writersarecrazy t1_ja79hon wrote
I rather like the entire St John storyline, mainly because it does show more that Jane is not going to follow someone blindly. Yes, the family cares for her and helps when she is left with nothing, but that doesn't mean she's going to turn missionary with St John.
I think it shows a lot of Jane's depth. Though she ran from Rochester because of her moral code and the pushy way he insisted on being with her despite the secret in the attic, she ends up in a similar situation with St John.
Many victorian romances would have her running off to be a missionary and forgetting about Rochester.
Though I agree that the religious tone in volume 3 is a sharp left, I think it's her faith is the only thing she has left when she is forced by that moral code to abandon her great love. She leans on it because without it, she is utterly alone. Again.
Just my two cents. Jane Eyre is one of my absolute favorite books!
Y_Brennan t1_ja79rlc wrote
I always felt that it was more then a moral code pushing her away. I know she says that she forgave Rochester immediately and that she loves him but she also acknowledges how he talks about his former lovers with disdain and feels like that could be her. She couldn't be with Rochester because of how dependent she was on him and how controlling he wanted to be. Which is why he needed basically devine intervention to help him change his ways.
jefrye t1_ja8byji wrote
> mainly because it does show more that Jane is not going to follow someone blindly.
Yep, I think this is exactly the point of the third volume. She said no to Rochester because she felt marrying him was immoral, but she also says no to St John because she doesn't love him. She has principles and is no pushover.
Nice_Sun_7018 t1_ja8577d wrote
I agree with you really, but I’m always disappointed in Jane for agreeing to go to India with St. John with the condition that they not marry and go as cousins. Missionary work isn’t something she’s ever personally aspired to. She wants to hang out at home and read and work on languages and draw. Even if she loves him as family, she doesn’t particularly like St. John on a personal level - she thinks he’s cold and unfeeling. She’s never expressed any interest in travel beyond England. I rather hate that she’s willing to throw her entire life in a whole new (uncomfortable and frankly dangerous) direction just because he asked her to.
Maybe they’d why I never hated Rochester - because St. John really does make him seem almost noble and gentle in comparison.
[deleted] OP t1_ja7dpjy wrote
I suppose my main gripe is just the tedium of volume 3. Brontë gets a bit too self indulgent (well more than she usually does) in dragging points out which slowed down my reading a lot.
It was very interesting to see her attempt a kind of Victorian version of a Homeric simile when she compares finding the ruined Thornfield to a suitor finding his lover lying dead in a garden. But it lost its power simply because it was so drawn out and wordy. I feel like this is probably an issue with Victorian literature in general though and I’ve been kinda spoiled after reading Homer and Virgil for so long. The Odyssey is about the same length (if a little shorter) and yet covers so much more and the characterisation so much more impactful simply because Homer (and the translator) managed to be economical
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments