Great discussions in both classes (A and F) on both days (Monday and Wednesday).
I've been grading since three a.m. so I don't have much mental energy left for typing up the notes from the two discussions. If you need ideas from the discussions to spark your thoughts see me in class and I'll give you a photocopy of my notes.
Comment at least once on the Moor House through Ferndean section of Jane Eyre by pumpkin time (midnight) on Friday, October 1. I'll check out your comments Saturday morning before heading off to Mag Woods to coach my daughter's soccer team.
Thanks again for the excellent discussions in class. I look forward to hearing more from all of you in the comment box.
So I thought that the ending in general was very brief and fast paced. The ending to me personally seemed too ideal. By the end of the book she has friends (Diana and Mary), a loving husband (Mr. Rochester), and a ton of money ( her inheritance). Plus her husband magically got his eyesight back and she bore him a healthy son. This ending was very anti-climatic. I think what would have been more of a climatic ending would have been the burning of Thornfield mansion and the death of Bertha. So anyway Jane's initial decision to leave Mr. Rochester without so much as 20 shillings to her name was infinintly stupid. It must have been obvious to her that she had no where to go and if she would end up leaving Rochester she should have done where she had time to plan for her to have a place or job to go to after. But instead she upheld her moral standing by immediately expelling herself from Thornfield and almost dieing on the streets as a result. Besides is it really morally better to go to the streets begging and humiliating yourself instead of marrying a man on slightly questionable circumstances?
ReplyDeleteSo Charlotte Bronte, you can write a detailed, intricate novel about a young woman’s life up to about 19 or so, but once she hits an age barrier you shorten the rest of her life to two or three chapters? I am stilled stunned in which the book carried through to the end. I am very pleased that this author found a way to shorten those lengthy pages, trust me reading at 12 am was not too fun especially when the pages seemed to go on forever. However a slow decline into succinct chapters would have saved me some confusion. Yet there were still subjects that caught my eye while I read through Jane. What I noticed most was how Charlotte used her writing to mainly describe certain things; hence the reason every AP student could totally describe Mr. Rochester to a T. However, the appearance of Jane is slightly foggier. While Jane is on the hunt for where she belongs in life, were on a search for how she really looks in perspective to other people. I wondered why Bronte chose to ignore Jane’s features when she was the person we were trying to connect with most!
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing that I also noticed was that other people in the novel blatantly told Jane that she was ugly and not worth their high standard. Yet once they were around her long enough, they fell in love. For instance, Rochester and St. John. Rochester claimed that he had love for Miss Ingram and told Jane how perfect she was for him, more than anyone else. Which obviously changed due to his sudden love and marriage request for her he had. Almost that same exact thing happened with St. John, where he let Jane into his house but refused to try and make a friendship with someone who had once begged at his door. Then, surprise! He out of the blue asked her to marry him. I could tell that Bronte wanted the reader to fall in love with someone who was as humble as could be, because she was too sweet to ignore, (Sorry Jackie!) and people like her are the ones who have most success in the end. It’s almost like the moral of the story is that goodness pays always pays off in the end.
Looking back on Jane Eyre, I cannot help but notice a certain pattern in Brontë's plot line. True to the Gothic style of the time many of Brontë's characters are grotesque and extremist. This exaggeration makes it easy for Brontë to then create contrasting characters, in fact it seems that almost all of the major characters, and many of the minor ones, have opposing counter part figures.
ReplyDeleteStarting from the beginning, we can clearly see the connection between Helen Burns and Mr. Brocklehurst. Both characters are deeply religious but each approaches religion in completely different ways and it is clear that Bronte is making a commentary on religion through the characters. On the same theme of contrasting religious characters, we cannot help but to compare Jane to St. John. They are both deeply affected by their sense of morality, however St. John takes it to the extreme. Jane posses the self-respect to recognize that she must do some things for herself (such as travel back to Rochester), while St. John can only take pleasure in something that he believes is “good”.
Connected to both Jane and St. John are the pairs of sisters, Eliza and Georgiana and Mary and Diana. This may be perhaps the greatest contrasting set of characters that Bronte offers us. We can clearly see the deep divide between the discrete pairs in Jane's reaction to them. Jane makes immediate friends with Mary and Diana, but never truly loves Georgiana or Eliza. Yet another set of contrasting women is Blanche Ingram and Rosamond Oliver. There is clearly a difference in the lady's personalities, however it is more interesting to comment on their attitude towards men. Rosamond is in love with St. John, no for his money or standing but for his character while in stark contrast Blanch only pretends to love Rochester and does so only for his money and standing. The last set of opposing figures that we might point out would be the children, Adele vs. Jane's peasant students. Although both turn out charmingly, they could not have come from more opposing backgrounds. We might take this as Brontës commentary on education and the wonders it can work.
It is without question that Jane Eyre is filled with extreme contrasting characters. The similarities and differences between them is a topic that can be saved for deeper exploration another day, but I do have one last observation. It seems,in a novel filled with opposing characters, that there are two characters which seem to mesh perfectly together. Jane and Rochester are the obvious two figures. Whether Bronte consciously did it or not, by filling the book with opposing personalities and then one complementary pair, she drives home the romance between the central characters. As readers, our appreciation for this love is heightened and makes the novel that much more enjoyable.
Throughout the last chapters of the book, Bronte took much of it to describe St. John and his attempts to marry Jane. In many peoples’ book St. John would be considered a good egg always helping the destitute and unfortunate people. However St.John never really did this to help people it was always to make sure he wore the “crown” upon his entrance to his lord’s “heaven”. In this case St. John becomes nothing more than a greedy man. His greed also reflects on all the other missionaries of that time period and before trying to change people’s religious views because then their god would “love” them. In class, Elizabeth mentioned about St. John’s charity. Sure St. John gave up worldly assets to “help” people. However did he really prove himself to his “god”? The answer is no he proved himself to be cunning when it was something that he wanted and he wanted, no needed to wear that mystical “crown” and please his god no matter what the cost. So now that we know he is greedy, why the obsession with marrying Jane? Truthfully it has to do more about her brains than anything else. No one will disagree with the fact that Jane is an intelligent young woman. St. John seemed to be attracted to that. Also deep down he knew that their matrimony would please God. For they were both of the faith and both giving themselves up for something they believed. Ms. Oliver though beautiful was depicted by Bronte as someone that did not know of self sacrifice and due to this St. John was not attracted to her. Though St. John views her as intelligent his marriage proposal is based only idea that it would somehow please their god. Jane sees this and does not accept his marriage proposal and this also has to due with the fact that she hears Mr. Rochester’s voice. Then at the end, Bronte decides to end the book taking about St. John of all people. This is to do with the fact that at every critical moment in Jane’s life someone died. For example, when she was born parents died and when she goes to school and Helen dies. Then to keep with this pattern, Bronte has to kill someone at the end and who better than St. John the man who wanted to marry Jane, but in Bronte’s mind could not even come close to Mr. Rochester. In the end St. John was not what Jane needed he was to nice and to handsome. He was not Mr. Rochester who could be controlling, but kind, fierce yet gentle, and cruel but with a heart. In the end St. John was the best candidate to die because he was no longer important to the storyline. Also Bronte could have wanted St. John there because she did not want such a perfect ending and with St. John almost dead who could call that a fairy tale ending. Jane’s only male relative still alive was almost dead, but hey she got Mr. Rochester so everything is alright. I do not think that was what Bronte wanted us to leave the book with, but did not end in Jane’s perspective so that the reader could come up with their own decision of whether or not Jane got the fairy tale ending.
ReplyDeleteMoriah O’Neil
ReplyDeleteF Block
In coming to an end with Jane Eyre, I can definitely say that Charlotte Bronte has out done herself. A novel portraying aspects of mystery and deception would not have appealed to me in the past however; I very much enjoyed this book. And even still, it wasn’t the book that I fell in love with; it was the character of Jane. Throughout the course of the book, Jane went through many obstacles and experiences that it took her up until the end to reveal a transformation from an infantile character to a mature character that I myself have been able to relate too. Overall, the end of the novel was my favorite for I think it exhibited the characteristics of a “happily ever after” ending all while heavily developing the characters with deep meaning.
Jane has been through it all. Harsh treatment as a child, questioning of her beliefs, the loss of a lover, and the uncertainties of her future. Jane is an epitome of a lost character through the most of the book. She never really has a settled home where she feels comfortable and she is constantly questioning herself. Up until the end is when she discovers who she is. Though this was the case, what truly matters is that Jane overcame the trials she faced and she accomplished the task of finding herself. Something I’ve conjured is that Jane always had qualities of perseverance, determination, and love in her; it just took her the course of the book to discover this for herself. That’s why I love Jane so much! I can, in many ways relate and depict similarities in Jane’s life in relation to mine. Reading the last few chapters created an excitement in myself because it lead me to be excited for Jane and this breakthrough of seeing who she really is and has become. For so long, I feel like Jane ultimately wanted to find love and she certainly did.
Though this may sound silly, I find the relationship between Jane and Rochester to be a beautiful factor pertaining to what Jane has become. When she hears Rochester’s voice while at the Moor House, Jane at the moment realizes where she needs to be. So then going to Ferndean where Rochester is, her desires and intentions are sealed when the second proposal is made. Yes Jane Eyre is a piece of literature filled with mystery and deception but it is also full of love and happiness. Personally, I think Jane is one of those characters in literature that should also be looked up too and reflected upon when examining your own life.
In the concluding chapters of Jane Eyre, we can finally see the bildungsroman genre that the novel is, come full circle. By doing so, we are able to see just how much Jane’s life has progressed and developed in surprising ways throughout her life, and how at it’s final moments everything seems to finish on a clean note and summarize the central themes and concepts that Bronte has used to tell the story of Jane Eyre. The way Charlotte Bronte illustrated the connections Jane has made with the people and situations she has encountered in the final stages of the novel really project Bronte’s literary style. A style that exemplifies great finesse, one I admire, especially the way Bronte presented the passion that eternally resided between Jane and Rochester. As we went over the fact of supernatural activity in class, and how Bronte didn’t really seem to have Jane address the fact that hearing Rochester call out to her before she even knew he was in the forest was eerie, it came to my attention, that Bronte’s use of showing the relationship between Jane and Rochester throughout the novel was one based on true connection and didn’t need any plausible reasoning.
ReplyDeleteBronte, as a creative writer, can write anything she wants. She doesn’t need reasoning for why she writes something, there do not need to be eloquent explanations or transitions between complex subjects, and there certainly doesn’t need to be exact reasoning for why a particular event occurs. She is a writer, she doesn’t need to explain why she writes the way she does, as much as we wish she would. We can speculate all we want, but when we were covering why some of the loose ends in the end of the novel exist ( for instance, Jane’s arrival at the Rivers’ house, who turned out to be her cousins, also her supernatural experience hearing Rochester calling out), I felt as if we were analyzing these occurrences in a way that overcomplicated them to an extreme. We tend to do this a lot in class and there’s nothing wrong with it, it just seems that we get off the big idea too much and tend to focus on miniscule details that don’t really contribute to what I feel Bronte is really trying to say. The point is, we don’t need to speculate Bronte’s every single motive. If we look at the big picture, comprehend what is happening, and analyze the connections that statement can relate to, then we would be able to understand the main theme of Jane Eyre in a much simpler method. However, in a way, we all still approached that goal, just at our own paces. I truly have enjoyed analyzing the novel in class. The full development of Jane’s life that has been shown by the novel’s end is very impressive. We can see that Jane, a woman of substance, has come out of dark and dismal days, where it seemed as if she could amount to nothing more than what was expected of her, has been able to achieve so much more than she could even imagine, all the while falling in love with a man who really seems to be her soul mate. A man who she has been able to connect with in ways literally unexplainable.
That being said, in the final pages, as we see Jane’s story come to an end, we can see how the occurrences of the novel all happened for a reason, and she never would have achieved all she has had they not. The way in which Jane ended up back with Rochester was bound to occur in the way that it did, and I wouldn’t want it to come about in any other way. The way I see it, by coming into her own, being able to have as much compassion and love that she has for Rochester no matter what the obstacle, and understanding that there is no boundary that can prevent her from achieving what is possible, Jane has ended up finally becoming the type of person she has aspired to be all along.
Grant Weaver
ReplyDeleteA Block
Jane Eyre is done, the last chapters finished abruptly and unfulfilling. Who would have though that Charlotte Bronte of all people would leave us asking for more!? The discussion we had in class was similar in a way, we asked questions and briefly discussed things but were left wanting more, what else can you expect in 45 min? I was actually surprised at where the discussion went from my opening question of “After reading Jane Eyre do you feel that the ending was to complete, to perfect?” The only thing that really related to this was the agreement that yes it was too perfect, that it was too short, and the discussion of religion in the end. I am not upset though because a good amount of opinions and thoughts were discussed, and I think we came to some good conclusions.
One thing I had wanted to bring up, but was unable to, related to the final sentence of the book, a quote from the bible. (“Sure I come…Lord Jesus”). As we started to talk about this quote (I think Louisa brought it up) I looked at the note my book had relating to it. Here it said that the quote was from the penultimate verse of the New Testament. I thought it was interesting that Bronte used a quote from the second to last verse of the Bible to end Jane Eyre.
I also feel the need to comment on the actions of John and Mary when they discovered Jane and Mr. Rochester had wed. As we had (I believe) discussed they had little reaction, but we were unable to dive further into the reasons behind this, or what Bronte is trying to say. I myself am unsure of the answer. Surely they must have been surprised that they had married (maybe they expected that they would have a relationship of sorts and possibly marriage, but there is no way they knew it was going to happen so soon and unceremoniously). Could Bronte be commenting on class levels or servitude, that it was expected of them to show no emotion? I am stumped, I wish we had been able to discuss this further.
Overall I feel the discussion was a good one, and I was actually surprised at how well it went, and that we were able to get so involved and so deep without any outside prompting.
I was just looking over the venn diagram that my class constructed. This is the one that compares and contrasts Invisible Man and Wide Sargasso Sea. One similarity that we discovered about these two works was the false sense of security and control that the protagonists often experienced. Bertha felt this frequently in WSS, and at the end of the book she has simply too much security. She craves protection until she reaches a point where she finds herself trapped in Rochester's attack. I believe that I already discussed the theme of birds in Jane Eyre. Bertha becomes a bird trapped in a cage, and when I read the description of Bertha leaping off of the smoking building, flames streaming like wings off of her dress, I couldn't help but remember Antoinette's parrot's death. Anyway, after this lengthy prologue, I finally come to the focus of this blog post: does Jane share this false sense of control and protection? I believe that she does. I think that Jane is the type of person that easily feels trapped. Throughout her childhood, just up to Thornfield, she is always focused on moving away from her current predicament and on to the next. First, she NEEDS to get away from the Reed's. After time at Lowood, she finds that she MUST move on. Thornfield is the first place that she really feels secure, and longs for once she leaves. Rochester is described as a hulk of a man and offers a feeling of protection. At the same time, Jane must deal with Bertha, a monster that symbolizes danger. Realizing this HIDDEN danger, Jane leaves. One factor that encourages Jane to live among St. John is that he is her savior. He saves her from poverty and starvation, and he also gives her the news of her new financial and family security. She feels secure here, until she learns of St. John’s plans to take her to the dangerous land of India, simply as a partner and not as a protective lover. The blind Rochester is still strong, but he can no longer independently travel the world. The two live a secluded life deep in the forest, protected from the society that they have always battled with. This is similar to Invisible Man’s final decision of burrowing away from society. Rochester’s injuries put him at the same level as Jane. They finally share an equal power and have the ability to protect each other. In a sense, the tragedy that both individuals experience, helps neutralize their powers, and it allows the two to finally live together in peace. Both Jane and Rochester’s experiences only make them stronger.
ReplyDeleteLouisa, you say that "Jane posses the self-respect to recognize that she must do some things for herself (such as travel back to Rochester), while St. John can only take pleasure in something that he believes is “good”." I think it notable that Jane does not only act here for herself, but also because she does not feel obligated to go with St. John, and even states "God did not give me my life to throw away; and to do as you wish me would, I begin to think, be almost equivalent to committing suicide." So here, in chapter 35, is established a reason not to go with Mr. Rivers. Also, aside from her own preservation, Jane is hesitant because, as she explains, "before I definitively resolve in quitting England, I will know for certain whether I cannot be of greater use by remaining in it than by leaving it." She is thinking of not merely her own good, but that of Rochester, and through it all considering the choice to stay, more in God's will than the choice to go is-- a strong contrast to St. John's view of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteLouisa, you also made a point which I loved, that Bronte, "by filling the book with opposing personalities and then one complementary pair, ...drives home the romance between the central characters." I had previously thought of the opposing personalities as merely tools for Bronte's commentary, showing the reader, and Jane herself, what she is not. They had been to me something of a closing wall on either side of Jane, which refined though did not consume her (one such pivotal point where Jane avoids this fate being her final refusal to marry St. John). It had not occurred to me how the unsatisfactory parallels themselves threw into relief the complimentary natures of Jane and Edward Fairfax Rochester.
Edan brought up something that I, also, had found of interest: that "Rochester’s injuries put him at the same level as Jane. They finally share an equal power and have the ability to protect each other." Not only are they working with each other, but Jane is Rochester's sight and his right hand -- the imperfections of the components add to the overall wholeness, in this case. Also, who better than Jane to be Rochester's vision, whose perception already was fitted to be perceived by Rochester.
ReplyDeleteI remember that in class Megan asked a question regarding Bronte's/Jane's social commentary during the time that Jane is penniless. What I had considered on this point was that Jane makes a distinction between those who would not help her due to their suspicions, and those who, like Hannah, treat people like criminals for not having "brass" or a house. Jane says in chapter 29, "But I do think hardly of you. . .not so much because you refused to give me shelter or regarded me as an impostor, as because you just now made it a species of reproach that I had no 'brass,' and no house. Some of the best people that ever lived have been as destitute as I am; and if you are a Christian, you ought not to consider poverty a crime."
Grant, I do not think that Bronte is making a point so much by John and Mary's slight reaction (John himself does react, and the two are described as belonging to "that decent phlegmatic order of people", not to "the common peasantry"), as by Jane and Rochester's lack of show in the wedding. The writing itself is brief and understated: "Reader, I married him." Only they, the parson and clerk were present. They are not performing for or dissolving into society, rather, they are separated from it in such a way as the whole of their experiences prior have led them to be.
Did anyone else note Jane's language as she refers to Adele? "As she grew up a sound English education corrected in a great measure her French defects; and when she left school I found in her a pleasing and obliging companion: docile, good-tempered, and well-principled."
After reading Moriah’s comment, I’d have to agree that in the last few chapters, it is easy to admire Jane. Bronte’s use of hardship and conflict through out the novel allows the reader to be emotionally attached to Jane. Although we may get frustrated with her at times, in the end, we are happy that everything works out for her. Despite my happiness for Jane, I do admit that the ending seemed a little too “perfect”. Perhaps Bronte felt bad for Jane, and wanted to reward her for keeping her morals in mind while making decisions. Maybe this was Bronte’s way of tying up the loose ends in her novel. The ending also may have had a deeper meaning. It may connect with the thought that in the end, God takes care of those who do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to question the morals of each separate character that is in the novel. A particular character that comes to mind is St. John. I find Jacklyn’s point interesting, calling St. John a “greedy” man. It is true that he wanted to help others, but it was mostly for his benefit in the end. Hopes for salvation are what drive a lot of people in this world to do what they do. Is it wrong to wish for a safe afterlife, or should St. John be doing his work because it helps others? It really just depends on one’s need for happiness. This brings up another point, pertaining to Jane’s return to Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Jane finally found family, and this brought her happiness to an extent. There was still something missing, and that was the true and pure love that she shared with Mr. Rochester. Jane could have easily settled for marrying St. John and living her life doing valuable deeds, but Mr. Rochester haunted her. As she hears his voice, Jane knows that it is her fate to be with Rochester. St. John was a bit selfish when he told her to resist the temptation to leave, and this revealed the final aspects of his character. The ending really accentuates that love is the strongest bond. Seeing Rochester was surreal and supernatural to Jane. She didn’t even believe it was happening. This is the kind of love that we can all aspire to feel some day, and I believe Bronte was keen on these feelings. Overall, I enjoyed experiencing the different troubles of life with Jane, and Charlotte Bronte did a beautiful job of creating a character that will be remembered forever.
No Bronte, No! While our class discussion was wide open and there was great analyzation I would like to hear the bold opinions of some of my classmates. We went far into these chapters but I did not get a good idea if people favored the ending or disliked it. The basic question being “did you like how Jane Eyre ended?” A Block raised this question “After reading Jane Eyre do you feel that the ending was to complete, to perfect?” Yes it was, I don’t see the reasoning for having this well long written out book leading up to a brief ending that is happily ever after. To show every detail, every thought with great length and beauty and then just like that every problem is solved. Jane is united again and married to Rochester, then they have children, Rochester goes from blind to able to see, and everything is perfect. Lame. To me making a satisfying fairy tale ending to such a well thought out and written piece of work is so unsatisfying. Jane’s fight to become the person she has been searching for her whole life just ends with this ending. She is no longer Jane. She is not lonely or with out an identity or money or standing up against something or in search of anything. Jane is in heaven, a perfect place and now instead of keep on living and fighting and becoming she has stopped. The book ends giving the legacy and happiness to the miracle baby, possibly representing everything coming into one whole. But when something becomes to satisfying it becomes to unreal to unbelievable. It becomes fake for the fake story. The world she created I felt was to realistic for her ending. If god created this miracle and made everything right then Jane has come to an end. Her personal growth and change is gone and I feel that it should never stop growing and she should never stop going farther. It might be showing the rewards for being a Christian but it shows and flaw. To be the person you are until you get to heaven or perfection or to keep growing until you die. What must I be once I get to heaven? When it all ends you should not know if you went to heaven or hell. Jane should have been last seen fighting and growing to her future and not already there.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Mizzoni
ReplyDeleteF
Regarding the ending chapter of Jane I couldn’t find myself satisfied involving the plot. The end to me in my eyes was nothing more than a fairy tale ending that is often overused. Now it could be argued that this book was still in the beginning era of fairy tale love stories but to the modern teenager it comes of repetitive. I am not criticizing Bronte’s writing in a negative way but analyzing it from a teenager’s point of view. Begging at the Moor’s house you can almost begin to see the meaning that Bronte is putting into her writing. The parallelisms in plots and foils in characterizes begin to emerge to the reader and the book is taken in a whole new perspective. Based on my readings I find these parallelisms very interesting but also predictable. Even before reading about the involvement of St. John and Jane you could predict that these characters would be significant to each other. Through her description of his physique and personality you could feel a relationship beginning to form despite its failing turnout. To me I find myself more into the surprises than the predictions. I enjoy endings that are unpredictable to the reader and often you have to find yourself re-reading the ending in order to understand it. These surprises to me are enjoyable because you can take the ending and add your own meaning to them. In “Jane Eyre” the ideal fairytale ending with Rochester and the regaining of his sight and child to me was not ideal. The scene that appeared to me the vaguest was regarding St. John and the letter from Mr. Briggs. When Jane heard about her relationship with St. John and his sisters it appeared almost forced. The scene appeared out of nowhere although it was unpredictable it appeared not logical. You could argue that Bronte needed to begin to produce an ending leaving it as her only choice. The links of characters makes it almost see unrealistic to a person with realist views. I see it from both sides and agree that the ending to me does not make complete sense. St. John to me although connected to Helen does not fit in with the ending. Some argue that the message of the story is religion and St. John completes the message but to me I see many messages. St. John forces an ending that can be argued predictable with Rochester and Jane. I fully enjoyed the book up to the ending scenes where I feel Bronte had many other possible solutions.
The end of the book was really interesting to me. It was a surprisingly happy ending, for one, but also I found it strange the way Charlotte Bronte ended the novel. It didn’t go “we got married and we lived happily every after”. It was more like “we got married and lived happily ever after now here’s a little bit about Diana and Mary oh and did I mention St. John?” It all just seemed so strange to me. When Jane was telling about her life ten years after being happily married she end the book with notes about Diane, Mary and St. John. Also, Louisa brought up a good point in class about the book ending in the religious phrase "Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!" That caught me off guard. After Jane and Rochester got married, I was expecting a nice happy ending, but I was surprised when I saw a little bit of religion thrown in there, considering this was a book that was more about ethics and morality and it was about religion.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was trying to think about why Charlotte Bronte would possible end the novel that way, a few things came into my head. I immediately thought of Beowulf (where there are random about religion thrown in that really have nothing to do with the plot development) and wondered if the whole happy ending and random last sentence was about trying to say “so here’s the story and oh yeah, Jesus is important and makes everyone’s lives happy.” But I quickly redrew this thought. I knew that Bronte was a lot more skilled of a writer. I had caught on to her tricks by now. So I knew this was no random insertion, but what could it be? I started to think about other places religion came up in the book. I thought about Helen and her effect on Jane. I also thought about St. John’s effect on Jane. St. John was the reason that Jane went back to Rochester. She ends the book talking about St. John. I’m not sure, but it kind of seems like St. John means a lot more to her than she had let on. It seems that St. John is a very important person to Jane. Or maybe, she was inspired by the idea of sacrifice that St. John has. Maybe she wished she were more like him. That is just my thoughts about that. I’d be interested to see what other people think about the ending.
From reading the other posts, I can tell that my classmates have varied opinions as the Jane’s story comes to an end. I am undoubtedly in agreement with Ms. Kelly. The final stages of the book are much more abrupt in comparisons to other parts of the book where the slightest details do not go unnoticed. Why is this done? Perhaps Bronte intended for the meat of the book, so to speak, was the building blocks of Jane’s life. If one were to reminisce on the earlier stages of the book, back to Jane’s time at Lowood, there is a huge portion of her adolescence that is left out. Bronte does this with intention of augmenting the importance of her later years. After her time at Thornfield and her brief final chapters at the Moor House, the foundation for the romantic elements as well as the familial and social aspects are complete, Bronte has no intention of drawing out what the reader wants and has been longing to hear.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Evan pointed out the “coincidence” of too many coincidences throughout the book that also struck me as odd. But in retrospect, there are themes of the supernatural as well as religious facets as well. Her first suitor, Mr. Rochester is omnipresent and eerie. If we recall back to his entrance into the book, his introduction into the book is lengthy and dark, literally and figuratively. He embodies many of the supernatural themes in the novel. In the other corner, we have St. John, who has an uncanny relationship with the religious aspects of Jane Eyre. As Jane’s feelings for these two men differentiate, as does their embodiment in terms of the novel as a whole.
So now to post the unending blog questions, does the common relation to these polar themes pose an unanswered question about fate in terms of Jane’s final outcome? As she prays at certain points and relays elements of the supernatural at others, how is fate used in coherence with both? And if so, is Bronte trying to say something about how fate is prominent in both the supernatural and divine?
‘Jane Eyre’ was what I would describe as a Disney fairytale story without all of the magic and written for adults instead of children. Although Jane didn’t become a princess and didn’t marry the prince or even the most handsome man in the land in the end, she got everything she had strived for in the book and everything that the reader hoped she would get. Although I feel I should be satisfied with the ending because I had wanted all of these things for her, (Rochester, a family, a better ranking status, etc.), I don’t believe I received them in the way I wanted to. As many of my other classmates have already stated, the ending was abrupt and seemed forced so that the story could finally end, but because of this the puzzle pieces of Jane’s life just started falling into place one after another without any struggles and within the last three to four chapters Jane got everything she needed for a happy life. Although I had seen Jane put through many hardships throughout the book and wouldn’t wish anything of the sort on any person, I still believe that because she is a fictional character her feats should have come along gradually throughout the novel along with some difficulties to make things interesting, but not one huge feat came to her until the very end. As Ellie said, it seemed that the bulk of the book was just showing how awful Jane’s life was as she developed as a person and then BAM! Everything has suddenly turned out perfect right before your eyes. THE END. You can stop routing for Jane now, her struggles over… As I already said, it all just seemed too immediate and forced. She didn’t have any money to her name until she found out her Uncle John died and left her his will and at the same time by coincidence, she finally out she had family. About two chapters later Jane also had Rochester and then in the final chapter she suddenly has a close family. As a class we have already discussed how the coincidences in the book make the plot go where Bronte wanted it to go, but I now believe that Bronte put these coincidences in the book so that the ending would seem more fairytale like in the end, but in a more grown up way and a somewhat more believable way without all of the magic. Now I do believe that ‘Jane Eyre,’ with all of its eccentric character’s who all in some way contribute to the story in their own bold and unique ways, as Louisa described, was meant to be a beautiful fairytale for grown adults. Jane, being trapped by her evil aunt in the beginning, finally moved on through different obstacles until she ended up with the man she loved and the perfect life. ‘Jane Eyre’ brings us back to the times when we were children when we often read stories like ‘Snow White’ and ‘Cinderella’ and all of the book’s coincidences, characters and the ending were all purposely made with their little quirks specifically for Bronte to show that this story, although it involved no magical aspect, was meant to be extraordinary and fairytale like.
ReplyDeleteSince we brought up the subject of Bronte’s use of foils today I wanted to develop the use of St. John and Rosamond as a foil to Rochester and Jane. By looking deeply at both situations you can find that they are very similar, when Rochester wants to marry Jane in the middle of the plot she decides it is not meant to be, and that they cannot be together. Jane believes that she is unfit to love Rochester because she believes someone like Blanche a rich socialite is more qualified to marry such a successful individual. She restricts and holds back her feelings and gives up everything for nothing, becoming a beggar. Now she meets St. John who believes in giving up everything to do a moral duty, John asks her to marry him. However she tells Rochester that St. John was not in love with her, he just needed a companion, someone that was fit to be with him as a partner. Jane also goes on to say that St. John was really in love with Rosamond whom he is not fit to be with. This is very like Jane’s situation, however Jane and St. John’s answers to these problems are very different. St John decides not to marry, and to be alone for the rest of his life giving himself to the charity that he believes is morally necessary. Before Jane went back to Rochester she had run away and given up everything similarly to John, but she found this unsatisfactory and in the end followed her heart. It seems Bronte endorses Jane’s method of dealing with this, and following her heart because Jane finds true happiness. On the other hand, the reader feels sorry for St. John, he has decided to remain alone and give himself to charity. I believe by using these foils Charlotte Bronte expresses her belief that one should follow ones heart in a situation like Jane’s.
ReplyDeleteChelsea M.
ReplyDeleteA Block
Ok, so I read everyone's commentary and the most common question/commentary is about why Bronte chose to end the novel the way she did. There could be a few reasons for this. If you review the pacing in the book, Bronte condenses the chapters that don't have much to do with Rochester. He is Jane's central point that she references and if he isn't referenced, she simply skims only the surface of observations. I think that Bronte is using this to show that Jane and Mr. Rochester are complimentary, and only when Jane meets an 'opposite' (St. John), does she slow down and observe only to contrast him against Rochester. when you think about it, plenty of novels are set up this way, but I feel that it is more disappointing to us regarding Jane Eyre because the novel is so well written. We are left craving the witty observations and analytical banter that is the trademark of Jane and Mr. Rochester alike and we are denied that indulgence by Bronte to show that in the end, is the conclusion truly "anticlimactic" or disappointing as Ethan said? We are left to our own imaginations to expand upon the lives that are now joined into one. Bronte is also illustrating to us as readers that you 'get what you deserve'. Jane and Rochester lived pretty crappy lives, but they persevered and in the end they ended up happy. In response to Andrew's conjecture of Bronte using a cliche "fairy tale ending," it's not quite cliche as you might think. In fairy tales the prince always leads the good life and pulls the princess out of the muck. Jane pulled Rochester out of his moral funk and muck, making him a better person in the end. Does the prince always end up missing a hand and an eye too? They always end up in their perfect form: i.e. Beauty and the Beast. Also, Bronte is illustrating contentment! Not 'my life is now perfect.' And yes, it is possible for one to recover limited eyesight after the optic nerve has been stretched. Jane never said his eyesight recovered completely. One of his eyes was still gone and the other was still questionable.
A theme that I noticed in the book that I found interesting was Bronte's use of nature. Whenever Jane begins to feel the stagnation of her life, she begins to look out the window and reflect. Nature is her comfort, it always has been. When she lives with the Reed's she sits in the window seat looking at pictures in books and gradually observing the life outside in the garden. At Lowood, Jane makes careful observations about the small gardens outside and, when the fever set in, the girls would play outside in the woods. Then comes Mr. Rochester.
He is first described as a "mighty oak" when he enters and the imagery used by Bronte concerning him always INCLUDES him in nature. He is apart of it, therefore he is apart of Jane's intricate comfort found within nature. It is interesting because when Jane expels herself from Thornfield, she comforts herself in nature and she concludes that she would love to live within it and wouldn't mind to die in it. Another interesting image is the chestnut tree. It's struck by lighting and split. damaged and burned, but not completely gone. This is an image of Rochester and Jane. They're seemingly strong, sturdy relationship is split and almost destroyed by that flash of crazy lighting a.k.a. Bertha. But in the end, they're inseparable because they are complementary halves. Another interesting point including nature imagery includes St. John. When he first asks Jane to marry him, he gives her time to "think over [his] proposition." He lies down in the grass and Jane describes the scene, but St. John is noted as being almost an intruder upon the nature. He is not apart of it as Jane describes Rochester as being. It shows that though she loves St. John as a brotherly figure, he does not fit her as Rochester does. Also, at Ferndean, Jane tells Rochester that he is not a destroyed tree because "flowers will grow up next to you because they like your shade." (or something to that extent, sorry I don't have my book right off hand). So there they are together and he is the tree and she is the flower. Rochester also joins in on the green imagery and compares Jane to a pure "flower" that he tried to breathe guilt and impurity on etc etc.
ReplyDeleteThis imagery connects them together as something that cannot be destroyed i.e. nature.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have a comment as well: Rochester did not suddenly change his mind about Blanche and decided to marry Jane! I have read the book a few times and the first time I read the book I thought the same thing, but then I thought go back and read it again. Bronte would NOT have done that simply because the emotional complexes that she puts into place within her characters is too intense and intricate. When you first read the passage you find yourself wrapped within the torrent of emotion emitted from Jane because it is the first time she has given way to her passions since she left the Reeds. You are amazed at her bold audacity and you really find yourself not paying much attention to what Bronte has done. Rochester is not a fickle man. He has loved Jane from the start. He is using Blanche as 'bait' for Jane's emotions. Rochester and Jane are both very observant, analytical, and logical people. Rochester can tell that Jane is not the quite, timid, Quaker-ish girl she portrays herself to be. Yes, she is quite, but she is bold, passionate and though Quaker-ish at times she dresses plain because people have told her that she is plain so why try to be better? Rochester even tells Jane that he will somehow manage to make her jealousy come out and that's exactly what he does: by using Blanche (which wouldn't have been nice if she was an agreeable young woman, but Bronte is using her to compare Rochester's depth in contrast to her shallow character SO she's a truly ugly person on the inside etc etc for a reason) he manages to secure the knowledge of Jane's true affection. I mean, when you're a rich, well known guy you don't just go off proposing to governesses willy-nilly! Rochester is protecting himself because of his former experience with Bertha. He tells Jane to go away to see her reaction, not to really send her away and then say 'hah jk. ay yo b! will ya marry me?' NO!!! Bronte is showing you the Jane and Rochester are both characters of depth and emotion who are GUARDED and this theme is what separates them from their society and brings them together to form their own little mini-society.
All in all, I think the group discussion was alright. I think we could have delved deeper into different topics a bit more. I feel like we always touch on the same themes and the same imagery that pops up, which is important, but what are we missing when we simply observe the obvious? Bronte makes a point about simply making obvious conjectures. Look at Jane and Mr. Rochester. They looked beyond the obvious and because very skilled at reading people and their surroundings. Because of this, they knew more than people may have every wanted the to know without opening their mouth. Bronte wants to show us to observe and analyze and never be afraid of what you may learn about it.
I believe that throughout Jane Eyre, Bronte was searching for a meaning for Jane, something that would give her a purpose in life, and in the final chapters we finally saw this. As we watched Jane grow through the novel we realized she was restless and unsettled. She always needed something more because she has been very strong-willed and independent. When she was teaching at Morton school, we finally are getting the sense that Jane might be settling down in her cottage and as a schoolmaster to the group of poor village girls. While Jane enjoys teaching the girls, she is not completely satisfied with her life and knows that she needs something more. After inheriting her fortune and moving back in with the Rivers siblings in Moor house Jane finds herself at another crossroads in her life. St. John has offered to marry her and give her an easy life of good missionary work. While Jane knows that this would be a good and fair life, she can not bring herself to do it. She knows that she does not love him and nor does he love her. By marrying him she would be giving up her independence and living in his great shadow for the rest her life. At this point in the novel Bronte decides it is time for Jane to reconnect with Mr. Rochester and discover her true feelings for him by going to find him at Ferdean house. The moment she sees Rochester, who is now blind and crippled she realizes she still loves him. Jane loves him even more now because she feels that he needs her in his life, she is not just “the governess” to him. She agrees to marry him and become his full time nurse and caregiver because she likes the idea that he will be completely dependent on her. She becomes his eyes and right hand. When agreeing to marry Rochester, Jane says “I love you better now, when I can really be useful to you, then I did in your state of proud independence, when you disdained every part but that of the giver and protector (pg. 516).” Jane is saying that now that she knows that Rochester really needs and loves her it is ok for her to love him now because he will not take away her independence, and is not too good for her. Also the fact that Jane inherited money makes them equals. Rochester’s imperfections make Jane love him even more now that she sees him on the same level as her. She is no longer the poor orphan girl who would have to rely on him for everything. She has money and family. Finally she is able to give her love fully to Rochester and be happy when he returns the favor. She settles into her life as a wife and finally believes that she has found her purpose in life. Caring for her husband and receiving love in return is the one thing in life that makes her happy and does not leave her wanting and waiting for more.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though most people are not too fond of the ending of Jane Eyre, and I have to agree with the side that doesn’t like the ending. Why does Bronte make the end of Jane’s story the way that it is? The fairytale ending: I like it and I don’t at the same time. I am happy for Jane in the fact that she got a perfect ending to her life (as we know it), and I am glad that things actually went in Jane’s favor for once. Throughout her life, it seemed as though things never really went her way. I like the fairytale ending, BUT the reasons I don’t approve of the fairytale ending outweigh the reasons why I do.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading it, I was partly expecting the predictable happy ending for Jane. However, I also thought that since Bronte likes to add twists and complications in Jane’s life, that the ending would be darker, maybe a little sadder, but definitely more open-ended. I thought Bronte would try to leave the reader wondering about what happens to Jane in the rest of her life. According to biographical content, the lives of Jane and Charlotte are very similar. Maybe Bronte does the happy ending because in her life she never got the fairytale ending to her own, and had the ability to give it to Jane?
I completely agree with a couple people that have already mentioned this; a big part of why I am not a fan of the way the story ends is due to the fact that it is predictable and condensed. If Bronte is going to give Jane the fairytale ending, the least she could do is give the readers more detail about Jane’s married life with Rochester than a couple of chapters! The ending is also very predictable, and I love unpredictable endings that make you have to go back and think. I also really like open-ended stories, because then you can come up with different ideas for what happens after what you already know. Jane Eyre’s ending is not unpredictable, nor does it have an open-ended ending.