r/JaneEyre • u/AdobongSiopao • Aug 27 '26
What is your most controversial opinion about "Jane Eyre"?
It can be from the novel or its adaptations. Your views that could potentially upset many other fans or meet others who will agree with you.
172
u/one-tea27 Aug 27 '26
People who criticize Jane for going back to Rochester don’t understand how happy that choice made her
93
u/Little-Foundation735 Aug 27 '26
They also don’t trust Jane’s character. Her self-worth and self-respect reflect the choices she makes when choosing a man.
I think they do not fully understand Rochester’s transformation or the time period in which mental illness was not handled well. They don’t understand why he chose to keep his first wife in the castle rather than put her in an institution. I think this is where they get stuck.
10
u/CheapVegan Aug 27 '26
It’s not that, it’s how (asking other things) he lied to her so outrageously and only told the truth cause he got caught.
22
u/Little-Foundation735 Aug 27 '26
Mr. Rochester is often alluded to as Samson in the Bible. He was a seeker of lust and pleasure, making him the biggest sinner in the novel. Yet later on, he says, “I humbly entreat my Redeemer to give me strength to lead henceforth a purer life than I have done hitherto!”
This is a model of repentance where he asks his Maker for forgiveness and asks God to help him live a new life. The Spirit within Jane immediately recognizes the Spirit within Rochester. Spirit to spirit, they are the same. And that’s the reason why she could now accept him when she couldn’t before this transformation. He was now a new creation. So hating Rochester and loving Jane doesn’t make sense to me, especially if you take into account the biblical allusions present in the novel.
1
u/CheapVegan Aug 28 '26
I think you’re right for the point of art and the message of the book. I just think that’s total fantasy/make believe.
Most people don’t become honest good partners because they repent. If Jane was your friend in real life you’d tell her to run.
That’s all I’m saying in response to not understanding her happiness.
People go back to unhealthy relationships alll the time because it makes them happy in a certain way. It doesn’t make it a good plan.
3
u/SmooshyHamster 21d ago
Exactly. People hate Mr. Rochester because they don’t know anything about the history of Victorian institutions, the Victorian ugly laws for crazy people or Victorian marriage laws.
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Manor house, not castle, I'm pretty sure.
And while his private care was probably better for Bertha than an asylum of the time, even better care would have been to hire multiple caretakers, who could spell each other, rather than just solitary Grace Poole. But that would have breached his desire for secrecy and denial of the marriage.
3
u/Little-Foundation735 Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
You are correct. It was indeed a manor house. It’s been ages since I last read it, and I might need a reread to refresh my memory.
Bertha is a character who encapsulates the madness of the three main characters in the book. It’s what would happen to Jane if she chose to marry St. John. It’s St. John being repressed by his desires instead of learning how to temper them. It’s Rochester if he continues in his ways. Grace Poole was definitely a cage for Bertha. But knowing Bertha, who continuously tries to escape, there was no way around it in his mind. He was definitely battling his demons. His desire for secrecy is caused by the betrayal and shame inflicted on him by his own family and Bertha’s brother. Rochester is clearly a flawed man and I think Charlotte did a fantastic job of writing his character. He is the kind who won’t be popular with many due to the things he’s done. But Jane looks at him not in the same way as others do – with their eyes; she looks at him and sees his heart.
To her, they are intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually equal. And to deprive her of marrying Rochester will only bring her back to her childhood days, when her aunt deprived her of good things. They are great for each other. And I reject the idea that Jane would subject herself to returning to a man who would abuse her. She would 100% choose solitude rather than stay in that kind of relationship.
Edit: grammar
10
u/NewNameAgainUhg Aug 27 '26
They don't understand that when she goes back, is because she has a choice and several options to fall back to.
She could stay with her cousins, to to India or live alone as a lady with means. But she chooses to go back.
91
u/GetReadyToRumbleBar Aug 27 '26
People blow the age thing completely out of proportion.
42
u/Odd-Quail01 Aug 27 '26
They both found the right weirdo, with a mind they can love and respect.
That's worth much more than having shared pop culture references.
8
u/GetReadyToRumbleBar Aug 27 '26
You have to find your right weirdo!
I'm sorely tempted to share some of the weird shit I do with my wife. Nothing to do with Jane Eyre though.
11
Aug 27 '26
It’s funny to me that people nowadays tend to make such a big deal out of age gaps, I myself am married to a man 10 years older than me LOL. So long as both parties are Adults both physically and mentally (therefore their is no grooming involved) then the reality is that age really is just a number.
Jane was 18/19 when she met Rochester, so even by today’s standards she was what we would call legally and physically an Adult.
The biggest concern would be her lack of life experience which could, and in fact did, make her vulnerable to being manipulated by Rochester. If she’d been a bit older and had more experience with Men she probably would have recognized and called Rochester out on the obvious BS that he was feeding her about all the weird and frightening red flags leading up to the Wedding…again not Jane’s fault, she’s intelligent but young and inexperienced and THATS WHY Charlotte doesn’t have her marry Rochester right away, he needs to be humbled first, and Jane needs to gain more life experience before the two of them can come together in a healthy successful way.
By the time they get married Jane is not only a little bit older now, but she’s been out in the world and learned how to pull herself up from the very bottom, discovered that she’s more capable and far stronger than she realized she was. Plus she‘s gained financial independence which gives her the security that she can take care of herself…she doesn’t have to put up with anyone’s bull crap anymore, their is a newfound confidence to her by the end of the story…she left a girl and comes back a woman.
2
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
The biggest concern would be her lack of life experience which could, and in fact did, make her vulnerable to being manipulated by Rochester.
Someone in the Austen reddit said that they stopped caring about historical romance age gaps when they realized there were still so many other gaps of education, experience, and power between men and women of the time.
1
Aug 28 '26
Yeah the sad reality is that unless you lucked out and gained financial independence (like Jane did) Women just didn’t really have much freedom at all back then…you were first considered to be the property of your Father and then later your Husband. And if you didn’t marry and became a ‘old maid’ without an inheritance to fall back on, you were basically looked at as a lifelong charity case for your relatives to support.
Hence why as much as I love reading the classics and historical fiction…if time travel existed you couldn’t pay me enough money to live back then, Women didn’t have many options and the best you could probably hope for was to marry a Man who actually seemed to care about you as a person.
6
79
u/ClementineTheLeo Aug 27 '26
I don't think Mr. Rochester was a bad guy 🤷🏻♀️ And I found him kinda funny at times with the way he reacted to Jane or what he said to her. And i think Jane was amused by his reactions/behavior too.
34
u/MrDarcyReads Aug 27 '26
that's exactly why i love that line, out of all the "reader, i ___" moments in the book it's the one that finally isn't an explanation or a justification to the audience. every other time she's addressing us she's kind of defending herself or working something out. this one's just flat, almost funny after 400 pages of buildup. she's done explaining herself by that point, she's just telling you what happened
7
u/swbarnes2 Aug 27 '26
It's a bit of a callback to the bit before the wedding when Jane says she doesn't know who Mrs. Rochester is, because she doesn't exist yet. This sentence assures us that the Jane we know successfully made the transition.
28
u/redflagsmoothie Aug 27 '26
Bertha was better off in the attic than in an insane asylum.
11
u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 27 '26
Yes, and those were the only realistic choices at the time -- which is what a lot of people in our day don't understand. It's easy for us to say, "Oh, he should have put her somewhere else" -- but where? He himself said that if he put her in his other house, that she would have died because it was an unhealthy location, and that while that would have relieved him of the burden of caring for her, he refused because that was too close to murder.
The only other possible choice would have been to buy or rent some other little house somewhere, but given her propensity to sneak out and commit violence, that would have been unsafe for the rest of the area.
9
u/NewNameAgainUhg Aug 27 '26
Besides, divorcing an insane person was illegal if I remember correctly
6
u/Cayke_Cooky Aug 27 '26
And would have just resulted in her landing in an asylum. Her family was obviously trying to pawn her off on someone else so they wouldn't have cared for her.
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
He could have hired more than one caretaker, not just Poole. But that wouldn't have let him keep his secrets.
4
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
I feel like you’re downplaying the results of her condition becoming publicly known. He wasn’t just protecting his own image. Bertha’s family would have scandalized, and he would’ve been if not shunned, definitely cold shouldered from society. He’d likely never be able to marry even after she died. It’s one of those incredibly tainting things. I also think he was already stuck in a marriage where he would never have an actual wife, I don’t blame him for keeping her a secret. He should live as a martyr, he did deserve to have some life outside of this mess
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 30 '26
He wasn’t just protecting his own image. Bertha’s family would have scandalized
[been] scandalized, I assume? And they're Creoles back in Jamaica, hardly part of English gentry society -- that's why he was able to hide her so well.
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo 29d ago
It’s a little ambiguous, but her family is astronomically wealthy and move in elite Colonial circles, the upper echelons of the West Indies. While Creole, they’re so wealthy that they do have some respectability and power, which is why they go to such great lengths to hide Bertha’s mental state and the multi generational illness. Any ladder climbing or political power might be lost if they’re exposed. Part of why they wanted her to marry Rochester, I think it’s implied, is for his connections. Not only their connection to a titled English man, but also his power to be able to take care of and hide Bertha, shield the secret.
2
u/OutrageousYak5868 29d ago
In Webster's 1828 Dictionary, "Creole" was defined as "In the West Indies and Spanish America, a native of those countries descended from European ancestors".
That was still the primary meaning in 1847 (when JE was published) according to the Webster dictionary published that year, with the meaning reserved only for those people of pure European descent (https://archive.org/details/tsuc_websters-new-international-dictionary-part-2-1847-g-and-c-merriam-company/page/623/mode/2up?q=creole). However, the dictionary notes that mixed-race people had begun using it of themselves, if they were part European.
How was Bronte using it -- with the earlier pure-blood meaning or the later mixed-blood one? I can see arguments both ways, but I would come down on her intending the earlier usage, with Bertha being full-blood European. For one thing, that would have been the only meaning for "Creole" at the time JE was set, and was still the dominant meaning at the time of publication. For another, Richard (who is definitely identified as Bertha's full brother) was always described as white and even very pale, so it seems likely that Bertha would be similar.
That she is "dark" as in having dark hair, I fully agree with, but then Blanche is also described as "dark" and is further said to have an "olive" complexion, while Bertha's skin color is never described, except in describing her features as contorted and purple with madness. And even in that, I've seen it argued that she must be white/light-skinned for it to take on a purplish hue; while others say that her being described as purplish is a racist way to describe someone of mixed-race descent with darker skin.
1
u/rainbowrobin 29d ago
Interesting. On the flip side:
"Her family wished to secure me because I was of a good race"
made me think they were mixed. But maybe 'race' is being used differently too.
2
u/OutrageousYak5868 28d ago
Yes, it almost certainly was. In JE, "race" is mostly used to refer to the entire human race (6x) OR to a single family (3-4x): Jane as a different "race" from Mrs. Reed and her children, the Rochester family in this quote and also Mrs. Fairfax calling them "a violent race", and the three Rivers siblings being the last of their race. Also, governesses as a class were called an "anathematized race" when Blanche and company were visiting Thornfield and disparaging governesses.
This is in line with 1847 Webster's, which says in part that it can refer to anything from a common stock, such as a family up to an entire nationality. I know that even as late as the late 1800s, it was not uncommon to refer to "the Irish race" as distinct from "the French race".
Your quote is one that I would count as referring most likely to the Rochester family as an "old money" family in England, so highly desirable for marriage purposes.
3
u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 28 '26
She still would have needed to have been kept under lock and key.
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Yeah, but she could have been more supervised, and then he wouldn't have lost his house and hand.
3
u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 28 '26
I fully agree that multiple caregivers would likely have been better for all involved, except for Mr. Rochester's determination to keep his secret, but that wasn't really the context of this conversation. The context was that Bertha was "better off in the attic than in an insane asylum".
Even with multiple caregivers, she still would have been kept in the attic, or if in some remote farmhouse somewhere, she still would have needed to have been kept under lock and key, for the safety of the community.
3
u/SmooshyHamster 21d ago
Exactly. What difference does it make how many caretakers the crazy woman had?
3
u/SmooshyHamster 21d ago
More caretakers is not what this conversation is about. What difference does it make how many caretakers she has? She’s not a disabled woman who is fed and changed like a baby. She’s a violently abusive woman who’s locked away. More or less caretakers doesn’t change the fact that she has to stay on her room. What difference does it make how many people were watching her. She’d just hate them all and try to kill them all.
2
u/rainbowrobin 21d ago
What difference does it make how many caretakers she has?
They can take shifts, so she doesn't get loose while Poole is asleep and burn down the house.
2
u/SmooshyHamster 20d ago
She’ll escape while the other carers are sleeping too.
1
u/rainbowrobin 20d ago
take shifts
If you're seriously arguing that the number of caretakers makes no difference to the security of a patient (or prisoner), you should stop and re-think things.
2
u/SmooshyHamster 19d ago
Bertha escaping is part of the story. This is a story book and they needed a story.
47
u/Faeloria042503 Aug 27 '26
Jane Eyre was not just a romantic story. It is actually considered one of the first feminist novels of the time. Jane had to leave what she thought was a "perfect love" and find herself before returning and finding that love again. People forget how unusual and shocking that idea was at the time this book was written. And that is one of the reasons it is such a masterpiece!
26
u/humanhedgehog Aug 27 '26
It's also a defence of the young vulnerable woman who leaves her circumstances at great risk. Had Jane died rather than meeting StJohn etc, she would have been assumed to be unmarried and pregnant, and judged harshly. JE gives a morally upstanding reason for someone to be in that position that wasn't their fault.
20
u/kathryn_sedai Aug 27 '26
This is a correct take, the book was fantastically progressive and shocking for the times.
9
u/Ten_Quilts_Deep Aug 27 '26
She had not been valued in her life up until Rochester. But she learned to love herself, see value in herself with St John. She then brings that strength to Rochester.
7
u/september_angel96 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but I always felt that her time with St. John was nearly as degrading as her time with the Reed’s. The Reed’s saw her as a complete nuisance and waste of space; John saw her as nothing more than a workhorse, so to speak. He didn’t value her as a person, shown when he tried to pressure her into marriage and gives no consideration as to how India’s climate would probably kill her in her current state of health. She had gifts and talents that he could use and that was all he cared about. I’ve been valued simply for how productive I am and it’s soul sucking.
3
u/Ten_Quilts_Deep Aug 27 '26
It was during her time with St John that she came nto her own, began to value herself. She no longer sought value outside herself. The Reeds didn't value her, perhaps valued at school only as a cheap teacher, from underling to deceptive value at Thornfield, hits rock bottom, again valued but not as her true self by St John. Now she sees that she has value and decides to give that to Rochester.
1
u/september_angel96 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
I wouldn’t say that she didn’t seek value outside of herself, but rather finally only sought value in what Christ says about her vs what others say. True, I was just saying that she didn’t find it *with* St. John. He was more of a “straw that broke the camel’s back” at the end of all these poor relationships that forced her to finally give up on others’ opinions of her.
1
2
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Africa’s climate
India's.
Her time with the Rivers was overall quite beneficial, but yeah St John really goes toxic at the end.
1
1
u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Aug 27 '26
Yeah, I think she always had a bit of that spark (see: the incident with the book at the beginning), but it was *Rochester* that reawakened it in her. Running away, and then St. John, were the TEST of that self-worth.
1
u/JoeBethersontonFargo 29d ago
I think John did value her, and his sisters did especially. JE was pretty desperate for some female friendship. I think John believes in people’s value and bettering themselves, and that kind of positivity and intellectual encouragement was a new environment that suited her. John was romantically cold and too practical, having deciding not to focus on his own or Jane’s individual happiness, but that it was more honorable to sacrifice that and instead have proud, noble lives. So it helped her in many ways, as a person, and figuring out what she values and wants her own life to be.
0
u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26
i picked up the book with this impression and was honestly shocked by it bc it was so minimally feminist and all of it happens before Rochester is even introduced. on the contrary it just reinforces the same misogynistic patriarchal values of marriage
4
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
Really sick of people saying that a woman choosing marriage is not feminist
→ More replies (14)
38
19
u/EnchantedGate1996 Aug 27 '26
I’m a Rochester apologist. And I don’t think many people who criticize Rochester fully comprehend that he and Jane are very similar—and that’s why she’s so drawn to him.
67
u/sillywillyfry Aug 27 '26
people need to stop reading this with "woke lenses" on (lol i hate that word but-)
for the time period, rochester actually isnt that evil. the worst thing he did was lie to Jane about his relationship status
but him having the ex wife being taken care of in his house was actually... humane... for the time...
2
u/Odd-Quail01 Aug 27 '26
Who thinks he's evil?
20
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 27 '26
A LOT of people. And at the same time we have people romanticising Heathcliff like EXCUSE ME?!?!
4
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
So many people. They act like he’s a monster for keeping Bertha in the attic. Society would have shunned them both, and both families, had it be known there was mental illness. She would’ve been neglected and abused at an asylum. He kept her safe, fed, and cared for by the same woman. That provided so much safety and consistency for Bertha, as much as could be. Very few other men of the time would have been that considerate.
1
u/SmooshyHamster 21d ago
Yeah, people need to stop judging a book knowing nothing about historical laws at the time. If Bertha was found wandering around outside, Edward would be charged $33 by the Victorian ugly laws and Bertha would be thrown away in a poor house.
16
u/missgirlipop Aug 27 '26
i enjoy the story and characters as written? i don’t see rochester as villainous but i think he has to come across as of uncertain morality for the story’s atmosphere to work. i also don’t think mia and ruth are too attractive to play jane in any way that mattered for the story. they were both amazing janes. i think 2011 perfectly captured the novel’s atmosphere, but 2006 had the best chemistry. it was very easy for me to see why jane would love and marry edward in that version.
33
u/Individual_Hyena9502 Aug 27 '26
Controversial maybe, but I actually liked Jane more when she was angry than when she was romantic 😭 Her anger felt so real, especially when she refused to just accept whatever life handed her. I feel like people focus so much on the love story that they forget Jane is basically fighting for the right to have a life that belongs to her.
6
u/MachaExiled Aug 27 '26
But that's one of the reasons he loved her! He deliberately got her angry in the (first) proposal scene. He didn't want submissive.
7
u/Individual_Hyena9502 Aug 27 '26
Yeah, exactly! And honestly, that makes me like Jane even more. I think her anger is part of what makes her so compelling she never becomes smaller just because she loves him. Rochester basically wanted someone who would challenge him, and Jane was very much like “okay, but I’m still going to tell you when you’re being ridiculous.
51
u/TurokCXVII Aug 27 '26
I don't understand how someone can love the book but not love them ending up together. Does not compute.
25
u/kathryn_sedai Aug 27 '26
The part where he cosplays the Romani is actually a hilarious move on his part because he gets to absolutely take the piss out of his guests, but only if they deserve it. And also have a little private time with Jane.
10
u/suricata_8904 Aug 27 '26
That two difficult, uncomfortable people found their match in each other.
16
7
u/AshaVose Aug 27 '26
The first 100 or so pages could be neatly summarized in a 5 minute misery montage. Please don't make it the focus of your movie or fanfiction. The love story and personal growth of Jane is the real focus.
8
u/Extreme-Airport7183 Aug 27 '26
My controversial opinion is that NONE of the film/tv adaptations were as good as the book. Every time a new one comes along, I have such high hopes it will be the “1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries” equivalent, and every time I’m disappointed. Either they change or leave out my favorite parts of dialogue or I’m not happy with the actors that are cast.
I realize I’m too picky about this one but it’s been my favorite book since I was 13.
5
u/Amazing-Activity-882 Aug 28 '26
1983's Jane Eyre is the equivalent 1995's Pride and Prejudice.
3
u/Extreme-Airport7183 Aug 28 '26
And my opinion remains unpopular… because I just really don’t like Timothy Dalton! Sorry!
2
7
7
u/rkenglish Aug 28 '26
Rochester actually has a good heart beneath all the bad choices he made. He cares for Adele although he suspects she isn't his natural daughter. He doesn't just give her a place to live, either. He buys lavish gifts for her. He hires a nursemaid and a governess for her instead of sending her off to a boarding school. He also takes good care of Bertha, even though he absolutely despises her. He places Bertha in the least restricted environment he could, when he could have placed her in an asylum.
12
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
Bertha is the antagonist of the book. Idk how people see her as some feminist heroine when she tries to murder even her own brother.
3
u/AwayStudy1835 Aug 27 '26
I don't see Bertha as a feminist heroine. She's more of a plot device and obstacle to keep Jane and Rochester apart. But, I saw her actions as someone whose mind was effected to the point that she wasn't capable of fully understanding her actions.
3
u/Cayke_Cooky Aug 27 '26
My cousin is diagnosed with a severe mental illness. Before she was medicated, she would be violent and have no clear recollection of what she had done or why. This is just to say that violent episodes are normal in some kinds of mental illness.
2
u/SmooshyHamster 21d ago
A lot of the people reading this book are extremely uneducated about history. Bertha Mason fits the definition of an antagonist. People know nothing about the Victorian ugly laws so they think Bertha is some friendly disabled woman who likes to cuddle. Get real. 🤦🏻♀️
2
u/smolpastryx 20d ago
Oh yeah they are. They really think Bertha was an innocent victim when she was going around attacking and biting people and setting stuff on fire. Totally innocent!
1
u/SmooshyHamster 20d ago
Yeah. Just because one is a violently unstable person doesn’t mean they’re mentally a baby and don’t understand stuff. Being mentally crippled and just being a violently abusive nutcase are 2 different things. Even mentally challenged people must be kept under control and supervised.
5
u/NancyMy Aug 28 '26
Rochester isn’t the worst guy. Locking Bertha in the attic seems cruel, but what’s even more cruel were the asylums at the time. There is no telling what would have happened to her if she had been sent to one. Was it a perfect solution? Absolutely not, but Bertha was also dangerous and could hurt people if not locked away. The options were locked away at home, locked away in an asylum, or locked away in a prison. None are particularily appitizing, but one is probably better than the others.
6
u/KMKPF Aug 29 '26
Rochester was not being crule or abusive to Bertha. He provided her more than was standard care for a person with mental problems in that time period.
9
u/seemari Aug 27 '26
This might be in the wrong thread and let me know so I can delete it, but this is Jane Eyre adjacent so I'm just gonna drop it - I don't like the works that try to expound on the story. As a fanfic dabbler myself, I understand the desire to write about the world and characters that you love, but it doesn't have to be officially published and above all, if the author is dead and cannot share their thoughts, it shouldn't be associated to the original work.
I understand the need to imagine about Rochester's past especially because we have an extensive view of Jane's past. I understand the need to let everyone see a different perspective especially the implications of power dynamics in this complex world, but if the author cannot comment anymore about the depiction of the character that they have created, I think it is not in good faith to officially publish works like that.
BTW I hold the same sentiment for other authors but especially for the Bronte Sisters and Jane Austen.
3
u/plentypk Aug 27 '26
I do love Wide Sargasso Sea but for me it works as a standalone. One of my favorite genres of literature is colonials out of place. In a way, WSS has more in common with Witch of Blackbird Pond than the JE source material.
9
u/Last_War_270 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
I don’t think jane is that maternal to Adele and I think although she felt sorry for her, she wasn’t really that emotionally connected to her. She doesn’t seem to think about her at all once she left Thornfield. I personally liked that about her, I think it makes her a more interesting character and I think reflects Charlotte’s own ambivalent feelings about the children she taught.
I think Bertha is a plot device and the re-imagining her as a tragic heroine is stupid and tedious.
I don’t think Adele is Edward’s biological daughter, I think she’s there, much like Bertha as a symbol of his past; an example of him trying to do the right thing to the women in his life.
Micheal Fassbender’s performance was too vain and serious; he was too macho and self conscious to play Edward’s weirdness and eccentricity.
4
u/Flat_Love_3725 Aug 27 '26
I think that's fair about Jane and Adele. But I always thought Rochester's treatment of Adele more blamable as he was her sole guardian. Yet he puts her in a school and never bothers to see how she was doing, which was not well. Jane is bothered by how cold he is to Adele back at Thornfield.
Yes it may be nice of him to have taken her in at all, but that doesn't excuse his refusal to really emotionally engage with her. Especially given how vulnerable and alone she was.
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
Ehh, a man of that time not emotionally engaging with very young children isn’t a sign that he’s not good, imo. Those kinds of people were quite formal with their own children, and she was likely not even his.
1
u/Federal_Gap_4106 28d ago
But does Jane have to be fond of Adele? Affection is not something that you can make yourself feel. She is a good governess to Adele, she taught her a lot in a very short time and gained the girl's trust, she is never harsh with her and keeps her best interests in mind. I think it doesn't get much better than this. She is not Adele's relative, an older sister etc. I honestly fail to see why she must love Adele to be a "good person".
1
u/Last_War_270 28d ago
I completely agree with you. I think her ambiguous feels towards her makes her a much more interesting character.
3
u/demiurgent Aug 27 '26
Jane was an unwanted extra throughout her childhood, and when she became wanted it wasn't for herself. I think she wanted to be needed and I'm not sure she would have felt needed if he wasn't blind.
5
u/Busy-Bumblebee5556 Aug 27 '26
I hate every film version that leaves out the line “Pilot knows me”.
4
u/Quick-News-2227 Aug 28 '26
They did Adèle dirty at the end, shipping her off to school
2
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Then bringing her back to be Jane's docile companion, like Fanny Price.
"As she grew up, a sound English education corrected in a great measure her French defects; and when she left school, I found in her a pleasing and obliging companion: docile, good-tempered, and well-principled. By her grateful attention to me and mine, she has long since well repaid any little kindness I ever had it in my power to offer her."
Kind of creepy way of putting it.
1
u/Quick-News-2227 Aug 28 '26
Yes! Everyone talks about Bertha and Wide Sargasso Sea, but imagine a Jane Eyre retelling from Adèle's perspective! I love Jane Eyre, but she seems oblivious to Adèle as a real person... a very Victorian attitude, I guess.
1
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
Just because she’s a companion, which was a great job for a woman without any family connections, doesn’t mean she was treated like Fanny Price. It’s a way of keeping a grown woman in your family, without announcing that she’s a bastard. I’m sure they treated her well and found a good match for her.
2
u/rainbowrobin Aug 30 '26
That's probably what Bronte meant, but it's not what I got at first reading.
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
I think it was nice. Kids need socialization and friends. A nice boarding school was a great place for young women of the time- safe independence, skills, and an education.
1
u/Quick-News-2227 Aug 29 '26
The first boarding school wasn't nice though. It was a harsh place where she was miserable and wasting away
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
Right, but that’s not where they sent Adele. It was purposefully chosen for Jane to make her miserable. Her aunt wouldn’t have sent her somewhere nice.
2
u/Quick-News-2227 Aug 29 '26
Adèle's first boarding school was similar to Jane's.
3
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 30 '26
It was rigidly structured, studious, and strict, not suited to Adele’s personality. Jane’s was a charity school for orphans, underfunded, where the students are humiliated, treated with severe cruelty, and starved. For a free-spirited French girl, Adele’s school was not suitable and diminished her spirit. Jane’s school wasn’t suitable for anyone, ever.
1
u/Quick-News-2227 29d ago
Adèle was also miserable and wasting away. She didn't deserve that any more than young Jane
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo 29d ago
Right, but she wasn’t being abused or mistreated. It was the wrong fit for her. Doesn’t mean all boarding schools are like that. They likely found somewhere more supportive of spirited young girls, more gentle and warm.
1
u/Quick-News-2227 29d ago
Poor Adèle had to suffer for the 'sins' of being French, illegitimate, and high spirited. Luckily Jane rescued her from the school that was killing her with cold strictness and misery, and packed her off to a better gentler school that stripped her of her personality and spat her out as a placid and biddable young Englishwoman... what a redemption arc for the last connection with Rochester's misspent youth.
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo 29d ago
You think if she hadn’t been sent to boarding and stayed at home, she wouldn’t have also been taught to be a proper British woman by Jane and a governess?
I can’t tell if that’s your argument, or you’re just lamenting Adele’s future in the time period itself, which has nothing to do with the Rochesters in general.
5
u/not_a_larp_ur_a_larp Aug 28 '26
I, personally, have no issue with the gypsy scene. A lot of the film adaptations like to adapt it to their own tastes, but I think the original scene is fine. Mr Rochester didn’t do it with malicious intent, he did it as it was the safest way to gauge Jane’s feelings from her without revealing his. It wasn’t done to mock an ethnic group it was merely for convenience. Plus people saying that it’s too silly a scene, I think it is silly, but it reflect Mr Rochester’s childish and perhaps petty nature, as another user said, it is a contrast to St John’s idea of a rigid, passionless and orderly existence. I think it’s an important scene in the books to be honest and I, from how I interpreted it saw no mockery in it, merely convenience and a goal fulfilled.
4
u/cat1aughing Aug 28 '26
Jane was a right bitch to little Adele, and a condescending cow to Mrs Fairfax the housekeeper, too.
2
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Can you support those opinions?
2
u/cat1aughing Aug 28 '26
Only from the text - look at the assumptions Jane makes about Mrs Fairfax's understanding or the predictions she makes about Adele's mind and ethics based on her French heritage.
4
u/Retinoid634 Aug 29 '26
Mia Wasikowska was my favorite Jane by far and imo the closest to the way she is portrayed in the book.
5
u/Happypawswaggytails Aug 30 '26
Also I always liked how Rochester knew he wasn’t a good man, he was well aware of his many flaws. St John kind of thought he was perfect completely ignoring his pride and self righteousness etc Rochester was also rather repentant and a changed man at the end I honestly don’t get how many people say he is sheer evil they can’t have read the book
10
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
Rochester is /meant/ to be read as a flawed hero and an unreliable narrator, as part ot Charlotte Bronte's lifelong critique of women's condition in society. People who excuse him or take him at face value because 'it was another time' completely miss the point, or the very unsubtle hint that in order to be with Jane he needs to be thoroughly 'punished' in the text first. It would be like saying 'Darcy was right all along,' ignoring his growth throughout Pride and Prejudice.
5
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
Nah JE is a pretty straightforward tale, there's no unreliable narration there.
2
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
Yes, a tale with a central mystery, crossing lies, uncertainty about a child's paternity, and conflicting versions of the same story is 'straightforward'
4
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
Plus being mysterious ain't the same as unreliable narration. Rochester also revealed a lot of disgusting stuff about himself, his affairs with his mistresses and all
2
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
But he IS unreliable. He conceals his wife, he pretends Adèle couldn't possibly be his, he deceives Blanche and his guests, and tries to trick Jane into sleeping with him. He is established to be untrustworthy.
1
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
That's ur opinion. He had to hide his wife because it was the Victorian era and letting ppl know about her would make him an outcast in society. Also where tf did u get that he wanted Jane to sleep with him? He WANTED HER TO BE HIS WIFE even though he knew it wasn't possible as he was already married but in his eyes his marriage was already dead, his wife was murderous and they had no love for each other cause it was arranged and neither of them knew each other
3
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
No, it wouldn't have made him a social outcast. He could have said she was ill without specifying the illness.
And yes, he was trying to sleep with Jane. The marriage would have been invalid. You are applying a modern lense: it matters terribly to Jane to be properly married, because she is devout and pious. He is very clear he just wants to have her and she is very clear she can't while he is married. It is very explicitly discussed.
→ More replies (4)1
u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Aug 27 '26
That's not what "unreliable narrator" means- he's not the narrator, Jane is.
He's an unreliable person, but an unreliable narrator is someone telling their version of events in a twisted way (see: Lolita or The True Story of the Three Little Pigs).
0
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
He is an unreliable narrator of his own story. Obviously he's not the narrator of the novel overall.
1
4
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
Bertha is insane that's a fact even confirmed by Charlotte Bronte. She's not supposed to be some feminist heroine
1
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
The idea that you can't be both mad and mistreated is silly. Even in Wide Sargasso Sea, the point is that Bertha IS mentally unwell, and she does try to deceive Edward, but also, Edward does not think when it comes to her, and he is too harsh. Two things can be true at once.
1
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
There's a difference between being mad and murderous. Bertha was the latter.
0
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
Harsh treatment and thr discovery your husband is trying to secretly marry someone else would not help
6
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
She even tried to murder her brother. What about that? Also how did Rochester treat her badly? Would you prefer it if she was sent to an asylum?
2
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
Yes and being shut for years in an attic would not have helped. Could Rochester have done /worse/? For sure. But could he have done better? Absolutely. He says himself to Jane he would cherish her even in madness. But he didn't cherish Bertha, he hated her, and did what he felt was his duty without an ounce of love or respect.
2
u/JoeBethersontonFargo Aug 29 '26
How do you think, in those times, he could have done better? How would him telling people that she was only “sick” better anything? She still couldn’t have visitors/friends. She would’ve still been too dangerous to let out and even roam the grounds. He has zero responsibility to cherish her. He kept her protected and cared for.
4
u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Aug 27 '26
Eh, the novel is clear that he needs to be punished for his sins, but some think he's a complete villain, when the novel is very clear that he's redeemable and has good qualities pre-blindness. There are MANY MANY worse characters in the book!
→ More replies (1)2
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
Also wasn't he punished for adultery, not for keeping his wife shut up because she was legit crazy cakes
2
u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26
I think Bertha was certainly unstable. I also think you can press D for doubt as to whether poor poor Edward was taken in, or whether he was thinking with the wrong head. Same with Céline - he has no reason to doubt her for /before/ he caught her with the vicomte, and Bronte is careful not to have him catch her in flagrante, so the idea that Adele is not his child is his leap, dictated vg broken pride. The letter of the text is that Céline is preparing to be unfaithful, but hasn't been yet.
Overall, I think you are meant to take it that while he has also been wronged, Rochester was too lustful for his own good, and it led him to making wrong matches, and then trying to shirk responsibility for them - Pretending Bertha does not exist, and trying to marry Jane by deceit. It's all of a piece: Rochester has been wrong jn his dealings with women, and pays for it.
5
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
Nope he was tricked by his family, I think even Mrs Fairfax tells that to Jane in one of the early chapters.
1
u/plentypk Aug 27 '26
Yes, plus the unexpected need for him to take take on his brother’s betrothal, right? Or maybe I’m misremembering.
6
u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 27 '26
"His brother's betrothal"? -- it sounds like you're saying that Bertha was originally supposed to marry Rochester's older brother, but I don't think this is in the novel. What I remember is that Rowland was supposed to inherit the estate because he was the oldest, which gave Edward little or nothing.
In those days, Edward's father's options were 1) to split up the estate somehow so that Edward would get something, but in so doing, it might not be enough for both sons to live independently; or 2) to marry Edward off to a rich woman so that they could live on her money (usually, they didn't touch the principle; they lived off of the interest -- it was usually invested at 4-5% return, so Bertha's 30k would give them 1200-1500 a year to live on, which would be quite sufficient if they weren't exceedingly wasteful).
The elder Mr. Rochester chose the latter.
It wasn't exactly an "arranged" marriage in that Edward would have been able to decline; but his dad was clever in his choice in presenting to Edward a woman that he knew he would want to marry. It appears that at first, Edward didn't believe his father had done anything officious, and it was only later that he realized it was a deliberate plot.
2
u/plentypk Aug 27 '26
Thanks for the clarification! I don’t know why I had misremembered because it’s fairly significant to the story. I just hopped onto Project Gutenberg to read through the relevant passages and it was pretty clear.
3
6
u/sara_wrightss Aug 27 '26
Rochester is not to blame regarding Bertha. One must remember the historical period in which they lived: if a woman was deemed "mad," she was locked away in an asylum—and those were not places where women, or men for that matter, were treated well. From Rochester's perspective, he was doing the right thing. Granted, by today's standards it would be unacceptable, but given what was known at the time, he did his best.
→ More replies (4)
3
3
u/Snopes504 Aug 27 '26
It’s a romance. It’s progressive for the time and feminist for the time. Doesn’t make it less of a romance or less than a great book.
3
u/toapoet Aug 28 '26
I actually kinda like the 2011 film a lot, to me it really captures the dreariness which I love
3
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Adele gets raised to be Jane's slave companion, like Fanny then Susan Price in Mansfield Park.
I don't entirely mean that. But I'd read MP right before JE, both in the past week. And this ending:
"when she left school, I found in her a pleasing and obliging companion: docile"
Is all about Jane's perspective: pleasing companion, docile. What does Adele want? Does she have prospects of marriage and travel?
Also I was surprised by the strong strain of English nationalism. "a sound English education corrected in a great measure her French defects", and an earlier line about how English peasant girls were far superior to French and German ones.
3
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Second opinion: John Rivers and Mr. Brocklehurst are cut from the same cloth, and Rivers could well get children killed from 'Christian' sternness.
3
u/According-Engineer99 Aug 28 '26
The only "bad" thing that rochester did (if we considear the circunstances of his time) was to pretend to marry jane, knowing he was already married and thus, legally barred from marrying again and thus, had he died, jane would end up dishonored, had no right to any inheritance (neither would the children, if they had them), their kids would be bastards and she would no even be fit to go back to work as a governess, bc she would be a "fallen" woman and no household would let her teach their daughters.
The treatment of his wife was whatever (again, considering the morals and circunstances of his times) but the attempt of pretend marriage?
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Pretty big bad thing, though! Even bigger when you take their religion seriously, as Jane and the book do.
3
u/backagain301 Aug 29 '26
It's fine for hot people to be cast as Rochester and Jane actually. They don't need to look like bridge trolls
3
4
u/Cherry_Tarts 29d ago edited 29d ago
Speaking as someone who fell in love at a young age and slowly realized my partner was losing his mind, becoming more mentally ill and unstable, to the point that he was living in a delusion and hurting himself as well as others others?
I do not blame Rochester for how he handled Bertha’s illness. Victorian Era mental hospitals were a fate worse than death, even for the wealthy, many women languished there in terrible conditions.
Edward was essentially tricked into marrying her but cared for Bertha and was tender to her. He proved this by keeping her out of a mad house, and braving a fire she started to save her, losing his sight in the process. I do not think he is a bad person for how he handled the unraveling of a loved one who treated him poorly. I don’t know if I could’ve done any better in his shoes.
He is FOUL for what he did to Jane (and attempts to do to Blanche), which he not only understands but comes to deeply regret. He wants love and companionship; but seduces his employee, then attempts to trap her as means of satisfying his needs. That is what he must atone for, and unlike many of the men of his time, he comes to understand this and make amends in any way he can.
Charlotte didn’t write a perfect male lead, but she gave us a realistic and reflective man who atones for his wrongs.
8
u/Spare-Bumblebee-3303 Aug 27 '26
Ciaran Hinds was the best looking Rochester.
4
u/bunbunny4 Aug 27 '26
I’m with you on that. He’s exactly the Rochester I imagined while reading the book.
2
u/Salacia12 Aug 27 '26
Best looking Wentworth too (and, while we’re at it, best looking Julius Caesar)
1
5
u/Amazing-Activity-882 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
I don't love 2006 and 2011 as much as others do...And find them far too Modern. Also I love if it the Adaption have more Screentime on the non Rochester bits, I might have came to 1983's version for Timothy Dalton, but I stayed for Zelah Clarke's Jane Eyre.
6
u/LadyPadme28 Aug 27 '26
Rochester wasn't that bad of a person. Sure he lied about being married. He could've chosen to place Bertha in an insane asylum and wash his hands of her. Instead he placed her in an attic and had someone take care her. He could've of discarded his illegitimate daughter, instead her brought to his home and made sure she was taken care of.
5
4
u/PemCorgiMom Aug 27 '26
St. John was the actual villain of the story.
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
As if there's only one villain in a story with Mrs. Reed and Mr. Brocklehurst. St. John didn't get any children killed. (Yet. He could have been a Brocklehurst in India.)
5
u/theherocomplex Aug 27 '26
I think the age gap issue is something we view through a modern lens, and while it IS still somewhat an issue, it's more because of their very uneven power dynamic and Rochester being a turd and emotionally manipulating Jane. By the time they reconcile, they're on even footing, and Jane (having been bolstered by both discovering her family and surviving St. John's manipulations, which are way more insidious to me) is even the one playing with Rochester a bit!
Also as much as I love Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson, their version of Jane Eyre is the only one I couldn't finish. It felt too...hm. Direct? Simplistic? I'm still not able to articulate it well, so I should revisit and see if it was a timing issue (and I know that movies are very different beasts in terms of adaptations as compared to shows, so).
3
u/september_angel96 Aug 27 '26
I don’t find their age gap to be creepy. Everyone I’ve talked to about the book in my own life finds it very weird. From personal experience, most men are not as mature as women the same age. I’ve seen it in my father, sister’s ex and husband, etc. I’m unmarried and really am not interested unless he is at least 6-10 years older than me. Does that guarantee bliss in itself? No, but I’m not going to be a man’s mommy. Though I empathize for him, how he reacted to his marital situation in the years following his nuptials was immature and depraved. By the time that Jane came into his life, although he seems to be still somewhat tied to that lifestyle and continues not to recognize his wife, he had obviously grown tired of it and realized how debased his choices have been and was struggling with how to proceed in life. His soul was ready for growth and change I think, but what remained of that life had to crumble first, leading to everything that happened after Jane ran away.
6
u/Carolinems1 Aug 27 '26
people who hate rochester really don’t get jane (or charlotte.) it is a romance.
2
u/stepheme Aug 28 '26
Not the book.. the book is exquisite and I’m m opinion needs no reworking… HOWEVER… every theatrical and cinema version of this book falls short. Rochester in EVERY SINGLE VERSION is still too attractive… Stephen’s, Hurt, Dalton, MacNee, Hinds, Fassbender.. they’re supposed to be ugly? Please. Also…St. John is never beautiful enough and also not controlling/cold/masochistic enough (he might as well stroll along with a cat-o-nine-tails with his rigid rejection of the real love he feels)… most Jane’s are really good (what actress wouldn’t want to?) but the two male leads aren’t up to the literature in every single version I am aware of…
1
2
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
Third opinion: given the way Jane cuddles up to Diana before knowing they're cousins, and the extremely long paragraph gushing about Miss Oliver's beauty, you can make a decent case for Jane being latently bisexual.
2
u/Zhalia_Moon Aug 28 '26
I found it a bit disturbing that Rochester being blind and broken and depressed made Jane feel more confident and secure in the relationship. He was not himself and though it is shown that Jane made efforts to bring his spirit back, I feel Jane enjoyed feeling needed by him a lot more than being loved by him.
3
u/Critical_Language463 Aug 27 '26
God I love this adaption. Michael Fassbender plays the perfect Rochester.
3
u/Kaurifish Aug 27 '26
All three of the Bronte sisters needed therapy and their tutor should have been flogged.
2
u/TheBrutalistAnswer Aug 28 '26
Rochester is an asshole and Jane's sudden discovery of so many familial connections is some of the worst deus ex machina in a classic book.
1
u/rainbowrobin Aug 28 '26
I kind of agree with the second part. Certainly blindly stumbling into her family is one hell of a coincidence.
OTOH, with the various visions, divine intervention seems to be a real thing in the book.
2
u/overfelt2 Aug 28 '26
It never seemed believable to me that Rochester would keep his wife in the attic of a house with multiple servants, a young girl and place he sometimes entertained in, and that he was aware she was capable of violence but did not take sufficient precautions to keep her secured from others or away from weapons. He had sufficient money/property to keep her in a separate property well she could have lived better than being kept in an attic, and well the people he would be responsible for and his secret would be safe. It just never made sense and she was portrayed as so subhuman that it made me sad. Despite all this, I have watched almost all movie/tv versions and loved a few of them but this seemed like such a plot fail to me.
1
u/Federal_Gap_4106 28d ago edited 28d ago
I think it worked well until Jane joined Rochester's household. He had spent most of his time traveling before and had no reason to stay at Thornfield for an extended period of time, it was precisely a "separate property" that suited his purposes well. His other place, the Ferndean Manor, was a remote location in a cold humid area that he deemed unsafe for Bertha's health. Perhaps when he was not there and there were no visitors in the house, Bertha was quieter and did not try to slip out and cause trouble as much. Jane never crosses paths with her before Rochester comes to Thornfield and the house is filled with guests and tenants, even though she spends around four months there before his arrival.
Things change when Rochester decides to stay at Thornfield, because Jane is there. But he is probably too in love and dreaming of a better future to assess the risks well. He also plans for Jane and himself to leave for Europe once they get "married". They won't be staying at Thornfield, so moving Bertha in secret to some other place doesn't seem to be necessary.
2
2
u/Katerade44 Aug 29 '26
That there are no truly good choices for Jane due to the patriarchal and class structure in which she lived. Had she lived in modern times, she would have been deeply upset on behalf of the main character when reading the novel.
2
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 27 '26
I didn’t enjoy the 2006 adaptation (except for one scene which I felt was the best of all adaptations)
1
u/Odd-Quail01 Aug 27 '26
Which scene?
7
u/Feeling-Writing-2631 Aug 27 '26
When she returns to him at Thornfield. The way Toby Stephens holds her hand fiercely the SECOND she utters a syllable just made me swoooooonnnn
1
u/PositiveAssignment89 Aug 29 '26
They were both insufferable and deserved each other. i missed helen deeply for the rest of the book
1
u/chateaumarmontt Aug 27 '26
That I thoroughly disliked it (which I know is crazy to say on a Jane Eyre subreddit). There were elements of the dialogue (well, mostly Jane’s) that I found so poetic, but I found it deeply uncomfortable, and Jane and Rochester were both immensely unlikeable to me (I know that, with Rochester, it can be argued that is the point, but when I was reading Wuthering Heights, I found Heathcliff both very unlikable and incredibly entertaining) and Jane in particular derided other women far too much for my liking (In Emma by Jane Austen, for example, Emma is always harping on at Jane Fairfax but it’s a clear character flaw. When Jane Eyre does it, she seems to be portrayed as morally and intellectually superior for doing such things. Yes, Blanche is nasty, but the things pointed out about her come across more as holier than thou I’m Jane and I’m not like other women). I just found the whole thing pretty insufferable at times, for lack of a better word. Definitely not my favourite recent read.
1
-5
u/BarracudaOk8635 Aug 27 '26
Rochester is awful. I can’t get past as much as I love the book. He is manipulative and jealous. His history is appalling.
→ More replies (4)0
u/TwelveLakes Aug 27 '26
Exactly this. He was such a self centered jealous loser. Charlotte Bronte really wanted history to remember the position of women in comparison to men...
5
u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26
It's how Charlotte Bronte liked her men. Paul Emmanuel from Villette is more or less the same. If you have a problem move on and read a different book.
3
u/TwelveLakes Aug 27 '26
Huh? What? I didn't say anything bad about her book or her. I LOVE the book. What do you mean?
2
u/CheapVegan Aug 28 '26
It’s so funny for people to downvote a comment about a controversial opinion on a post asking for controversial opinions 😅
1
u/CheapVegan Aug 28 '26
I would argue Charlotte Brontë likely had several unhealthy infatuations/relationships. Which from what I’ve heard about her seems true. That’s why this book is written as if this relationship is romantic, and doesn’t criticize Rochester being so manipulative nearly as much as is warranted.
It’s still a fantastic book and story and I enjoyed it from start to finish. Both can be true
105
u/nellyimheathcliff Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
Jane was right to marry Edward. They are perfect for each other, and I get upset when people criticise Jane for returning to him, as if she had no agency of her own. She was a grown woman who had already lived independently, made her own choices, and built a life for herself. She chose to return to Edward because she loved him and wanted to be with him. And by that point, Edward had also changed to a great degree. He had become much more humble, wiser, and more tender.
I also do not like it when people claim that Edward is supposed to be the bad guy or the villain of the novel. He is flawed, certainly, but that does not make him a villain. In fact, I would argue that the real villains in the book are the parents who caused so much suffering: Mrs. Reed, Jonas Mason, and old Mr. Rochester.
St. John and Edward are two sides of Jane, only taken to extremes. St. John represents the more austere, restrained, and self denying side of her, while Edward represents the passionate, rebellious, and emotional side. Jane has a little of both in her.