VEDA Day 13 | (Rant )Review | Jane Eyre
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- I share all of my feels on Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. Please explain to me why this book is considered a romance?
JOIN THE PATREON FAMILY!
/ emilycait
USE MY BOOKDEPOSITORY AFFILIATE LINK (I get a small commission if you use this link to purchase your next read):
www.bookdeposit...
CONNECT WITH ME OTHER PLACES!
goodreads: / emily-cait
instagram: www.instagram....
twitter: / emilycaitreads
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Inquiries: emilycait.business(at)gmail.com
The fact that we feel quite strongly about Mr Rochester shows how well the writer created the character.
I don't really understand this rant. Sure, Rochester is a flawed character and made mistakes, but the story is partly about him learning to love personality and morales over beauty and raw sensuality. His first wife was exotic, sexual and frivolous, but turned mad. Jane is - in comparison - rather calm and plain, and he loses her for not being completely honest with her. He even loses his eyesight. Jane, being who she is, finds it in her to forgive him. As she forgives her aunt. The theme of christianity and forgiving is a big one in Jane Eyre. So there has to be someone to be forgiven.^^ And I think it is romantic, because Jane and Rochester love each other for who they are but also stay true to themselves. The reason she loves him is, I believe, because he makes her feel at home and because he sparks and challenges the witty and the modest as well as the romantic parts in her - as noone else ever has or does.
I´ve been watching and reading reviews from this book, but your comment is the one that made me decide to read it, so thank you.
I agree with everything you said. Also, this video reminded me of the time when my science teacher asked me in class what I thought about Wuthering Heights after I read it and I started a rant about how I don't understand why it's considered so romantic because the book is about horrible people that I can't emphasise with or feel sorry for. The teacher smiled and said these aren't real people and I felt really embarrassed about getting so passionate in front of my entire science class. I still feel embarrassed when I remember that time. Maybe that teacher was just one of those women that swoon over Heathcliff...
Wow, just....no. Did you comprehend what Charlotte Bronte wrote in the book? It's clear that you read the words but I'm not sure you understood them. Rochester did not kill Bertha. Bertha set fire to the house and Rochester ran in to save her,risking his own life. He actually could have left her to die in the fire and that would have solved a lot of his problems, but it shows his good character that he went in after her. Rochester tried to save Bertha but she jumped to her death.
Rochester is an incredibly complex character. He is a good person, but he has his vices, like everyone else does, and this makes him very relatable. He wants to do good but messes up. That's why he's drawn to Jane. He sees how good she is and wants to be part of that.
Jane is drawn to Rochester because she can feel that his intentions are good. It's true that he lied to her about being married and tried to trick her into marrying him. At the end of the book he realizes his mistakes and has grown from it. And can you blame the poor man for his mistake?? I'm not saying his actions were right, but it is understandable what he did. Imagine if you were tricked into a marriage you didn't want and there was no way out? He was married to Bertha for 20 years! Most people these days can't even stay married for 10 years.
He leaped at the chance of being with Jane because he had been searching for someone just like her most of his life. He never looked down on Jane for being plain in appearance and having no money. He loved her for her qualities. Rochester is not perfect, he is human,but he has a good heart.
And you comprehend the book? Rochester lied to Jane. He seems to me a manipulative jerk. How do we know that he didn't lie about everything?
@@shusi8940 If you ever lied in your life (and you have, a million times, like everyone), you are a manipulative jerk as well. How do we know you don't lie about everything?
@@JugglernautNr9 everyone tells lies. It’s human nature I get that, HOWEVER, most decent people don’t lie about being married and having their wife locked up in the attack.
@@niyati8716 Well she was insane, so.
@@shusi8940 I agree with the OP 💯 I think it really depends on how you read his words in your own head. Because I got the exact same feeling from Rochester. He was rude at times, but hell, I say rude stuff sometimes too. Doesn’t make someone a terrible person.
I can't agree with you more! Mr. Rochester was incredibly creepy and a liar. I was so disappointed in Jane when she went back to him. I understand that she was blinded by love, but it's simply idiotic for her to forgive him for the countless lies he told her because she still loves him.
And if one more person compares him to Mr. Darcy, I will fight.
@@texaspoontappa2088 Agree! I can't stand the comparisons with him and Mr. Darcy. No, please. This man (R) has the toxic personality I hate reading in the romance genre.
@@texaspoontappa2088Woe to anyone who compares him to Darcy. Darcy is an overly simple man whose "complexities" can literally be summed up in one word: pride lol. Rochester is actually a character of depth in a story that is much more than mere romance.
OMG! I also thought that Rochester was a douche! Haha. Every time I read his lines I felt he spoke with a creepy grin and like making fun of Jane all the time. And some people find the part where Jane leaves his house boring, but god no, I felt it was a nice break too. And to think people put him at the same level as Mr. Darcy.
Jane Eyre is one of my favorites. I love her, for the same reasons you do. I think her whole romance with Rochester is appealing for her because of the abuses she went through. He found a way to set free her passionate opinions and thoughts. He stretched parts of her that she had conveniently learned to hide. She had no expectations when she went to be a governess, and he pulled her in front of society. And though it may be construed as teasing and cruel, he let her respond honestly. He coveted her mind. I think that was his draw. Yes, I agree it was a douchey thing to try to marry her whilst he was already married. But his wife was supposed to be his brothers wife, the family knew she was a loon and lied, he brought her home hoping to give her peace and calm. Instead she tried to kill him several times. He lived in torment. And Jane became his happy place. So I guess I can see why he did what he did. And Jane left because he lied, despite all her happiness she knew it was not right. I love that Sinjin and his sisters became her family. That she was able to grow into herself while there. But ultimately, she goes back instead of marrying. Im not sure she meant to be with Rochester. But when she was told of the tragedy by others, she knew she would stay.
I am of the opinion Bertha jumped. I guess I like to think he changed when Jane left. That he was trying his best to save her because that is what Jane would have wanted him to do.
Thank you for reading it. I like how it made you passionately love and hate the characters. ☺
So I read Jane Eyre along with Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey for a class I took on the Brontes. I honestly loved Jane Eyre and Rochester. I can’t remember exactly what I loved about him, other than I just honestly enjoyed reading the novel (the only time in college I actually enjoyed reading a book for class) and was just smiling every time Rochester and Jane interacted. I’d probably have to reread to try and tell you what exactly I loved about it. Maybe it was how he, I don’t know, challenged her and she got to snap back at him? Like wittiness maybe?
Even though I love Rochester (and definitely didn’t read him as having murdered Bertha-I thought she jumped?) I did think it was sketchy how he lies to Jane and then expected her to forgive him anyway. Like no dude you gots some consequences. I also think the ending is such a cop out. Like, rather than actually having to reckon with their actions and choices and feelings, they just get a pass and are free to marry anyway. It’s too easy. Blech.
I also detested Wuthering Heights. The entire thing, story, characters, the framing, all of it. This may be a marker of my poor taste.
Oh, and before I took the class I’d never seen an adaption of any of the Brontes novels, only a written retelling of Wuthering Heights and the first 43 pages of Wuthering Heights I tried to read in high school.
I’m also wondering, since you had such a strong reactions Rochester, what you thought of St. John?
oh that's great you write alot of information.
I was required Jane Eyre in high school, and I HATED IT! I could not get into it. And, for the life of me, could not understand what was the big deal. It was my least favorite required book I had to read. It wasn't interesting, to me. And, I didn't think the writing was groundbreaking. But, my English teacher just thought this was the best thing since sliced bread. Ugh! The worst!
Thank you! I'm always afraid to say that I hated Jane Eyre (it was a DNF for me), because everyone seems to love it. I wanted to throw the book when I found out that he locked up his wife in the attic. I was done. And, it wasn't romantic to me at all. Totally agree. I tried to take it and examine it in context to the time period, but I couldn't do it. No, just no!!
THANK YOU. I also think Rochester drove his wife crazy
that's....a reach.
This video just nails it. Love the real thoughts on our friend Rochester
he was also not very nice to adele
Thank you! I couldn't wrap my mind for years how Mr. Rochester is someone so appealing as a love interest. I read this back when I was 16. I loved the character of Jane but found myself loathing Mr. Rochester. I was especially disturbed of the way he had treated his first wife and the way she died was just cruel and still even more so that Rochester didn't die in it. He was too much of a jerk for me to empathise. He was no Mr. Darcy or Mr. Thornton (from North and South).
Welp, you are certainly allowed not to like him, I also despised some of his flaws. However, Rochester begged Bertha to come down, he risked his life for her and everyone else in the house, but you understood the scene as him having killed her. If that is the case, I'm not sure I can trust your opinion, given that your perception is so inaccurate and skewed. It's clear you just see what you want to see.
I'm reading jane eyre. I hate Mr Rochester. I am so frustrated with the book that I searched "rant reviews of Jane eyre". Everyone seems to love Rochester. I just want to pull my hair out every time I see anyone adoring the "romance"
I totally agree with you. I just finished the book for a course and scoured book tube for others who share my opinion so I know I’m not just crazy. I am one of those pretentious people who studies older literature, but compared to other romantic heroes from Austen, Dickens, Trollope, etc, etc, Rochester is a controlling, domineering douche bag. It goes beyond him being flawed....Mr Darcy us flawed, but he’s still a good person and not abusive like Rochester. The only way I can explain it (and Wuthering heights) as a romance is the toxic ‘bad boy’ romance trope wherein good, intelligent women fall for the domineering gangster, pirate, vampire-50 shades of grey crap etc. I don’t get it, but it floats some people’s boat.
The comparison to Fifty Shades/Twilight/After -- the toxic badboy crap -- is perfect! And clearly exists in many different times and places. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Rochester is a douche bag! :P
I feel it's supposed to be a more realistic take on the options a woman of her standing had during that time. So it's supposed to be kinda depressing. Our views of romance are different than what it was during those times. Back then it feels like romance is a luxury and people made best of whatver situation they had and the cards theg were dealt.
Just finished the book for the first time this afternoon and completely agree. This isn't a romance; it's a horror story and Rochester is a creep. And all this talk of Jane being a "strong female character" some people say--how? She gets pulled back into the same lopsided relationship she was in before; hell, it's probably worse now that they'll get their "happily ever after" with Bertha out of the way. I felt so bad for Bertha and think the story from her point of view would be a much better read.
I keep meaning to read the retelling from Bertha's POV. Thank you for reminding me with your comment. I'm adding it to my library holds list today! :)
I'm starting to think some of you guys literally have no reading comprehension. Did we read the same book?
@@ravenswood118 So someone having a different perspective than yours on a book means they lack reading comprehension? Well, la-di-da! What a star pupil in English class you must've been!
Yes, we read the same book and some of us recognize the more sinister aspects to the Jane/Rochester pairing other readers choose to overlook or ignore because "Isn't it so romantic how they fall in love despite their class differences and him already being married and they eventually still end up together because they're soul mates?" No. No, it's not.
@@AliciaNyblade I didn't say anything about soul mates, nor did Charlotte Bronté. ....Nor did any English professor.
But. Considering Jane Eyre is regarded as one of the most beloved--and feminist--novels in the English language, yes, it's you that's mistaken and not 99% of the population. Stop making a martyr out of yourself; you are not some genius seeing what everyone else fails to see. You are a simpleton who craves black and white characters so that you don't have to think too hard. "Are they good or bad?" is your only inquiry, not that of their past, or traumas, or character arc, or growth, or nuanced intricacies. Jane Eyre is strong and bold--she does not need your protection, as she is his equal.
@@ravenswood118 "I didn't say anything about soul mates, nor did Charlotte Bronté. ....Nor did any English professor."
I know that, but a lot of readers, especially younger ones, sometimes assume so. They get caught up in the romantic tension between Jane and Rochester and the emotional release that comes with them eventually ending up together. The novel does indeed have its moments of romance, and I'm not saying that Jane and Rochester don't have chemistry or lack of feelings for each other. I'm just saying the novel's supposedly happy ending may not be so happy.
"Considering Jane Eyre is regarded as one of the most beloved--and feminist--novels in the English language, yes, it's you that's mistaken and not 99% of the population."
I never disputed the novel's success or status as a beloved classic. There are things I enjoy about it, too. I just disagree with it being interpreted as strictly a love story. Also, someone having an unpopular opinion doesn't make them "mistaken". That's the great thing about art--everyone can come to it with different perspectives.
"Stop making a martyr out of yourself; you are not some genius seeing what everyone else fails to see."
I never claimed to be; I was simply stating my perspective on the book. If you drew that conclusion from my post, that's on you, not me.
"You are a simpleton who craves black and white characters so that you don't have to think too hard. "Are they good or bad?" is your only inquiry, not that of their past, or traumas, or character arc, or growth, or nuanced intricacies. Jane Eyre is strong and bold--she does not need your protection, as she is his equal."
Oh, wow. Turning your nose up at someone for perceived arrogance and then in the very next few sentences calling them a simpleton and assuming you know what their perspective is instead of engaging in intellectual conversation? You're a hypocrite.
Jane is indeed a strong character. When setting out to be governess, she resolves to see more of the world and wants to do more with her life than just become someone who knits stockings and makes puddings. Her being open to adventure even after her difficult childhood shows a great deal of character. Her interactions with Rochester show she isn't afraid to contradict his assumptions about either her as a person or how he thinks she'll judge him. Rochester therefore goes through his own transformation from a guy who wines and dines women in an effort to forget his past to a man who's willing to admit his mistakes and settle down. Jane acting as a sort of manifestation of Rochester's conscience and inspiriting him to improve himself is clear.
What I find issue with is the fact that Jane went back to him. After all his secrets were revealed--literally at the altar and on the day she was supposed to marry him--and after Jane learned Bertha had been in the house the entire time, she found the strength to leave. She wouldn't settle herself to be Rochester's mistress; she valued herself and her love for him more than that, and was willing to honor the fact Rochester was married even if he wasn't willing to. All that strength, all that resolve to find a life elsewhere, only for her to go back to Rochester after Rivers' pressuring her to marry (and her hearing Rochester's voice on the wind)? Why? Jane could have kept her strength and independence and continued seeing the world, or at least more of England, by doing to Rivers what she did to Rochester, left for elsewhere. But instead she went back to the guy she now knew for a fact had been lying to her and manipulating her throughout their entire relationship. Even if Bertha was now out of the way (how convenient) and Rochester was slowly changing for the better, that still seems to contradict the strong-willed character and feminist icon Jane is rightfully presented as in the rest of the book.
I feel very similarly to you when it comes to Rochester, I think I need to re-read it so I can reanalyze how I feel about his actions, but until then this was a very concise view on him. Have you read "The Madwoman in the attic"? It is a great companion piece to this novel, it is basically an exploration of Bertha, sort of a little bit like in "Wide Sargasso Sea," I feel like all three books should be analyzed together.
I haven't read The Madwoman in the Attic, but it sounds like a must-read as a follow up to Jane Eyre. I'll be adding that to my goodreads :P
I've not read Jane Eyre, so I don't have an opinion on the book. I really love your thoughts on the book. Great review!!! I'm really enjoying these VEDA videos of yours!!! :)))))) Definitely they make my days!
I completely agree with you on both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. Are you planning on watching any adaptations of Jane Eyre? The 2004 mini series with Ruth Wilson is a gem.
xD i was going to ask if you'd read wuthering heights. tbh i've always been far more interested in reading Wide Sargasso Sea than actual Jane Eyre.
Hmm. So, you are a fan of only perfect characters, then? I enjoy a flawed character, myself. Cause they're like real life people, lol.
Oh my Gosh YES! Thank you! This is such a cool example of how proto-feminist works that were bold in their time are just not capable of doing the same for modern readers. (Which is great, because it means there's progress.) A smart woman with her own agenda who refuses marriage because of her moral standards and instead prefers to work and support herself was goundbreaking in victorian literature. Which in no way explains why I as a modern woman still need to feel happy when Jane essentially becomes Rochester's nurse maid in the woods.
I mean, the novel is GREAT in many ways, as a character study on Jane, as the ground work for the "woman in the attic" phenomenon of proto-feminist literature and because of it's handling of colonialism and less Austen-like depiction of governess life. But the romance made me so angry, ugh. :D Jen Campbell has a really interesting video on Jane Eyre which talks about some of these aspects, maybe you will find it interesting. :)
I can't recall you ever doing a rant review! That was different, but entertaining all the same. Now I'm not sure I want to read Rebecca.
Sorry but Jane austin wins it every time for me. 🤔
ii think rochester was nicer in the end when he unfortunately became disabled.
hahaha, that was so much fun to watch. I read Jane Eyre a while ago and was very much surprised by it's strong female lead and modern ideas when it came to Jane's life. Romance, well, I do have a very soft spot for assholes, so sort of. I don't think Rochester ever got a good redemption ark, he just stayed a douchebag, but he also had this thing for Jane which was somewhat endearing. But I don't know if I liked the romance enough to call it a romance, if you know what I mean.
And Wuthering Heights, totally don't get how people can call this the greatest love story of all times. I only saw a lot of mean and abusive characters. Seems Heathcliff is even too much asshole for me :D
Emily Cait you’re really a nice and very coolest great favorite friend everytime
You should check out Wuthering Heights if you haven't already. :)
OK, you have. I just heard the end of this review. lol
I gave Jane Eyre an 8 out of 10
Hello
worst book ever written