As an autobiographical narrated novel that is meant to be written from the perspective of someone reflecting on their own life and therefore should be a sound logical argument leading to a logical conclusion. But the book Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte mocks logic and so should be banished back to the eighteen hundreds from where it came, and where it belongs.
Lets looks at how the plot is set up before the pending outcome. Firstly we are introduced to Jane Eyre as a child where the first critical event happens (chpt. 1 - 4). After being unjustly and severely punished Jane explodes in a empowering manor at her auntie, displaying her awakening as a feminist and independent modern woman.
The next part of the story is based in the orphanage where again we are led to believe that Jane is being more and more empowered to be an equal in a hierarchical society (chpt. 5 - 10). This scene concludes with Jane leaving for employment she arranged by herself and is her first step into the real world with her mind made up on life, that she is a lady and no body can hold her back.
Although she doesn't step into a role as chief campaigner for the pro-abortion movement she does step into being master of her own world, employed, free, and obviously a great role model for all feminists to be. This is also where we see the gradual nonsensical change take place, the one that does not logically conclude from expectations set up from past events (chpt. 11 - 26). Maybe it is the achilles heel of females, or maybe it is everyone's strong belief in ghosts, but the introduction of the mature, rich, worldly, and absolutely stunning in her own eye, Mr Edward Rochester, exposes her as a very typical female, eighteen hundred's character of little interest to the new liberated readers of following centuries.
The book could have concluded at the two thirds mark quite easily without to much disruption to the over all outcome by not having the unsuccesful marriage of Jane and Edward. But fortunately we are given hope that Jane still has that independent spirit burning as she rejects him at the last moment because of not wanting to be the subordinate of a polygimist.
Hooray, Jane you are free, look at her escape the Rochester mansion and become all the woman she was born to be. But wait! After a number of chapters about her finding out she is rich, has a family and a cousin who cooks up some half baked plan to marry and move to India as a missionary with her as a way of legitimately having sexual relations with her, we find out that actually all she wants is what she had back at said two thirds mark (chpt. 27 - 35).
The conclusion of the book is, without surprise, her finding the long lost Mr Rochester and extinguishing that feminist flame within her once and for all. A quiet marriage and soon enough she is where she wants to be, back at a man's side giving in to his every wish. This we are meant to believe is actually love because Mr Rochester is now severely disabled and has nothing to do with Jane's subconscious connection to a safe, controlled, simple life as being ones house wife.
Oh! How the book set up the want to a radical ending where Jane moved to London became a prostitute and eventually somehow ended up as the first female president of the USA. But to think a woman eventually live a life unmarried and without a protector, Treason! Therefore Jane Eyre, never rear your head again in a modern movie, you are a let down for the entire modern age of liberty.
Your writing bleeds with satire, yet it seems like you are actually positing the points that you seem to be mocking. Clearly nothing of your final hope could have ever occured in the context of the book, she existed in certain social reality, and she could never have broken that down without the book losing all contemporary meaning and becoming essentially a work of speculative utopian fiction, which has its place but not in any literary hall of fame. This works nicely within the context of the time to argue an essentially feminist point: the power of women. Jane Eyre chose her path. I mean the masculine God character had far too much of a play in the game, but if we understand the God as simply a reflection of accepting our lack of control and understanding we can be happy without recourse to a perfect world, I think it retains a real relevance. And I don't think the St John character ever wanted to have sex with Jane. He was the nicest masculine repudiation of all, a pure, powerful good man, rejected because he didn't reflect what Jane wanted. Jane had the choice through all this book, she is no Miss Bennett, a reasonably well off little prissy temptress, this is a poor, poor girl who still chose to remain true to what she believed in.
ReplyDelete