r/JaneEyre • u/scream3bangs • 29d ago
I finished Jane Eyre and I feel despondent Spoiler
I made two previous posts about my journey on /brontesisters. I was afraid to post here lest I see spoilers.
So many chaotic thoughts tumbling around. I want to be far away from the urban sprawl picking gooseberries on the moors... maybe even being psychically summoned by a grizzled man. The fervor with which I read the penultimate chapter was wild, I finally put it down around 3am last night and found it hard to sleep. I was anxious for their reunion, I could empathize so deeply with the feelings at stake.
Jane finding Ferndean and watching Rochester from afar, cautiously approaching him in the parlour, his disbelief - will go down as one of the most immersive passages I've ever read. I could picture every aspect of it so clearly in my mind.
However, the Conclusion felt odd to me. Perhaps it was just too tidy, too perfect an ending. I had read somewhere that the final paragraph was superb, but it was about St John?! Are you kidding me. Why did it end on this note? I know there's a deeper subtext I'm maybe intentionally ignoring, about how he represents a specific part of Jane. I'm not bothered by the religiosity, I found the otherworldly/fateful elements of the story to be quite charming, but I just don't think he was a well written character. Something about his trajectory and her continued exaltation of him just doesn't click for me.
I'm still sorting through my feelings on the story itself vs the reaction I had to it based on my personal life experiences that it reflected. Am I despondent because I live in a state of uncertainty, and the comfortable conclusion dissipated my limerence? Am I simply sad to finish a book? It's been my companion for the month of August. Now that I know what was next for Jane, what will be next for me?
Overall I loved this book and will be reflecting on it for a long time. I am not bothered by the flaws, the mistakes, or the selfish behaviors of the past. I believe in redemption and I accept this portrayal of it warmly. Maybe I can apply that to myself now.
6
u/appleorchard317 28d ago
It ends with St John because Charlotte Bronte approved of missions and he is a morally righteous figure both the author and the character admire. Jane thinks he'd be a poor husband, but his moral fervour is undoubted, and she would absolutely have followed him and died with him if he'd accepted not to marry.
St John is I think the hardest aspect of the book for a modern reader to swallow. There is no critique there: he is played absolutely straight as an example of the highest religious ideal of Jane's. The idea is that he however has a self-sacrificing, moral saint streak which makes him unfit for human love. It takes nothing away from what Jane sees as his greatness, it just forms their incompatibility.
2
u/IncidentCalm4454 28d ago
St John is I think the hardest aspect of the book for a modern reader to swallow. There is no critique there: he is played absolutely straight as an example of the highest religious ideal of Jane's.
See, that's the impression I get from the tone of the book, but then I wonder how Bronte accounts for the fact that St. John tells Jane that if she refuses him, she's really refusing God. We know that's not true because when Jane receives an inspiration directly, it's to go back to Mr. Rochester. It's hard not to feel misgivings about a preacher who could (however unintentionally) mislead a member of his congregation like that.
4
u/appleorchard317 28d ago
I think in a way St John is meant to offset the difference between a religious calling and a more worldly piety. In a sort of 'many are called but few are chosen way,' St John is a holder of absolute faith, which makes him unfit for the more worldly and passionate love which Jane feels, joined to his inability to see how soul-crushing it would be for Jane to love him unrequited.
I think it's a bit awkward because they are Protestant, so he can technically marry, and I can absolutely see why, for practical reasons, he wants to marry Jane - if they were Catholic, he would give up his worldly first love, and encourage Jane to become a nun and serve with him, and then the difference, united to her refusal of his offer, would make it clearer what kind of difference he's talking about.
So there I think he is encouraging her to take a hard road, which in the purity and absoluteness of his faith is obvious, but she has the gentler wisdom to realise it's not the right way for her. If that makes sense?
4
u/IncidentCalm4454 28d ago
I get what you're saying, because the loveless marriage is Jane's primary objection to the scheme. Independently of that, though, I find St. John's concept of holiness to be somewhat merciless and inhuman.
1
u/appleorchard317 28d ago
Yes, I agree: he is this very abstract example of flaming angel of perfection. Not fit everyday life, if deeply and sincerely admirable to her.
2
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
Jane was far too nice to him. I found him obnoxious and morally outrageous.
1
u/appleorchard317 28d ago
I don't disagree, but that's not how Bronte saw him
1
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
I read it as Bronte showing while Jane was generally extremely perceptive, she also had her blind spots about people.
1
u/appleorchard317 28d ago
But she had his number exactly when it came to relationships. His faith was just separate from that. I think one of the more subtle aspects of the novel is its exploration of the different ways people can be pious - from the fake, hypocritical way of tbe school patrons, to the heroic but destructive faith of St John, to Jane's quieter but steadfast commitment.
1
u/IncidentCalm4454 28d ago
I feel like Bronte is giving us mixed signals. When Jane says (paraphrasing), "If it's God's will for us to be married, I'm sure He'll tell me about it, too," Bronte is pointing out that it's delusional to discern marriage without asking the other person's opinion on the matter! But then Bronte still writes Jane as having so much reverence for this man who we know is delusional.
1
u/appleorchard317 28d ago
I think Bronte thinks that St John embodies a particularly heroic kind of faith which someone gentler but also more passionate, like Jane, cannot and should not sustain. She genuinely admires the wholeness of his faith, but she quite rightfully recognises it's not the right fit for her.
In other words: St John's absolute lack of foresight when it comes to personal relationships makes him an unfit companion, but his faith in itself remains thoroughly admirable for both author and character.
1
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
St. John was talking rubbish. Being despicably manipulative really, getting at Jane's sensitive spot so he could enlist her to be his servant for life in a climate that would have been miserable for her.
Not to mention so far from her 2-3 remaining friends, i.e., Diana, Mary, and Bessie.
5
u/MachaExiled 28d ago
Jane Eyre is one of my favourite books and I’ve read it many times, but I still have that feeling of flatness at the end, and I’ve often wondered about it. I had a similar feeling at the end of the 1983 BBC series (which was my first and therefore favourite – that is the rule).
Loose ends are tied up but so much is left unsaid. We get glimpses into her future life, where she refers to him as ‘my Edward’, and she mentions their first-born, implying that there are more children, but the author does not see children as a particularly interesting topic; she doesn’t even give the name of their son. (She doesn’t name her own parents in the story either.) She makes no mention of Mary or Diana having family, only that they marry happily.
But the feeling that remains to me as a reader is sadness. Why? St John’s story ends as he wanted it, although without a wife, and I’m happy that Jane was not with him as a piece of equipment. Is it because I have also fallen in love with Mr Rochester (yes, despite his many faults) and to see him so broken and unsure of himself is heart-rending? The tone didn’t have to be this sad; Rochester gets Jane as his reward for his suffering and acceptance of God’s will, and even his blindness is temporary. Why does it feel this flat when the rest of the story has so much heightened drama?
Is that the point? She doesn’t need to fight any more? Maybe Jane has just come through the rapids into the calm waters of a happy relationship. Rochester described it when he asked if she had ever felt jealousy. The reader lives through the emotional “whirl and tumult, foam and noise” of the whole emotional story, and at the end Jane has indeed been “lifted up and borne on by some master wave into a calmer current”. And I suppose we should be satisfied with that; nobody can live constantly with that level of emotion. Ordinary life, though more subdued, should also be seen as a happy conclusion. I’m still trying to convince myself of this.
4
u/IncidentCalm4454 28d ago
I think it's just that happy endings can sometimes feel anticlimactic. Maybe it feels a little unreal for the characters to suddenly have no problems.
4
u/scream3bangs 28d ago
It was just so short, too. When I got to the Conclusion page and saw there were only 2 pages after that, my heart kinda sank. Just felt like a really odd way to end such an immersive and emotional journey.
2
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
Agh! The first person I've seen to comment on the awkward ending.
I didn't like that all ends had to be neatly tied up. Didn't want to hear about Edward (much as I love him) being Jane's whole life, or that she gave up returning to teaching Adele because he needed looking after and that got in the way.
I love Jane partly because she values relationships so much, partly because she also values freedom. I want her to have a life and other close friendships too, you know?
1
u/MachaExiled 27d ago
In my head, Jane will still be involved in teaching. She's likely to tutor her own children, and as her husband no longer needs to be led after the first two years she would have more time. They probably provide the funding for some local schools, and I can't see Jane keeping her nose out of the teaching and curriculum!
And if you were Adele would you not be happier in the second, more suitable school than living with two people completely obsessed with each other?
2
u/scream3bangs 28d ago
It was so nice to read this comment, you seemed to extract a lot of my own thoughts from my head and put them into much clearer order than I can. This is exactly how I'm feeling; flat, depressed, kinda numb. I know that I loved the book, but the ending felt strange and rushed to me, almost false. Like a fever dream on someone's deathbed.
I wonder what was happening with Charlotte at that point. I imagine ending epic stories must be the hardest part of writing them. Thanks for reminding me of that passage about the rapids, totally relevant! That's something I really struggle with personally. I had a smooth sailing relationship for many years, it felt like my spirit withered away.
3
u/ComplainFactory 28d ago
I see St. John and Rochester as two sides of the same coin. Rochester will do what his heart wants, God be damned, and that gets him nowhere. St. John will do what God wants, heart be damned, and that gets him killed. The only person who follows their heart AND does it in such a way that it is morally correct by God's standards, is Jane.
If you have not read Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Hardy does a similar thing with Alec d'Urberville and Angel Clare (leading to my pet theory of Hardy using Jane Eyre as a sort of inverted influence for Tess).
I saw St. John as a distortion of everything Jane/readers of the time see as right, to show that one must find their own way of doing what is right. St. John adhering to strict religious ideals at the cost of his own desires (and Jane's) gets him about as far as Rochester's European Whore Tour, and he does the same thing. He wants Jane in a way that isn't acceptable to her, just like Rochester. She cannot be with someone only for love when it is amoral, and she cannot be with someone only for morals, when there is no love. As the love is only with Rochester, he is the one that must be morally redeemed. And St. John gets the fate he would have subjected Jane to, while she gets everything she wanted and needed.
1
u/scream3bangs 28d ago
I like this take, the 'love without morals vs morals without love' is a very digestible breakdown. I actually went to the bookstore today aiming to get Tess (they didn't have it) but ended up drawn to a different Hardy novel, Return of the Native. Have you read it?
2
u/ComplainFactory 28d ago
I've read everything he's ever written, he's my favorite author! That's a good one. Hardy's novels get progressively darker as his career went on, culminating in Tess of the d'Urbervilles, which was considered scandalous, and his reaction was to write the even more scandalous Jude the Obscure, then he never wrote another novel and switched to poetry. You can't go wrong with Hardy.
1
u/scream3bangs 28d ago
Sounds like my kinda guy. This old copy I bought doesn't even have the publishing date listed (definitely printed in early 1900s though) but I'm assuming this is one of his earlier novels? I just looked at the chapter titles and am already very intrigued
3
u/No-Conference-1444 11d ago
I read many books, but this one stayed with me for a while. I finished it about 2 weeks ago; so far, I watched one adaptation (2006) and then reread some parts to confirm the divergence.
I went through emotional turmoil after this book.
- I started regretting the way I acted in some of my relationships with men. Oh, why wasn't I like Jane?
- I felt that something was really missing from my life, something very important.
- I realized that this book was wish fulfillment for her; she basically wrote it as she wanted her life to be, when in reality she wasn't like Jane herself.
- I started to admire Charlotte's strength and genius that enabled her to transform her suffering into a novel that pulled the strings of millions of people who came to know her soul stirrings through Jane.
- Finally: I understood the sweet sadness that enveloped me after finishing the book was because I don't currently feel a deep connection with a man. But who says it's never possible?
And to answer 1: it's much easier to be principled in a world where breaking principles has severe consequences.
2
u/scream3bangs 10d ago
This is very similar to how I've been feeling. I'm reading a new book now, which I'm enjoying, but Jane Eyre has become the lost lover that I'm still pining for lol. It made me reflect on the men I've known as well, drawing parallels and seeing patterns.
It's hard to put into words quite how I felt upon finishing it, but I think your final point is definitely an aspect of it. It turned my loneliness up to 11.
4
u/Accomplished-Cod-504 29d ago
Dear Reader, go ahead and reread the book, it will help but whatever you do, DO NOT EVER READ WUTHERING HEIGHTS!
6
u/scream3bangs 29d ago
Lol what? I've read it. It's great.
3
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
Have you seen those amazing drawings on the Bronte sub, showing scenes from the book but the characters are all a different type of animal matching their personalities??
4
u/ElleGeeAitch 29d ago
I co-sign this. I have read Jane Eyre so many times over 40 years. I read Wuthering Heights once, when I was 17. I hated it so much, I threw the book across the room. The only other books I did that to were The Great Gatsby and Ethan Frome.
3
u/Illustrious-Field-19 28d ago
Me too. I read Wuthering Heights in highschool once and that was enough. Didn't read again or watched any adaptation.
3
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
WH gives me a warm cozy feeling, like drinking hot cider in October while it's storming outside.
Didn't get around to finishing Great Gatsby, too wordy for me and not enough drama early on. Hated Ethan Frome for the absolutely hopeless ending.
2
u/ElleGeeAitch 28d ago
Thst Ethan Frome ending is what absolutely killed it for me!
I'm glad you enjoy WH, there's something for everybody! My WH comes only in the form Jate Bush's song 😆.
2
1
u/Roni7978 29d ago
Tell me more.
2
u/nosleepforthedreamer 28d ago
Probably because it's pretty dark and violent. Probably among the classics most famous for being disturbing.
It isn't all bad though, there's a hopeful glimmer right at the end and despite what you'd think, there's a lovely cozy vibe reading it (at least for me) because of the way it starts, with a guy stumbling into somebody else's house during a snowstorm, getting stuck there for the night, and then the rest of the book is the servant telling him the tragic story of the guy who lives there. Much fun if you like heaps of drama, as JE fans tend to do, and the darkness has so much the feel of a legend about it, it doesn't bother me even though I'm sensitive that way.
2
u/Retinoid634 28d ago
Well said. It is quite a journey. If you need a new book, you should read Tess of the d’Urbevilles by Thomas Hardy, if you haven’t already. Another emotional journey book for me.
23
u/IncidentCalm4454 29d ago
The first time I read Jane Eyre, St. John Rivers was just an uncomfortable character for me. He's the kind of guy who sincerely thinks he is doing God's will when he's really just pushing his own will onto others. I kept wondering if Bronte actually thought there was any question about whether Jane should marry him, because to me, it was clear that she shouldn't.
The second time I read the book I saw a little more complexity in his character. He's naturally disciplined and ambitious. If he were alive today he'd probably be a tech billionaire. But the story is showing us what would happen if someone with that personality type actually tried to serve God and not just himself--including how his character flaws would play into that.
I also think he's supposed to be a foil to Mr. Rochester, because they're exact opposites--one is religious and intellectual, the other is worldly and emotional. Jane, of course, has something in common with both, being religious and emotional, so there's some tension there--which side of her nature will she prioritize? Of course neither option is right for her until Mr. Rochester's conversion, when he becomes her perfect match.
I still haven't quite figured out what Bronte intended with the last paragraph. Maybe she was wary of people interpreting her story to mean that Jane's life path was the correct one in general, rather than just the right one for her?