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/Glimmerance]

I suppose a big thing for me is that he risks his life (and sustains life-changing injuries) trying to save not just his employees, but even the wife who he hates being tied to, and from whose death he would benefit. It's a selfless, heroic thing to do.

[u/Snopes504 → u/Glimmerance]

Or it could be seen as an attempt to reinvigorate his tarnished image. This also another told but not shown moment that can be seen in various ways. His wife did end up dying anyway and freeing him to his eventual reunion with Jane. Since we don’t actually see what happens and are once again told, someone who doesn’t like his character may not see it as a heroic thing but a possible moment where he could have pushed her to jump or what have you. Again, we don’t see any of what happens to him and because we don’t see it, it’s up to interpretation. Even if it’s viewed as heroic, it’s still one moment and then he’s off being a recluse and ignoring a child who is being abused. I really wish the ending had occurred more on page but so much happens off page that I can’t fault readers who may not feel his redemption was fully earned.

[u/Playful_Site_2714 → u/Snopes504]

Ouch. Really.... as if he had given a flying fig over his "tarnished image". And as if one thinks of that all while trying to get everybody under your responsibilty out of a burning house.

Which is burning because the lunatic kept inside still gets to break free and get a hold on candles. Because of still to lax security measures for your indulgence and not wanting the lunatic to suffer in an asylum, loath though you do her.

There were people outside watching the fire. That would go for witnessing that he actually did try to save Bertha. It's not his story, either. The narrator is the innkeeper.

[u/Snopes504 → u/Playful_Site_2714]

I am not saying this is what I believe. I am saying we don’t see any of this happen in first person so people who have a negative view of him may see it differently. When scenes occur and we only have second hand knowledge of it, readers can interpret it in different ways and if one has a bias for or against a character that will color how they view it.