Although I have not noticed when previously reading the book, this time I discovered many things I have in common with Jane. As is the case with other Bronte characters (like Lucy Snowe in Vilette, for example), Jane is a plain-looking girl, with no fortune of her own, trying to build a place for herself in the world by honest work. Whatever quality she lacks on the outside though is thoroughly compensated by her inner qualities: she’s good-hearted, empathic, never afraid of hard work and also unafraid to speak her mind if the situation requests it. Mr. Rochester is a Byronic hero if there ever was one, but his passion for Jane redeem his faults in the eyes of the reader (or at least in mine), making him one of the most powerful characters in the book. As his opposite we can perhaps name Jane’s cousin, St. John Rivers (predestined name?), a man dedicated to doing good and living right — but, alas, too much so in order for him to be actually interesting in my eyes (I do like characters bent on doing good, of course, but in St. John’s case it seemed more an obsession than anything else).

One of the most poignant parts of the book for me was the part where Jane has to choose between her love and her principles. A tough choice if there ever was one (making me wonder what my own choice would have been, were I in Jane’s stead). I liked the fact that Jane herself has had trouble choosing between the two, other than sternly choosing the principles (because, after all, she is a respectable 19th century heroine), because it made her more human, more real as a character. Sure, the story was bound to end nicely for her regardless of her choice — but on the whole I like the fact that she chose the way she did, although the immediate effects were very hard on her. Above all I think doing so was necessary for her as a character, in order to grow, in order to gather enough life experience to know that her Mr. Rochester is what she really wants out of life (after all when she first arrived at Thornfield she was way too young and had way too little previous contact with the world to enable her to know things for sure).

I also found interesting the way the author has managed to make the reader feel the characters’ passion. While the book is completely clean of sexual elements, the chemistry between Jane and Rochester lifts itself off the pages of the book, almost becoming a character in its own right. It’s the kind of love that does not care about the petty things (the difference in their fortunes, the difference in their ages, and ultimately the difference in their health) but only about the high ones — they are alike, they share the same ideals, each of them’s happiness lies only in the arms of the other. Speaking of which, I also liked the way the author chose to insert a “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” element: at first, Rochester asks Jane what she thinks about him and she finds him ugly; later on she finds his face the noblest one around, and longs to see it every day (I tend to think the same happened the other way around, to the way Rochester saw Jane, at first and then later on).

Speaking of looks, I wonder if this isn’t a limitation of the author’s: both ugly characters were flawed, but had redeeming qualities; all the very beautiful ones were simply flawed (Blanche Ingram was too proud, Rosamund Oliver was too shallow, Bertha Mason was shallow and crazy, Adele’s mother was unfaithful, St. John is way too cold-hearted and so on). Jane’s two cousins, Diana and Mary, might break this mold, as they are both very accomplished intellectuals — but truth be told I don’t remember if their looks were exceptional in any way, or just slightly above average. Not that all this made the book less enjoyable for me, of course — I think it too good a book to be bothered about a cliche or two.

A quote whose imagery I liked:

My rest might have been blissful enough, only a sad heart broke it. It plained of its gaping wounds, its inward bleeding, its riven chords. It trembled for Mr. Rochester and his doom; it bemoaned him with bitter pity; it demanded him with ceaseless longing; and, impotent as a bird with both wings broken, it still quivered its shattered pinions in vain attempts to seek him.

What I liked most: The fact that Jane was not the quiet type and she could hold her own in a conversation :) Her need of independence was also one of the things that I found most interesting in her.

What I liked least: It didn’t bother me that much but I could have done without the supernatural bit at the end. I have to say though that think as I might I couldn’t find a better way for the author to reach her purpose at the time so I can see how that bit fits in there although for me contrasts with the rest of the book.

Recommend it to? Anyone, as it’s not only a classic but also one of my favorite books :)

Written by the same author:
Biographical Notes on the Pseudonymous Bells

Amazon Affiliate. If you click an Amazon link and buy something, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.

Popularity: 7% [?]