[deleted]
Comments
Y_Brennan t1_ja79rlc wrote
I always felt that it was more then a moral code pushing her away. I know she says that she forgave Rochester immediately and that she loves him but she also acknowledges how he talks about his former lovers with disdain and feels like that could be her. She couldn't be with Rochester because of how dependent she was on him and how controlling he wanted to be. Which is why he needed basically devine intervention to help him change his ways.
jefrye t1_ja8byji wrote
> mainly because it does show more that Jane is not going to follow someone blindly.
Yep, I think this is exactly the point of the third volume. She said no to Rochester because she felt marrying him was immoral, but she also says no to St John because she doesn't love him. She has principles and is no pushover.
Nice_Sun_7018 t1_ja8577d wrote
I agree with you really, but I’m always disappointed in Jane for agreeing to go to India with St. John with the condition that they not marry and go as cousins. Missionary work isn’t something she’s ever personally aspired to. She wants to hang out at home and read and work on languages and draw. Even if she loves him as family, she doesn’t particularly like St. John on a personal level - she thinks he’s cold and unfeeling. She’s never expressed any interest in travel beyond England. I rather hate that she’s willing to throw her entire life in a whole new (uncomfortable and frankly dangerous) direction just because he asked her to.
Maybe they’d why I never hated Rochester - because St. John really does make him seem almost noble and gentle in comparison.
[deleted] OP t1_ja7dpjy wrote
I suppose my main gripe is just the tedium of volume 3. Brontë gets a bit too self indulgent (well more than she usually does) in dragging points out which slowed down my reading a lot.
It was very interesting to see her attempt a kind of Victorian version of a Homeric simile when she compares finding the ruined Thornfield to a suitor finding his lover lying dead in a garden. But it lost its power simply because it was so drawn out and wordy. I feel like this is probably an issue with Victorian literature in general though and I’ve been kinda spoiled after reading Homer and Virgil for so long. The Odyssey is about the same length (if a little shorter) and yet covers so much more and the characterisation so much more impactful simply because Homer (and the translator) managed to be economical
Y_Brennan t1_ja79id6 wrote
My professor said something similar but I disagreed. I thought it really holds the novel together. St. John is a controlling and abusive dick kind of like how Mr. Rochester was in the previous volume but he absolutely is not willing to give Jane any credit. At least Rochester somewhat respected Jane. So he makes Rochester look better in hindsight because of how controlling he is but he cannot be criticised because he is a good Christian right? I disagree he goes off and dies in India while everyone else live rich and fulfilling lives.
Look at how Rochester changes completely after his 'fall'. Rochester is capable of both respecting Jane and changing to not being controlling while St. John can only see one way. He is similar to Rochester but in the end he is a foil that redeems Rochester by being so terrible.
writersarecrazy t1_ja79mvp wrote
I second this. All the way! I never thought of the comparison being to show Rochester listens and respects Jane in a way that St John doesn't. But Mr Perfect Christian is always right, right? Right?!
[deleted] OP t1_ja7i7p4 wrote
But Mr Rochester only lives to be happy because he accepts God and the last page of the book is basically a eulogy to the St. John being a Christian hero ending with a ‘amen […] lord jesus’
Nemesis0408 t1_ja7lmy2 wrote
The reader is supposed to worry for a while that
- Jane is only being swept away by a strong personality with Mr. Rochester, and
- her religious beliefs are going to overwhelm her in her grief, and keep her from balance and happiness
Her relationship with St. John shows us that when tested, she’s going to stand up for herself on both fronts. Knowing that makes us feel much better about her returning to Rochester. St. John should have been the perfect thing to break her spirit and he wasn’t. Knowing that she also has money and family to fall back on now and she STILL chooses Rochester show us she’s also not just looking for security.
I agree that the pacing gets a little slow in the third act, but it’s almost all relevant. As for the religious adherence, all I can say is that it was written in another time, when those things were of real concern to most people.
ohboop t1_ja8f16b wrote
In my opinion, a huge theme in the novel is self acceptance and love, as a woman. Throughout the novel Jane is at odds with her own and other's values of femininity. Both Rochester and St. John encourage her and find value in her for things she also values in herself, but from very different perspectives. Ultimately, St. John is very utilitarian in his love for Jane. His first devotion is to God, and he loves Jane for her potential to serve God first and foremost. It's important that Jane is also religious, and not at all opposed to a life of service, even to God, but she wants a partner that loves her first and foremost.
In general I think your whole characterization is uncharitable, to say the least. I didn't find any part of the novel wordy, tedious, or padded. I loved the writing, so to see your comment about a thesaurus was another surprise. Idk, seems like this novel wasn't for you, but when I read it, it was obvious to me why it's stood the test of time.
Tobacco_Bhaji t1_ja7yz5e wrote
>I’m studying classics at university and during a modern literature module we studied Jane Eyre. Now I have read it all, written many notes and essays on it and have a pretty good grip on it (not particularly hard when the author is the least subtle author I have ever read).
Right. You've written 'many essays'. 'Least subtle'.
I don't know where to begin here, but the fact that you don't understand vol 3 belies the 'least subtle' notion. Never mind what it says about the 'many essays'.
[deleted] OP t1_jaa8zsl wrote
Lol pretentious git
Trick-Two497 t1_ja8bct9 wrote
It seems like bookends to me. In volume 1, she is in a terrifyingly controlling school which is hyper-religious. In volume 3, she is with a terrifyingly controlling hyper-religious wannabe missionary.
I'm not a literature major, nor have I ever read this book in a class with a professor who knew something. I just read it for fun several times. So this may or may not make any sense, but to me the goal was to show us something about self-acceptance and how it relates to our ability to forgive and accept the foibles of others.
RoseIsBadWolf t1_ja8ysl9 wrote
I found St. John absolutely terrifying, like cult leader sort of energy. Yet the writer seems to leave him on a good note? It was crazy for me.
However, I think the contrast is clear, Rochester is someone who actually loves Jane, but as questionable morals, and St. John loves no one as far as I can tell but has "perfect" morals (though according to the actual Bible that dude is not going to heaven because works without love is meaningless, but anywho). Jane rejects a life of duty without love and returns to Rochester because she cannot live without love.
Better ending: St. John peaces out to India and Jane and her two awesome female cousins live together in tranquility.
[deleted] OP t1_jaa9p24 wrote
Yeah I figured that Brontë had become more devout during writing volume 3 and that is reflected in the novel. But perhaps she didn’t think it realistic to have Jane become a missionary or didn’t think it fit with the plot or simply she wanted to contrast Jane with what she believed to be St. John’s heroic character like her father who was renowned preacher himself
boxer_dogs_dance t1_ja7jokd wrote
You could also maybe take this to r/askliterarystudies.
Sumtimesagr8notion t1_ja9iv3g wrote
I don't think she's wordy at all. I don't remember part 3 being written any differently than 1 and 2 to be honest, but it has been a couple years
[deleted] OP t1_jaa8sw4 wrote
[deleted]
Sumtimesagr8notion t1_jaaa5hh wrote
Why are you calling me a chump? Wth?
No Jane Eyre is like entry level literary fiction. A lot of people read it in their teens. Maybe you're just used to reading contemporary genre fiction? I don't need to re read to remember that Jane Eyre was a very easy read.
I actually just googled it and Jane Eyre is listed as an 8th grade reading level
[deleted] OP t1_jaabtf7 wrote
I mean what makes something entry level fiction? I’m sure Brontë never thought: ‘yes a nice entry level book for entry level readers’. She just thought she was writing a good story. I have no issues reading the book and understanding her English. But there is a difference between ‘this English is too hard for me to read’ and ‘this English is pretentious and overly wordy’. I’m not used to reading contemporary books at all. I’m a classics student so I spend most of my time reading Homer and Virgil who manage to convey more meaning with more brevity. What a chump man smh.
Brontë goes on and on and on expanding what could have been a 250-300 page story into over 400 pages. Now I can see you replying: ‘Ah well I guess if you are used to reading shorter stories it’s not for you hue hue hue’. But no my issue is that it is needlessly long and drawn out. Homer manages in 300 pages (differing based on translation ) a larger story with more impactful moments via his economy of words. As Shakespeare says: ‘brevity is the soul of wit’.
Go back and read it lad
Sumtimesagr8notion t1_jaaedwz wrote
Her writing is right on par with Dickens, Hardy, Austen, and of course her sisters, as far as prose goes. I just don't think there is anything about it that stands out as over written or pretentious.
She took her time writing the story. Big deal.
And I don't know where your aggression is coming from, you're like a weird mixture of an English major and a gym-bro. I've never seen anything like it.
[deleted] OP t1_jaafdnj wrote
[removed]
Sumtimesagr8notion t1_jaagsa5 wrote
There are different writing styles and hers works for her. That's why the same person can appreciate Hemingway and Faulkner even though they're on two different sides of the spectrum.
And sorry for implying you have poor reading comprehension. I see now that I did originally misinterpret your post
writersarecrazy t1_ja79hon wrote
I rather like the entire St John storyline, mainly because it does show more that Jane is not going to follow someone blindly. Yes, the family cares for her and helps when she is left with nothing, but that doesn't mean she's going to turn missionary with St John.
I think it shows a lot of Jane's depth. Though she ran from Rochester because of her moral code and the pushy way he insisted on being with her despite the secret in the attic, she ends up in a similar situation with St John.
Many victorian romances would have her running off to be a missionary and forgetting about Rochester.
Though I agree that the religious tone in volume 3 is a sharp left, I think it's her faith is the only thing she has left when she is forced by that moral code to abandon her great love. She leans on it because without it, she is utterly alone. Again.
Just my two cents. Jane Eyre is one of my absolute favorite books!