jane eyre question

[schmerica]

Yesterday I was going through all of my books, deciding which few ones I absolutely required to have at school with me for the next few weeks, and I came across my copy of Jane Eyre. The book was a mass-market paperback, and I've read it enough times that it's showing many many many signs of wear, but it's been quite a while since my last reread -- I can't remember exactly when, in fact.

This got me thinking, and thus, poll question:

[Poll #411701]

I can picture Ray responding to it in a very "what the fuck?" way -- "His place burns down and he goes blind? What the hell kind of ending is that?"

Fraser, I think, would love it. A lot.

Also? Jane Eyre is SO much better than Wuthering Heights, omg.

Comments

[katallison.livejournal.com]

Oh, and re: Jane Eyre vs. Wuthering Heights -- I'd agree that JE is a more consistently good novel. WH is, I think, quite uneven, but my god, the good parts are *extraordinary.*

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

What good parts?

*g*

I could never really appreciate (or detect) the good parts in WH because I was too busy wanting to reach into the book and kick Heathcliff & Cathy in the behind. Or just ship Cathy off to London for a season to meet some different, possibly *sane*, people.

WH=Drama Queens on Parade. The thing I like best about JE is that Jane herself *isn't* really a Drama Queen: shit happens, and she *deals*.

[katallison.livejournal.com]

I was too busy wanting to reach into the book and kick Heathcliff & Cathy in the behind

But see, this is a big part of what I love about the book. *g* To me, it cuts so sharply against the boilerplate Big Angsty Romance, where the Doomed Romantic Heroes are supposed to be -- well, heroes, glamorous figures we're supposed to like and root for. And instead Cathy is a self-centered bitch, and Heathcliff is a sadistic bully, and they're neither of them likeable at *all*, but at the same time it's so clear that in their *own* minds they're glamorous as hell, while it's also clear that all the grubby or mundane supporting characters are eventually fed to the back teeth with their antics and can see right through them. I love it that even if we come into the book with a predisposition toward Big Doomed Romance, we end up muttering "Those two are *morons*" and rooting instead for the grubby mundane supporting characters who are left sweeping up the pieces.

I love the hellaciously complex narrative structure Bronte sets up, which even though it's often confusing as hell still leads me to think hard about questions of narrator reliability, point of view, etc.

And the place-setting and atmospherics are, I think, superb--both the sweeping grandeur of the moors, and the contrastingly grubby dreariness of everyday life in those dank bleak little farmhouses.

(Apologies to pearl_o for hijacking her comments, btw! *g*)

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

I love it that even if we come into the book with a predisposition toward Big Doomed Romance, we end up muttering "Those two are *morons*" and rooting instead for the grubby mundane supporting characters who are left sweeping up the pieces.

Wow. You know, it never actually occurred to me before that the authorial intention was for us to not love Heathcliff & Cathy. I thought she, the author, actually liked them, or at least admired them for being grand & doomed & Romantic with a capital R. I certainly had the vague impression that most readers loved them, or at least loved Heathcliff (and probably thought he just needed the Love of a Truly Good Woman, i.e. Mary Sue). They seemed to me to have pretty much set the mold for e.g. Scarlett O'Hara, and since I knew a lot of people love her I figured most readers love Heathcliff & Cathy, too.

I actually think Emily failed as a writer, either way: if we were supposed to love H&C, it didn't work for a lot of readers; if we were supposed to see through, I get the feeling that didn't work for a lot of readers, either. But then, unreliable narrator is super-tricky.

Now you shall force me to run a poll.

[raucousraven.livejournal.com]

See, your whole first paragraph there? It's why I ungrudgingly acknowledge Emily's talent but will not reread Wuthering Heights without some immediate compensation (I take cash!). I figure that anyone who can make me detest her protagonists that fixedly must be some kind of genius. By contrast, I have found Jane's individuation fascinating since the first time I read Jane Eyre, and I guess my major beef with Wuthering Heights is that it really lacks that dynamic sweep to most of its character development. Of course, that's partly the point -- C&H are supposed to be these wild and elemental figures, mythic and savage and, yes, romantic etc etc. Still doesn't make me like them. *channels disgruntled help*

[indywind]

Is not genius. Is all too common. Piers Anthony fer crissake.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Kat, my darling, feel free to pack up and move into my comments whenever your fancy strikes you. You're always welcome.

[nasrani.livejournal.com]

But the moors! Think of the moors. It's a good distraction when you feel like kicking anyone's heads in. :D