Rochester Exposed

[poliphilo]

Rochester didn't want to be bad. None of us does. But then he was manoeuvred into doing a bad thing and that first bad thing led to other bad things- some of them worse (he was keeping Bertha in a windowless room for Chrissakes)- and now that he's been found out he's squirming in garrulous self-pity, threatening violence and making it very hard for the reader to like him.

He thinks (has thought all along) that marriage to Jane will get him out of his moral fix because she's innocent, unspoiled and if he sticks his dick in her some of that innocence is bound to rub off. Men have been thinking this of women since forever and it's the most awful shit and Jane- though he's subjecting her to a frightful emotional mauling- is having none of it.

How did Bronte get to know so much about men?

Comments

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Have you read Wide Sargasso Sea? I hope not, because you definitely need to read Jane Eyre first, but I'd be very interested to hear your take on it.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I have it in mind.

I can see why Jean Rhys wanted to tell Bertha's story.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Men are perhaps less secretive, less discreet, more willing to let it all hang out.

Looking for innocence in anyone over two is a fool's errand :)

[athenais.livejournal.com]

How did Bronte get to know so much about men?

She had a ne'er-do-well brother. She lived in a small village. She was observant. She read widely. And she didn't suffer fools gladly.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

I think Bramwell was probably very important in her portraits of flawed men.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes.

I imagine she was quite a bit like her heroines- Jane Eyre and Lucy Snowe. I wouldn't have wanted to get on the wrong side of her.

[w. lotus (from livejournal.com)]

I have an irrational love for that book and now must re-read it from start to finish!

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

What athenais said.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Nothing irrational about loving Jane Eyre. It's a fabulous book! :)

[ibid.livejournal.com]

As I get older I find Rochester more disturbing, the fact he doesn't think, the fact that he doesn't think of the consequences and what it might mean for Jane - especially when he says he will try violence. It makes me wonder if he is a potential rapist.

I remember discussing this on a forum actually and saying how it vaguely reminded me of a sadomasochistic relationship. The way Jane is constantly calling him 'Master' and her deliberate humility in order to assert her individuality and in the end call the shots, I find it interesting how in that sequence she is humble and humbles him - I don't know whether it subverts Victorian ideology or not.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Rochester is more Regency buck than Victorian gentleman. I think he's totally capable of sexual violence- and comes very close to raping Jane on at least one occasion.

Mind you, I think the scariest character in the book is St John Rivers. He's truly monstrous.

[ibid.livejournal.com]

St John is fascinating because as QD Levis pointed out he is a distortion of everything Victorian society demanded a good man to be - taken to its logical conclusion.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Bronte admires him and detests him in about equal measure. It's fascinating.