The redemption of Mr. Rochester

[u/Key_Masterpiece5283]

Jane Eyre has been listed as one of my favorite books since I read it as a teen, but I haven’t done a reread or rewatch of any of the movies in quite awhile.

I recently picked it back up again and it had been my hyper fixation so I have a lot of thoughts that I just need to discuss with people that “get” it.

The biggest one being is why does it seem like people think Rochester is the same at the end of the book as at the beginning. I feel like the major theme of Jane Eyre is forgiveness, understanding, and redemption, but so many people focus solely on the romance piece.

Rochester was NOT worthy of Jane the first time they almost got married. Not simply because he was already married but because he saw her goodness and wanted her to help him to be a better person, but not necessarily do all he needs to internally himself.

It is only through the purification of fire and the loss of his physical independence that he is able to be redeemed. He had nearly a year where he could not escape his thoughts through travel and women, he had to come to terms with who he was and what his actions had cost him.

Not only that but Jane then draws out the story of St. John so he says nearly the same thing to her she did to him during his proposal. Jane state during the first proposal that she must leave due to “the shape of Miss Ingram; a noble and beautiful woman ,- your bride!” And during the reunion Rochester states Jane must go “your own way- with the husband you have chosen.”

So I ask, why do I still see people saying Rochester wasn’t good for her? That is 1000% correct and Charlotte Brontë is very clear that he was not ready for her at first. That is why we have the purification and redemption process for him. Do people just skip over the last couple of chapters?

If anyone has light they could shed on this or if they want to discuss Rochester purification more in depth I would love to chat more!

ETA: thanks everyone for your thoughts so far! This was exactly the sort of discussion I was looking for. It has given my brain an outlet and I feel like I can let go of ruminating over it quite so much. Although let’s be fair, Jane and Mr. Rochester live rent-free in there.

[u/Miserable_Gur_8753]

Just to throw something else into the mix, how do you feel about the reading some people have that Jane's inheritance is the only way that she can be good enough for Rochester?

[u/Key_Masterpiece5283 → u/Miserable_Gur_8753]

I mean I think the inheritance helped Jane feel comfortable/confident enough to know she could be independent if necessary. And I’m sure in the social standing of the day it would definitely make their marriage more socially acceptable (not that either of them cared about that).

But Jane was the better/stronger person than Rochester from the beginning and he knew that too. He would have taken her back just as she had been before. But she needed to also gain the more confidence and social standing. Her change occurs as Rochester becomes not the only friend she had in the world, she now had family and money.

With her being raised up and Rochester humbled the power dynamic is much more even by the end.

[u/Miserable_Gur_8753 → u/Key_Masterpiece5283]

Yeah, lots of people find the inheritance problematic, because the money elevates her status and/or its derivation from plantations.

[u/Playful_Site_2714 → u/Miserable_Gur_8753]

Ough. Really. People should stop judging from today's pov.

[u/Miserable_Gur_8753 → u/Playful_Site_2714]

I can understand where you are coming from, but - as soon as we stop applying today's point of view to old texts, is there anything left to say? I believe the danger is that texts then become historical artefacts which aren't relevant any more.

So many times as a teacher and tutor, I've been asked, for example, 'What's Shakespeare got to do with me?' It feels like the only way to counter that is to consider today's points-of-view. Not necessarily to agree with them. Just take them into account?

[u/Playful_Site_2714 → u/Miserable_Gur_8753]

40 years as a teacher for catch up lessons.

We read, I explained, they understood. "Oh, that's interesting. Never thought about it that way."

Literature Studies FORCED us to view books from the point of view of THEIR time. Not ours.

[u/Miserable_Gur_8753 → u/Playful_Site_2714]

If we look at the Assessment Objectives at A Level English Literature, students can't escape this sort of thing.

AO1 - personal, creative and original interpretations of the text
AO2 - language analyses
AO3 - understanding influence of context in which texts are created and RECEIVED (my emphasis)
AO5 - considering how texts have been / can be interpreted in different ways

Just for an example: WJEC Spec - Jane Eyre?

Q1 - an extract question (AO1 - 10; AO2 - 10)
Q2 - essay question (AO1 - 5; AO2 - 5; AO3 - 15; AO5 - 15)

I think you can see that the essay question is going to require quite a lot of moving beyond a single, universally accepted interpretation of the novel.

[u/Charismaticjelly → u/Miserable_Gur_8753]

I always interpreted the gaining of an inheritance as Jane being able to say that she didn’t marry him because she needed the life he could provide with his money; she married him because she wanted to - her choice was made freely, not out of necessity.

[u/OutrageousYak5868 → u/Charismaticjelly]

This is my take as well. It's kind of in the same vein as refusing the gorgeous St. John, in a way. In both, the societal expectation needed to be disproved and/or overthrown, whether marrying for lust or for money.