 |
| Image credit to owner. |
There are basically two schools of thought on Mr. Rochester, both of which can be found pretty quickly while perusing the Goodreads reviews of Jane Eyre.
School of thought #1: Mr. Rochester is the most lovable and head-canon-with-self-able male character in the history of male characters.
Case in point:
"I could [redacted] Mr. Rochester like a [redacted] 'till next Tuesday." --Goodreads
"Edward Rochester, ugly as sin, but powerful and dominant and unbelievably attractive in spite of his looks." --Goodreads
"[W]hen surveyed by Mills and Boon, the nation's readers voted Charlotte Bronte's Mr Rochester [sic] the most romantic character in literature." --The Telegraph
School of thought #2: Mr. Rochester is the worst, most manipulative, and most "problematic" (to use common parlance) character in the history of literature.
Case in point:
"Seriosly [sic], Rochester, what the [redacted] is wrong with you? How can you even attempt to build a marriage on such a lie???" --Goodreads
"Then there is the man himself, Mr. Rochester. He wasn't anything to write home about for sure. Let's start with the obvious, shall we? He was cold, condescending, secretive. Wow. Oh yeah, and he was ugly to boot. Yum. Can anything else be said about him to make him more of a catch? I know! Just in case, let's have him keep a drooling homicidal wife hidden away in the attic! Personally, I think Bronte had covered all the bases at this point." --Goodreads
"[I[f a guy twice your age who freely admits his proclivity for continental floozies, gruffly dismisses his own possible child except to underpay staff to deal with her, is intense and flies into passions, makes you mop up after and keep silent about assaults in your home and then fails to mention until you're at the altar that oh, he's married and the psycho who tried to kill you in your bed is actually his WIFE, you get gone and stay gone." --Goodreads
(One may note that the second school of thought tends to use more words, though they're not necessarily more passionate overall than some of the...um...steamier commentators in the first school of thought.)
Basically, he's either hot and wonderful or the devil. There's no in between.
Or is there?
This summer, I reread Jane Eyre for the first time since, oh, 8th or 9th grade, and was struck by how little I'd noticed about Mr. Rochester's character when reading it as a 13- or 14-year-old (shocker, I know). As a 13- or 14-year-old, I thought it was a huge shame that Mr. Rochester was already married, since otherwise, he and Jane could live happily ever after.
(As a side note--I was really surprised that there were people on Goodreads who were saying things approximately like "this book is kind of pointless. I don't understand why she couldn't just marry him even though he had a mad wife in the attic." Which led me to the conclusion that the downfall of Christian society leads to issues in understanding classic literature, but that might be a post for another day. In fact, I think I should write that post--tell me in the comments if you do, too!)
Or could they?
Rereading, I realized something I hadn't noticed in the previous reading. At the beginning (and middle) of the book, Mr. Rochester is legitimately, pardon my French, a huge jerk.
-He tries to make Jane jealous to find out if she actually loves him by acting like he's going to marry Blanche Ingram.
-He's proud, overbearing, and entitled, and looks down on Jane--he wants to provide everything for her and be everything for her and doesn't give her enough credit for being her own person.
-When she realizes that he's already married, he tries to still tempt her into an illicit relationship with him, which is demeaning to both her dignity and his own.
-He threatens to rape her when she won't accede to his demands.
-When she was trying to separate herself from him, he was hugging and kissing her and trying to thus convince her to stay, which in my opinion is just fighting dirty.
Thus far, school of thought #2 is correct.
But wait. The book isn't over yet.
The other thing that I realized as I finished the book that I hadn't noticed in a previous reading was the tremendous transformation that takes place in Mr. Rochester between the time Jane leaves and when she returns. 14-year-old me thought to herself "great, his wife is dead, and even though he's missing some body parts, they can be happy together now! Yay!" But the differences in Mr. Rochester when Jane returns are much deeper than his lost limb and sight.
-He's humbled and can see Jane as the gift that she really is, and the gift that she gives him. Before, he was grasping at her, trying to seize her, and now he sees that he really doesn't have much to give her and barely believes that she could still want him, so her gift of self becomes a true gift that he is humbled by accepting.
-He allows Jane to care for him. It seems like Jane has always loved Mr. Rochester with agape, but before the end of the book, he needed to be the one "in charge" of the relationship, the powerful one, accepting nothing from her and giving her everything. But in the end, he allows her to take care of his needs, which is a joy for her, and humbling but ultimately a joy for him, also.
-He recognizes God and His justice in the chastisements He has inflicted, reconciles himself with God, and thanks God for the gift of Jane.
All of this means that they are more equally yoked, instead of Jane being the one receiving, and Mr. Rochester being the one giving everything, and grabbing at her into the bargain. He's not perfect--he still gets angry easily, he's still impetuous, he still has some of his old manner, but he has grown in humility and that is the remedy for many of his old faults.
At this point, given that he is no longer the awful person who he obviously is at the beginning of the book (well, obvious to everyone but my 14-year-old self, I guess), school of thought #2 would seem to be discounted. More on that in a moment.
But you may notice, this does not make school of thought #1 correct, either. Mr. Rochester is now suited for Jane, but he's not perfect--and considering the first half or three-quarters of the book, it's impossible for the first school of thought to persist as correct, especially since it seems like a lot of the assertions of said first school of thought are based on the first parts of the book, especially people who avow that he is "powerful and dominant and unbelievably attractive", seeming to base the last statement on the first two.
I would like to contest that Mr. Rochester is neither the hottest character to ever grace a work of British literature, nor the worst human being in the history of writing.
He's a human being, yes. He's a sinful human being, yes. But he's redeemed. His character does arc (if that's a verb). His love for Jane and his acceptance of suffering (which is key) ultimately bring about a transformation in him that takes him from Absolute Jerkdom to being a human being who is ready to give himself fully to Jane in marriage and accept her gift of self.
He's not an ideal man, nor a monster.
He's simply human, deeply flawed, but capable of change for the better.
Which I think was Charlotte Bronte's intention in the first place.
Now, my friends, tell me your thoughts!
Am I completely off-base about Mr. Rochester? Have you read Jane Eyre (and did you like it)? Is there a book that you reread after getting older and realized you hadn't understood in the first place? What's your favorite Jane Eyre adaptation? (I've only seen one...and it's not the one which provides the picture used in this post's graphic, lol.)
To arc should totally be a verb. XD
ReplyDeleteI read JE around when I was 13 and hated it so much. I still do. XD I love reading posts about it, especially explaining Edward's character, but that doesn't change my dislike. No matter what I do, I still loath it. M does, too, especially after reading The Wide Sargasso Sea, but she loves using it in papers (Eng. majors, I tell you what). F, on the other, loves it. Which, I still don't get. XD It's weird, because redemption in stories is my FAVORITE, so I should like it? But, it feels too sudden and convenient for me. I also don't get what Jane liked about him in the first place?? There are good characteristics after the change of heart, but before? NOTHING. *le sigh* I also detest the "marry/fall in love with your employer" trope, because it feels so unprofessional. I have been know to pull my hair out. Now that I'm a responsible adult I should follow your example and reread. XD
Really well written post, though! It's up with the best of them. I especially liked your point about him changing from always being the one to give, to receive a lot of help and humility. I really appreciate you debunking both views by presenting the "human" option.
You know me, I'm curious about the movies, so which version have you seen? I've only watched an old black and white one that is about an hour long, so not a lot of time to get development in. XD That was actually my introduction to the story, which explains why I was so bored when I read it. I was used to it being reduced (oh my, that rhymes. XD). I could be wrong, but I believe M watched a version this spring that made her like it? Don't know the details, though.
I agree. We writers and readers need it!
DeleteI can definitely see how you could hate it. Honestly, if I hadn't loved it when I read it the first time, and had that "push" me towards loving it this time, I don't know *exactly* what I would have thought of it. It's a polarizing book, for sure. You've got a good point about why did Jane like him in the first place...that was something I wondered about after reading it this time, too, and I want to go back and see if I can figure it out. I'm wondering if it was unhealthy on her side, too...maybe some of the intoxication of being loved (or maybe lusted after) for the first time went to her head? But I'd love to hear what you thought if you reread it.
Aww, thank you so much!! It was something I'd been thinking about a lot, and I figured it might be interesting to someone... ;)
The version I saw was the 2006 one, which is apparently the miniseries? It's the one with Lucy Pevensie (Georgie Henley) as young Jane Eyre, which is how I was able to figure out which one it was. XD It does make sense that after an hour-long version, a whole book might feel like a bit much...
Mmmmm, yes. Rochester has such a beautiful redemption arc! And Jane has her own beautiful arc, where she has to learn to trust God more than her own strength and mind. The moment they're given their miracle -- Rochester calling for Jane and her hearing and responding across the miles -- occurs not only A) after Rochester fully accepts his sinfulness, repents of it, begs forgiveness, and begins to turn from his proud ways, but B) also directly after Jane realizes she can't make a correct decision about St. John Rivers's demand for marriage on her own and cries out to God for help. And he answers them both, confirming to Rochester that he's been forgiven and providing Jane the help she needs, all in one grand moment.
ReplyDeleteI dearly love this book. It's my favorite novel, and I've read it probably close to a dozen times now. And I STILL learn more about it and notice new things in it with every reread.
That's such a good point! I hadn't really thought about Jane's own arc...she mostly just seemed like a Strong And Moral Woman for most of the book, but she really does go through her own conversion as well. Thank you for pointing that out, it's definitely food for thought! And how marvelous is it that Charlotte Bronte was able to work grace into her work in such a powerful yet subtle way...
DeleteIt's a good one! I'm glad, actually, that I read it first when I was younger, as an introduction, and then again as I got older. I think that made me like it more. And I can definitely imagine there always being more to notice on a reread!
I wholeheartedly agree with you that Mr. Rochester is a deeply flawed human who gets a redemption arc!! I fell closer to the second school of thought when I read Jane Eyre in high school (at least I think it was high school??) but I have since learned to appreciate some of his humanity. Being a part of the musical (which follows the book very closely) was a big part of that for me. And even though he is a huge jerk in the beginning of the book, he does actually have some positive qualities (they are hard to find, but they exist)? And I love that he tries to save Bertha at the end. I am actually just about to reread Jane Eyre, so that's kind of weird...
ReplyDeleteI do find it rather strange (and, well, disturbing) that people find domineering/manipulative/deceptive Rochester to be...romantically appealing, though?? THERE IS NO HEALTH THERE. (Also I just reread Wuthering Heights and Heathcliff is WORLDS worse than Rochester and yet there are still folk who adore him?? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.)
Thank you!! I'm glad that I'm not completely out there with this opinion... XD The second school of thought is definitely understandable, but it's not completely *there*, since Mr. Rochester does, as you say, have some humanity. Ooh, being part of the musical sounds like it must've been a lot of fun, and also brought an interesting perspective. Hmm. I'd like to see the musical sometime... I need to try to find his positive qualities at the beginning of the book a bit more when I next read it, because...I'm not sure I could name one off the top of my head, lol. I know he *has* them, because Jane wouldn't fall in love with a complete jerk, but I am drawing a blank. Oh, yes, I love him trying to save Bertha, too! (Oh, what a coincidence! Enjoy your reread. :))
DeleteI KNOW. Like, yes, maybe he's kind of attractive at the *END*, but not in the beginning! COME ON, PEOPLE. I do not understand people who like Heathcliff AT ALL. Being awful and a domineering jerk is NOT ATTRACTIVE. Seriously.
We talked about this a smidge before, but you really done yourself proud with this post, sonny. *pumps your hand* Put all them words together nice-like. Convincing. (Ignore me, I'm tired. I really like this post, because it's a really good explanation and illustration, is what I'm saying.) I don't understand school of thought #2, because redemption is The Point of the Book, but...some people don't believe in redemption, I guess?
ReplyDeleteI think Jane was originally attracted to Mr. Rochester because a) she was starved for love, but more importantly b) she was starved for equal companionship, for someone her intellectual equal, who took her ideas seriously and could hold his own in a conversation with her. Which, when you're so starved for all that, to give it up seems...really, really hard. Which makes me admire Jane all the more for her moral courage.
Maybe I should reread Jane Eyre. I don't know. My main problem with it has always been that it /feels gloomy/, and I just don't like books that feel gloomy, but it's such an incredible work of literature nonetheless. Charlotte Bronte can WRITE.
Well, thank you. (I enjoy your tired comment(s). They tend to be rather funny, which in this case is a virtue. ;)) I don't completely understand school of thought #2, either? Maybe it comes from a culture which is really eager to label people, and labelling Rochester "evil" is an easy way for him to be categorized?
DeleteOoh, that's a really good point! And something I can definitely relate to--finding someone who one can discuss intellectual topics with is intoxicating, even if that person is just a friend, not a romantic interest. Which definitely does make Jane giving that up even more impressive...and may also explain part of why she considers St. John's offer for a bit? He's no Mr. Rochester, but he does come close to being her intellectual equal.
Hmm. It does definitely feel gloomy, but I like books like that, when I'm in the right mood. But I'm not going to tell you that you should reread it, given the gloom, lol. You're so right, though--Charlotte Bronte is awesome.
Mhmmmm, amen. I'm pretty sure the first time I read Jane Eyre I was a similar age and, while I liked Jane, much of the story, and the book overall, I had nothing positive to say about the romance. And I STILL have issues--because, as you point out, there are major issues here--but I've grown to appreciate the weight of the redemption at the end and to recognize the importance of Rochester's character arc. (He is kind of horrible earlier on though, yikes. Why are so many people so smitten with him.) I think I've seen...one movie adaption? If that? I know I saw part of one, but I can't remember if I watched it all the way through. My favorite adaption is the Broadway musical--which I haven't seen, but I've heard the cast recording and I was in a production of it last year. It follows the book pretty well and actually retains elements that sometimes fall by the way side in movie or musical adaptions of books--elements like Jane's faith and how important it is?? I appreciate this.
ReplyDeleteI would LOVE to read a post about how the downfall of Christian society leads to issues in understanding classic literature. It's something I've witnessed firsthand in college lit classes, and I would love to hear your thoughts on it :)
I'm trying to remember if I liked the romance when I first read it...and I think I might've, lol.. How embarrassing--clearly your young teen self was more discerning than mine!
DeleteI don't know why so many people are smitten with him early on! It's really kind of creepy!
Ooh, I had no idea there was a musical of it!! WHAT. Must look this up at some point very soon. Especially if it includes Jane's faith and its importance! (Which really is a key point of the book, so I don't understand how you could leave it out?? But come to think of it, the movie adaptation I watched really didn't stress it...strange.)
Cool! That post is in the works, although it may be a couple of months cuz...school, and other planned posts, and life, and stuff. But I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my thoughts, once I post it. :)