Book #31: Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte

[grav_ity]

That might have been the strangest book I've ever read.

I did like it. I am also really glad I didn't read it in high school.

I am kind of surprised that Bronte managed to come up with a character I wanted to punch in the neck more than Mr. Rochester. And boy, did I ever want to punch St John in the neck.

I...seriously, this is what happens to you when, in your childhood, you spend six months of the year with a basement full of dead people (and, to be honest, the other six months stuck living in Bradford have got to suck as well).

Next up: more conflicting feelings as I take on the 2011 movie adaptation. Um, tomorrow. After I sleep. Curled up with a stuffed antelope called Nikola.

ETA: I've figured it out! She's totally the Olivia Dunham of 1847 (once you adjust for, uh, well, inflation, I guess). Now everything makes perfect sense (and it explains why everything else about the story makes me so DESPERATELY uneasy while simultaneously wanting everyone to hug).

Comments

[lone-pyramid.livejournal.com]

I read this in first year of university and... I don't remember any of it. Drowned out by the load of other reading material and worries about finding my way through the system, mayhaps?

Or probably just due to my lousy memory. *nods*

Is it worth a re-read?

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

It's probably not worth a re-read. I don't know. I am a terrible person to ask about these things.

[lone-pyramid.livejournal.com]

Well, aren't you helpful? :p~

Oh well. I've got plenty of new books to read, so perhaps I'll leave the deliberation to when I have time to re-read things.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

LMAO.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I felt. ;)

[holdouttrout.livejournal.com]

I have not read it recently, but I remember just loving it. Is she really Olivia Dunham circa 1847? Why do I suddenly smell crack!crossover!fic?

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

Well, she's told all the time that she's cold and stupid and unresponsive and should totally change...so maybe it's more fandom's understanding of Olivia? It made perfect sense last night. Write all the random cross over you like. :)

[shadadukal]

I need to reread. I read it in 2003 and liked it. I was a different person then so I don't know how I'd like it now. It's however an example of first person narration that doesn't bother me.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

She also switches tenses a lot!

[shadadukal]

Does she? Then I must definitely reread! *g*

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

Well, technically it happens because sometimes she's telling the story and sometimes she's relating it...but yes. It was weird.

[pirateveronica.livejournal.com]

there is a simply wonderful musical version of the book, some playhouse in SanFran put it on and I came across the soundtrack online. Awesome.

And the 2011 movie...ahh, it was Michael Fassbender in period clothing, I've got nothing to complain about. :P. Though I did enjoy how they made him a bit more palatable for contemporary audiences.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I very much read this book specifically so that I could watch the movie with Fassenbender. On account of the period costume. ;)

[midwifeonboard.livejournal.com]

The musical IS gorgeous! The 2011 movie? Pretty, but meh.

[fahrbotdrusilla]

Ah, when you mentioned the movie on twitter, I didn't realize you hadn't read the book earlier lol.

I have conflicting feelings about Rochester, since I sort of hated him, but I also was happy for Jane to have her happy ending. But yeah, St John I'd punch.

I haven't seen the new one, but I loved the one with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens too much to watch another version.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I have conflicting feelings about Rochester, since I sort of hated him, but I also was happy for Jane to have her happy ending.

EXACTLY! And then he almost DIED IN A FIRE! I AM SO CONFLICTED!

But yeah, St John I'd punch.

SO MUCH.

[nandamai]

Gah, I want to punch everyone in that book. You do have to read Wide Sargasso Sea now though.

Strangely I actually like Wuthering Heights. At least nobody goes around claiming Heathcliff is a good guy, you know?

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

This is why I don't read Classics. They each beget others....

[st-aurafina.livejournal.com]

Ugh, Rochester is vile. I also want to punch him in the neck, and I highly recommend Wide Sargasso Sea.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I spent a lot of the book saying "Seriously? I AM SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS GUY?"

[penknife.livejournal.com]

My feeling is always that Jane ought to have agreed to run off to the south of France with Rochester, on the condition that he made her a settlement generous enough to provide for her if he ever lost interest. But possibly there is a slight flaw in my character.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I felt similarly. It's possible Elza is getting to me.

[samjohnsson.livejournal.com]

I'm...not sure I follow the Olivia remark.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

Fandom (or at least the stupid parts), always said that Olivia was cold and plain and unresponsive, which is not true, and she works really hard and just gets things done because she believes in what she's doing. Jane struck me as much the same way, except with a different endgame on account of the historical period.

[eolivet.livejournal.com]

Woo hoo! I can't stand Jane Eyre either -- never understood it, never gets how anyone loves it. I will say, however, that Wuthering Heights is my favorite book of all time (and I can't see you liking that one either ;)

I'll echo the comment above about Wide Saragasso Sea...you might enjoy that more than either of the two Bronte sisters. :D (hee! Jane Eyre fanfiction in book form, LOL!)

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I can't stand it. I might have even kind of liked it! I just have ALL THE CONFLICTING FEELINGS.

This is exactly why I don't read classics.

[dm-lunsford.livejournal.com]

Jane Eyre, definitely not your typical "happy love story". And goodness knows there's plenty of crap-happens-to-the-heroine (and hero too) in the tale. Despite all that, I've grown to love it. What I like about Rochester - even in the midst of having much I find unappealing about him - is that although he's become a broken man (mostly due to circumstances outside his control) and a reprobate (yeah, this one is mostly his own fault), there's that glimmer of a heart in him, the shadow of a man that could have been good and wonderful. When we meet him, it seems that wee part of him is long dead, but then Jane sheds light on it and rekindles it.

As for Jane, I admire her strength of character, her integrity to self and her beliefs no matter what goes on around her. And I love that her strength is more... quiet. It's the steady run of a river as opposed to the more banner-waving type strength we see in some other heroines.

St John? Yeah, he knows how to be a total jerk. I find he comes across a little less repulsive in the 2011 film, but there are still hints of it when you know the book. Again, even with him, I like watching the story unfold and seeing how he becomes affected by Jane's silent power.

I do hope you enjoy the 2011 film. It's become one of my favorites. ;)

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I wasn't entirely sure of Rochester until he went back into the fire for Bertha, at which point I conceded that he might deserve another chance. ;)

[midwifeonboard.livejournal.com]

This is one of my favorite books of all time. I simply adore it. I remember reading it for the first time in 9th grade and being completely enthralled. As for the 2011 movie, it's pretty, but otherwise not very good.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I understand why the movie was made the way it was (though I don't know why they left out the part about and the Rivers being cousins...I suppose either they thought it was too coincidental or they didn't think the marriage proposal would still fly), but I don't really have a profound attachment to the book at this point, so I'm maybe not the best guess. :)

I did like it quite a bit, though. So there's that.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I love JANE EYRE as much as I hate WUTHERING HEIGHTS, and it's not because I'm in love with Rochester; in fact I invariably spend much of the book wanting to kick him down stairs. But I see him as a man whose moral center has been almost destroyed, who is drawn to Jane's integrity (BECAUSE JANE IS AWESOME) and sees in her a glimmer of hope for himself.

Of course he behaves like a total jerk in his desperation to win her because she is CLEARLY TOO GOOD FOR HIM and he knows it, but he suffers for his folly and comes through a wiser and humbler man in the end. He actually grows because of Jane, and respects her all the more for it, and I love how the book vindicates Jane's integrity without turning her into some prosy goody-two-shoes (though St. John does his best to make her as self-righteous as he is, thank goodness he fails). It's a story of redemption, and I love it for that.

WUTHERING HEIGHTS, on the other hand, appears to be a story of utterly selfish people doing unconscionable things, ostensibly in the name of love. And they don't grow a bit: Heathcliff just ascends newer and greater heights of jerkitude over the course of the book. Ugh. As a treatise on Heathcliff and Cathy's psychoses and a warning about obsessive codependency, it may have its merits; treated as a romance novel with Heathcliff as the hero, I find it off-putting in the extreme.

But back to JANE, the BBC miniseries from a couple years back is really good; I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know a lot of EYRE fans who loved it so I think I will give it a try. More for Mia Waszikowska than anything, though. I seem to be missing the Michael Fassbender appreciation gene, though he seems like a decent enough actor.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

. I seem to be missing the Michael Fassbender appreciation gene, though he seems like a decent enough actor.

I didn't think I had it either. And then...there it was.

More for Mia Waszikowska than anything, though.

It's possible that I love her more. I just cannot spell her name. ;)

Jane is SO GREAT. I kind of love her.

[shadadukal]

I didn't think I had it either. And then...there it was.

It's my fault, isn't it? A kinda contagious gene. :P

Yeah, I am totally stalking your Jane Eyre posts. And I have several adaptations to watch and compare.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

Oh, it is DEFINITELY your fault! :)

[shadadukal]

For once, I enabled you rather than the other way round. I need to make a post where that'll be mentioned once I'm done with work (45 minutes!).

[miera-c.livejournal.com]

I've lost count of the people who assume that my loving Austen novels must mean I love "Jane Eyre" and "Wuthering Heights." Then I have to explain to them that I dislike the first and loathe the second and that the Brontes are the polar opposites of Austen. And that vein in my forehead pops out. It's not pretty.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I've spent my whole life defending my position as "a reader" when I can't stand Austen or the Brontes (though Jane Eyre may be the exception. I'm still in talks). But even as a not-reader of them, I still knew that they were very different genres and style.

[miera-c.livejournal.com]

I'm still amazed that I speak to you given your feelings on Austen. ;)

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I know! It's one of those things!

(I think my problem is that I just don't like satire at all, and apparently it doesn't matter if it's Jane Austen or Terry Prachett. I am equal opportunity. ;) )

[miera-c.livejournal.com]

Hunh. I don't think of Austen as satire. At all. Ah well.

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

I think you are my soul mate. :-D

[miera-c.livejournal.com]

THEY'RE SO DIFFERENT OMG PEOPLE. Gah.