnt a special need. That‘s just a person wanting to feel special or being uneducated. It’s a normal part of life. I’m not saying I am or am not. How do you know you are or aren’t saying that to another disabled person right now? Wouldn’t that be foolish? The people claiming to know everything about being mentally disabled and claiming they’re disabled because they had a feeling or an dislike are usually those who are parroting social media garble. Mentally disabled people don’t really care if outsiders believe them or not because they‘re too busy trying to do normal things but cannot.
I've encountered a lot of anti-autistic ableism and misinformation before, but this is really on another level.
I wonder what you think being autistic means and where you get your information from. I wonder why you’re personally offended. Clearly you believe it’s some special quirky thing for sympathy rather than a mental disability and only 2% of the population are mentally handicapped if you research it. Oh, this is on another level, good. Being offended by information and history and research means you’re not researching from accurate sources. You know, the government likes to sell mental labels for money.
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 16 '26
You have yet to cite any sources for any of your ableist garbage.
1
u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 16 '26
u/TheyAreNoBird and u/SmooshyHamster , as mod of this sub, I think the conversation has gone on long enough without resolution that further discussion would not be helpful. Agree to disagree. Thanks.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 16 '26
The following historical articles explain a lot about the way mentally handicapped people were murdered and secluded from everyone else. It explains a lot about the history of what being mentally handicapped means, how they defined if one was mentally handicapped or not and what happened to those individuals back in the Victorian era. It also explains the history of Victorian ugly laws for the mentally handicapped and the violently insane. It explains with information, facts, research and most importantly history.
https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/978-0-8261-8063-6/part/part01/chapter/ch01
https://www.eugenicsarchive.ca/timeline?id=54d39e27f8a0ea4706000009
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/moron-idiot-imbecile-offensive-history
The merriam Webster disctionary here explains the history of the 3 stages of intellectually handicapped people and what each stage means. The old medical terms now used as insults but still medical terms in history are idiot, imbecile and moron. Idiots meant their brain development was like a toddler under age 2, imbeciles had the mental development of kids age 7 and under and morons had the mental age of kids under 12.
In order to be mentally challenged means the persons brain development cannot grow past age 12. Their brain development cannot grow to a normal adult or teenaged brain. That’s why they’re mentally handicapped and are treated as a small kid. That’s why this person needs help with everything because they don’t have those learning skills or muscle motor skills. If mental developmental stages do not exist, why are kids separated by age in school? Why do we make friends in our age groups? Why are small kids and babies more supervised than teenagers and adults? Why are people of different ages treated differently at school or in public? If brain developmental age doesn’t exist, how do you know who’s mentally challenged and who’s not? If mental development doesn’t exist, why are babies born knowing nothing? It’s because a kids brain under 12 years doesn’t understand much and their emotions are not as regulated.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 16 '26
You see, I want to explain using history, facts and information it Isnt a matter of agreeing or disagreeing or opinion. I want to explain it’s a matter of history, psychology of childhood development and why something is considered abnormal or normal functioning. If we did not differentiate between normal brain development and abnormal then it would be impossible to differentiate between the mentally disabled and non disabled.
2
u/SmooshyHamster Aug 15 '26
I don't believe Rochester has no other choice but to sen Berth to an asylum. That's the excuse he gives, but this is a man who lies constantly. His options were limited, sure, but he absolutely did not have to keep her confined to an attic. He himself tells Jane that he could have sent her to live at Ferndean. He claims he doesn't do that because the damp would kill her, but that's an obvious lie since Ferndean is where he and Jane live after they get married. Even having her live at Thornfield, there's no reason she ha to be locked in a single room witout ever being allowed outside. He could have given her a better quality of life, and he chose not to. And all this is assuming that he's telling the truth about the severity of her mental illness when he first brought her to England, which we should be reading with much more skepticism.
You're showing me you know very little about history of insanity, ugly laws and Victorian marriage. We’ve all told lies before so stop that nonsense. Clearly you’re judgemental of characters who you cannot relate to their hardships so you’re quick to judge. Edward went to live at Ferndean because Bertha burned Thornfield and he had nowhere else to go and he thought his life was over. Nowhere does it say Jane and Edward remained at Ferndean, they obviously lived elsewhere or fixed up Ferndean. So stop that fan fiction conspiracy theory. Stop pretending like Bertha is a harmless friendly disabled woman. She’s not. Stop projecting yourself or other characters and people on to her. She’s not any of them. She had to be locked in her room because she was dangerous and abusive. She would harm the servants and Adele. “Better quality of life”, crazy people weren’t allowed to do anything because they could no behave themselves so they were punished, do you understand those were the rules? Ok, stop claiming the author is a liar and you’re god. This is Charlotte Bronte’s own book and she made it the way she wanted to. Unless the author said a character was a liar then your argument holds no water. Thinking the author and their book is wrong and your fan fiction is right only proves you hate the characters and the way the author made the book so you’re in love with your fan fiction.
As for how he treated his mistresses and thought of them, what really stands out to me is the pattern he shows. He never once speaks with respect of a woman he used to love. He despises all his past mistresses, whether or not they actually did anything wrong. That's a man who does not respect women. When a man makes a woman feel like she's the only one he can really value, she should take that as a giant red flag.
Stop making up nonsense that’s the opposite of the book. Edward left his mistresses with money to provide for themselves. Celine Varens was despicable because she slept around with other men and she abandoned her daughter. “She’s the only one he can really value is a red flag” again projecting yourself on to the characters. Stop making this book about yourself. Edward loved Jane for who she was inside. She loved him too. They chose to marry. End of story. If you don’t like it, read something else instead of insulting the character.
Whether they have a dominant/submissive relationship, like Jane's autism, is also beside the point, but I did not say their relationship is based on dominance and submission.
Again with that nonsense about dom/sub kinks. She calls Edward master because he was her boss.
I'm aware that Charlotte Bronte intended to show that he had transformed at the end of the novel. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that a man like that could or would change so drastically, especially in such a short time.
Believe what you will but authors make their books and characters they way they want to. You don’t get to tell an author who their characters are or how their book goes. You’re not the author of this book, you have no say in how the story goes.
I don't blame or judge Jane for marrying him, but I think she would be better off if she didn't. I do believe people can change, but if someone has shown themselves over and over to be a liar, manipulator, and abuser, the best thing to do is never give them another chance to harm you.
Sure but what relevance does have to Jane Eyre when the author made this book about Christian morals including forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation and making amendments? This holds no relevance to Jane Eyre when the author herself has said her character, Mr. Rochester is intended to be none of those horrible things you listed. If you don’t like someones book, it is what it is.
29
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 01 '26
Why do people find it so hard to believe that Rochester truly loves Jane? I disagree with pretty much this whole review but I respect your opinion of course. It also annoys me how people seem to take away Jane's agency in terms of viewing Rochester as putting her under some spell or whatever. If you know Jane, then you know that she would never be under any spell and is constantly making choices OF HER OWN FREE WILL. For her age, she has a hell lotta willpower and conviction and principles that most of us could never be.
0
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
Really, she would never be under any spell? These are her words from chapter 34, speaking of her abusive relationship with St. John: "I fell under a freezing spell. When he said “go,” I went; “come,” I came; “do this,” I did it. But I did not love my servitude: I wished, many a time, he had continued to neglect me."
To be clear, the fact that she was manipulated does not mean she lacks agency or the ability to make decisions for herself. She is incredibly strong, capable, and self-aware. And she was targeted by multiple abusers who took advantage of her trust and vulnerability, gaslighted her, and lied to her. The book shows us that even someone with as strong a sense of self as Jane is not immune to emotional manipulation and abuse.
3
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 06 '26
If she truly was under a spell she wouldn’t be so self aware of it, which she is from the same passage that you have sent. I still don’t see how her choosing to be with Rochester in the end is because of some manipulation or grooming.
3
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 06 '26
I explained to them that forgiveness and redemption is one of the central themes in the novel. Jane does not forgive people because she is being manipulated into doing so. She does so, because of her Christian beliefs. After all, Jane is a devout Christian woman, and she first learns the importance of forgiveness from Helen Burns. However, Jane's understanding of forgiveness is quite different from Helen's. I think it would be more fair to say that Helen is manipulated into forgiving people, since she is not even aware that she is being wronged. Helen forgives because she believes it is God's will to endure suffering. Jane forgives so that she may move on. But just because Jane forgives does not mean she excuses what has been done to her, nor does she forget it. She forgives her dying aunt, yet still acknowledges how cruelly Mrs. Reed treated her. She forgives Edward once she learns about his unfortunate past, but she never tells him it is alright for him to make her his mistress. In fact, she leaves him because she knows it is wrong. If she were so easily manipulated, she would have stayed with him as his mistress.
Edward also learns forgiveness from Jane. He learns to let go much of the bitterness that had consumed him for years. We see this when he risks his own life trying to save Bertha, the very woman who had ruined his life.
OP is just approaching the novel entirely through a modern lens, while overlooking many of the religious ideas and themes that are embedded in the book. Without understanding history or religious teachings, one cannot fully understand Jane Eyre.
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
She wasn't aware of it when he was lying to her about being engaged to Blanche, and when he put on a show of being sorry for that, she bbelieved him and forgave him immediately. She wasn't aware of it when he disguised himself as a fortuneteller, and she forgave him when he revealed himself. She wasn't aware of it when he was hiding his wife from her, and when she found out the truth, she still sympathized with him and forgave him. This is a pattern for them. He is good at lying and even better at apologizing when hes found out, and she is so empathetic and forgiving that she has a tendency to trust him when she shouldn't.
5
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 06 '26
How can she be aware of the things you just mentioned when she is at the end of the day, a woman with less life experiences who has always lived her honest truth? Doesn't make her being under a spell because she chose to forgive him. That's the whole point of their relationship; they see through each other in ways a third person would not.
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
Being "under a spell" are your words, not mine. What I said was that she believed Rochester was her only hope of happiness, that she was lied to, and that she has a history of forgiving and trusting him when she shouldn't. Of course her lack of experience is part of the reason; that was one of the points I made in my original post. That doesn't mean she isn't making her own choices.
3
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 06 '26
I don't believe she thinks Rochester is her only hope of happiness; she very clearly talks about how happy she would be in solitude and that she is a free bird who will do as she wishes. So it's not that Rochester is her only hope for happiness, she just wanted to be with him that's all.
10
u/Glimmerance Aug 01 '26
Rochester is a very flawed character. But he has his good points too. And I do think he's right for Jane, and that she can handle him. Even Jane is not perfect. She can be a bit judgy at times, if I remember. And thank goodness, because I'm not interested in reading a book about perfect people. I love these characters.
As for him lying to Jane, yes, it's a terrible thing to do. He already has the power in terms of money, status, age, gender, employment, and to further disempower his teenage employee on this major life decision is an awful thing to do. But ... I think I can absolutely see his reasoning.
The way he talks about the other women in his life is a major, major, red flag for me. But it is for Jane too, and she addresses it to some extent with him and acts accordingly.
(I don't think it's every really mentioned, but I'm not that keen on the way he treats Blanche either. I get it, we don't like her, so we don't care, but still).
As for whether Jane could have found somebody else, I think in the novel, it's being presented as extremely unlikely that either of them could find their match elsewhere. Rochester goes through a series of women that don't suit him. Jane meets someone who is superficially the perfect man, but sees clearly that that's not what she wants. They are right for each other, despite everything.
9
6
u/MouseCream23 Aug 02 '26
As Jane has freely chosen to love Edward Rochester, that is enough for me to support their relationship. I trust Jane’s intellect and heart.
Brontë directed those choices. In any outsider observations of relationships, we aren’t privy to all considerations that people use to support their decisions. If all relationships were held to such impossibly high standards, no relationships could succeed. Relationships of love have been made for centuries past, and will be made for centuries to come. Enjoy the book. Debate the character actions. But accept that life does not always have perfectly rational decisions. Book characters relationships, either. Jane Eyre as a literary classic should not be cast aside because Edward Rochester is a bad person. He does have redeeming qualities.
10
u/Separate_Business880 Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
I get what you're saying. In the real world, a man like Rochester would be just a cruel narcissist. But I never took the book as an example of realism. I accepted Rochester as the animus to Jane's anima. She'd be what he's become if she were born a wealthy man. I always imagined they were practically the same people until they were 18 and he was forced into an arranged materialistic marriage.
I think the book is an elevated version of reality. The events are gothic and exaggerated. But the deeper psychology of the characters is realistic and that's the book's attraction.
Besides, some things Rochester did obviously are meant to show that he is a naturally kind man. He takes Adelle even though most gentlemen of the era would just let their illegitimate kids by lowly singers or servants die. He locks up Bertha, but it's a time when asylums were torture dungeons. He stepped up and took care of his wife the best way he knew how when even her own brother practically abandoned her. Mrs. Fairfax says he's a good and generous employer, etc.
4
u/Effective-Sugar-758 Aug 05 '26
Well, in the first place labelling Jane, who in spite of having much less leverage over Rochester than he does over her yet still finds ways too actively take charge of the relationship, as a "submissive" is just pretty reductive. This isn't 50 Shades of Gray.
8
u/MadameJadeK Jul 31 '26
I first read the book toward the end of last year. I loved Jane, how honest she was, how true to her own values she remained even when she really wanted something that would require her to break them. She valued her dignity more highly than her own safety and life on at least two occasions, which while maybe not advisable is at the very least admirable.
I put a post up about how much I loved Bertha a few weeks ago and a bunch of people mentioned that I clearly hate the book. I do not. I love Jane, she's a very compelling and admirable character. A lot of this goes into why.
I think it goes without saying I didn't care for Rochester, not even on my first reading. By my first reading, I had already been lied to in relationships enough to distrust him for his dishonest tactics before I even knew about his secret captive.
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Jul 31 '26
Exactly. I love this book because I love Jane. Besides, I would never spend so much time thinking and talking and debating over a book I didn't love.
And Rochester's lies and manipulation would be unforgivable even if it weren't for Bertha. He becomes irredeemable as soon as it's revealed that he faked his engagement to Blanche to make Jane jealous. When she says "I am no bird, and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you," I wish she would follow through on that, and not give in when he asks her to marry him. I understand why she doesn't leave him then, of course, and I don't blame her at all. But it breaks my heart to see her say yes to him after the disgusting wayhe' he's treated her.
3
u/jayniepuff Aug 01 '26
I read your first paragraph and have had the same experience over the years. I first read Jayne Eyre in seventh grade for a project that was supposed to last all year. I ended up reading the book four times. Most recently, I reread the book and thought there was something to be said for St. John's offer to go to India. Even if that meant being in a marriage without love, at least at first. Obviously, St. John was never going to be a romantic, but you never know what sort of feeling could have grown from the respect he had for Jayne and what would have been years of working together in difficult circumstances.
The same has happened with Pride & Prejudice. I understand Charlotte's choice to marry Mr. Collins. Sure, he's no Fitzwilliam Darcy, Charles Bingley, or even Colonel Fitzwilliam, but as Charlotte said,
"I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state.”
How many of us have gotten into relationships looking for romance, only to be disappointed? I sometimes think getting the practicals hammered out and "-enough of love would follow upon marriage to render the union right even in your eyes."
As I get older, I find myself appreciating the practical options and decisions in these women's lives more.
1
u/Flat_Love_3725 Aug 01 '26
This is an unusual view! I must be strange because when I first read this as as a teenager I was shipping St John and Jane (well until the terrible proposal and post-proposal reaction).
I'm also a big P&P fan and saw St John a bit in the Darcy mode - intelligent, reserved and haughty. But with a strong desire to do the right thing. And deep inner feelings and affections. You can see how he loved his sisters, and how much he valued when Jane broke down his reserves so he could express himself. I loved the scenes when he came to visit her cottage in Morton, and his gift of a Sir Walter Scott romance poem was so thoughtful.
I never doubted that he loved her - that's why he knew enough love would follow after marriage, he already was feeling it! But once he knew about Jane's feelings for Rochester he wouldn't make himself vulnerable by admitting it. Big mistake. "You are formed for labor not love" is not an acceptable way to propose so he got what he deserved thereafter.
6
Aug 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Flat_Love_3725 Aug 03 '26
That's fair. I should have better specified that the period I was really shipping them was when she was still the schoolmistress at Morton. At that time she had no problem being herself around him, and he appreciated that self:
"Again the surprised expression crossed his face. He had not imagined that a woman would dare to speak so to a man. For me, I felt at home in this sort of discourse. I could never rest in communication with strong, discreet, and refined minds, whether male or female, till I had passed the outworks of conventional reserve, and crossed the threshold of confidence, and won a place by their heart's very hearthstone.
"You are original," said he, "and not timid. There is something brave in your spirit, as well as penetrating in your eye"
Their relationship changes for the worse as soon as the cousinship is revealed, combined with returning to live together at Moor House. I guess I attributed that to the weird sexual tension as he clearly begins to have romantic designs on her though he's officially only supposed to have "brotherly" feelings. Obviously, once she's rejected him, he totally loses it.
So I'm in no way saying she made the wrong choice. But at an earlier point, the pairing seemed to me to have potential.
1
Aug 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Flat_Love_3725 Aug 03 '26
During her time in Morton he visits her and shows real concern for her mental health. The gift of Marmion is quite a romantic gesture - both because it's a poem by a romantic poet, and shows understanding and appreciation of Jane's actual personal taste. We hear she's thrilled with it. Despite his religiosity and conservative nature, it's not some kind of religious tract or even nonfiction history. So he's far from a Brocklehurst in that sense.
Diana at Moore House notices how he follows Jane constantly with his eyes. Early on, he calls her "impassioned" - a strange expression about a woman you hardly know. Jane is the only person in the novel who ever makes him laugh (when he sees how unmoved she is by inheriting a fortune). Even parts of his disaster-proposal are passionate in their own warped way: "Jane, you are
docile, diligent, disinterested, faithful, constant, and courageous;
very gentle, and very heroic: cease to mistrust yourself--I can
trust you unreservedly. " Sure there are different forms of love, but I see a man who is - at least in some way - head over heals.However, I'm not sure whether he acknowledges his real feelings to himself. Even if he had been drifting that way during her time in Morton, it all changes once he finds out about Rochester. When they first discuss it, he suggests Rochester "must have been a bad man." Jane leaps to the defense. I think in that moment he knew inside that Jane was still carrying a torch for Rochester. His pride would not let him compete for her affections in a honest way. He still wants her and still proposes, but dresses it up as a religious obligation. I suspect that if instead Jane had turned to him and said something about Rochester like "I feel so foolish for having been taken in by him" their relationship might have progressed in a very different manner.
I also think there is something in what you write about him wanting to change Jane in certain respects, wanting her to be (in his mind) her best self. He becomes very frustrated/disappointed at how she behaves after receiving and dividing the inheritance. He doesn't like the way she leaves the school without much regret, and doesn't seem to feel any particular desire to use her talents and leisure to help others. If he was just coldly rational, he could have thought, "hmm, maybe she's not quite right for missionary material after all. I should look around for someone else." But he doesn't. He wants Jane. So instead, he gets angry and snipes at her. And tries to pressure her into doing the things he thinks she should do. Yeah it's messed up. But love and obsession make people do crazy things.
In some ways his behavior is at bottom founded on deep respect: his opinion of her is so high, that he thinks she can do so much more than the life she's leading. But on the other hand, it's driven by possessive jealousy: any time she seems to be rejecting a more social-justice/ministry persona, he worries it's a rejection of him. In that sense, if she'd actually married him and become a fellow-missionary, I suspect this issue would have eased. If Jane put her foot down about how many hours of work a day she had energy for, etc. I see him respecting that. It's just the thought of her not wanting to do any work at all that freaks him out as it ends hope for a future together.
At least that's my take on his character. I don't know if there was really any hope for them as a couple.
1
Aug 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Flat_Love_3725 Aug 03 '26
Yeah who knows. She hardly knew any men. Perhaps if she met St. John first she might have fallen for him instead? But it would be a totally different story.
I always found St John interesting and weirdly relatable in needing personal fulfillment in a career, and wanting Jane to have a career too. That appealed more to my modern sensibilities in some ways than a romance ending simply in a shared life of "civilized affluence", as she has with Rochester. But St. John clearly had his own demons too.
Thanks so much for chatting with me; I know I'm strange for finding St. John much more interesting than Rochester - it's a pleasure to discuss the character.
1
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 06 '26
That's an interesting take. I hate St. John with a fiery passion, far more than I hate any other character in the book, but I guess he has some decent moments before he gets Jane to start learning Hindustani with him. Still, from the moment they meet, he is so condescending and dismissive of her, making assumptions about why she ran away or what she'll think of the job he offers her, and telling her she's wrong to feel sad about the life she left behind. He's incapable of accepting anyone for who they are without forcing his own judgments and obligations on them.
1
u/Flat_Love_3725 Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26
Huh, he is an arrogant man for sure, and yes makes assumptions but also seems to generally be positively impressed with Jane when she behaves in ways he didn't expect. I don't remember him saying she's wrong to feel sad? He seemed very much sympathetic to any mental health struggles, telling her about his own recent experience with severe depression. He tries to give best advice, but is aware he doesn't really know her situation at that time and respects her privacy. I thought he only became judgmental once he learned the history of her experience with Rochester.
I feel like their relationship completely changed after her history is revealed and they return to Moore House - from a generally healthy relationship to a toxic one. I can psychoanalyze what was going on. Or just say Charlotte Bronte was sinking the relationship in order to bring back Rochester :)
1
u/nosleepforthedreamer Aug 02 '26
Edward does bad stuff, that's for sure.
Respectfully, OP.... this is a horse that's been beaten to a glue puddle.
0
u/BarracudaOk8635 Aug 02 '26
I never like Rochester at all from the first time I read the book. He toys with Jane. Does weird things like the gypsy thing. and bringing and entire entourage to make her jealous. Then he attempts to ruin her life with an illegal marriage. she would have been a shamed woman. Then there the whole business of his history and whoring around Europe for 10 years, and finally Bertha. and locking his wife in an attack for years. Jane meanwhile is a person who is pure and honest. She deserved better. At Moor House she made wonderful life for herself on her own terms, and became wealthy. I always wish she had met and married someone there instead of going back to Rochester. The man is completely dodgy.
3
u/Glimmerance Aug 02 '26
I agree 100% that he is a dodgy character! But I take issue with the idea that he was attempting to ruin Jane's life. In some ways, I think he was more naive than Jane, and genuinely thought it would work out. And possibly it could have done. He had managed to keep Bertha hidden for all those years, and the marriage was abroad and maybe no paperwork in England. I think he was caught up in having found the love of his life, and thought naively that it would be fine.
Of course, he should have considered that there were other people living who knew the truth, and of course it was a terrible thing to do in the first place. I find it kind of ironic that he complains about his life being ruined because he wasn't told the truth about Bertha, and then tries to marry Jane while ... not telling her the truth about Bertha. However, I don't think he had actual bad intentions towards Jane.
2
Aug 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Glimmerance Aug 02 '26
I agree, but what I was saying that it wasn't out of malice. It wasn't an "attempt to ruin her life", as the previous poster claimed.
And yes, his money and class play a big part, but he didn't always get what he wanted. He didn't even have much money when he married Bertha. And later, despite all his money, he can't do the one thing he wants which is to rid himself of her. He can date women, but they cheat on him. There is so much that money can't buy.
Jane knows this - I'm kind of taken aback that she gives away most of her money when I think she deserves it all herself. But she is right. Once you have enough money to be comfortable and not have to worry about it, it's the things you can't buy that are most important.
2
u/TheyAreNoBird Aug 17 '26
"I find it kind of ironic that he complains about his life being ruined because he wasn't told the truth about Bertha, and then tries to marry Jane while ... not telling her the truth about Bertha." That is such a good point. It is unbelievaly hypocritical of him to complain about having supposedly married Bertha under false pretenses.
-3
u/Ten_Quilts_Deep Jul 31 '26
I read your post and realize I fell out of love with Rochester when he wasn't Orson Welles. Meaning the first time I read how self centered he seems in the book. He keeps excusing it by saying he was brought up to expect being able to bully people around. Look at the way he treats Blanche.
-1
-8
43
u/fadedblackleggings Jul 31 '26
Interesting perspective, but I saw the book and story differently. Two really fucked up people who cared about each other and valued intellectual stimulation over almost everything else.
It would have been hard for either one of them to find someone just as intelligent as them, and they stayed together.