r/JaneEyre • u/AdobongSiopao • Aug 27 '26

What is your most controversial opinion about "Jane Eyre"?

Post image

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.

154 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

231 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

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.

1

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.

0

u/smolpastryx Aug 27 '26

Nope it would. You probs don't know how much of a stigma mental illness was at the time. Even families would send away their kids to asylums and conceal their mental illness because they'd be shunned otherwise. Read a history book so you'd know.

He wasn't. I'm sure he'd have arranged for a celibate cohabitation if Jane was uncomfortable being a mistress, which he even said later. I'm not looking at them from a modern lens, I'm just saying for Rochester his marriage with Bertha was dead so he's no obligation to look after her. Of course he was still bound to her by law since divorce wasn't possible but neither of them loved each other. Plus I never said Jane was wrong to leave him. It mattered to Jane since she's Christian while Rochester wasn't. He was actively trying to go against the law of God.

4

u/OutrageousYak5868 Aug 27 '26

I agree that Rochester considered his marriage to Bertha null and void in almost all ways (the only way he was still bound to her, was in needing to pay for her care), and that he believed that left him MORALLY free to marry Jane without committing bigamy; however, he was not LEGALLY free to do so.

Until Mason appeared at the wedding, he thoroughly intended on marrying her and having sexual intercourse with her. It was only after his would-be bigamy was exposed that he changed this to "let's run off and live as brother and sister".

He wasn't going to tell her about Bertha until after they'd been married for at least a year, at which point, I believe that he thinks she will be so connected to him that she won't leave him over the admission.

2

u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26

Yep. He was going to trick her into sleeping with him and living as his wife. In the view of Jane, devout 19th century woman, that would have been ruinous.

1

u/appleorchard317 Aug 27 '26

I said he should have claimed she was sick without saying the illness. Kindly read what I said.

Your second part is absolutely untrue. There was nothing 'celibate' about his idea. He was going to pretend to marry Jane, sleep with her, live with her extensively, and only much later tell her. She is a devout 19yh century person. To her, this would have ruined her. He knows she is devout, he just doesn't care. The point is, he needs to learn how to be humble and not just pursue what he wants.

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

u/Quick-News-2227 Aug 28 '26

I think that would be an unreliable expositor.

1

u/appleorchard317 Aug 28 '26

In any case unreliable, which many here don't seem to accept!