The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Here's the folder for our group read and discussion of the fourth part of Charlotte Bronte's novel, Jane Eyre. Cheers!

I love the way Jane lets rip in chapter 18 with her hatred of Blanche: "She was very showy, but she was not genuine: she had a fine person, many brilliant attributes ; but her mind was poor...She was not good; she was not original...she never offered , nor had, an opinion of her own." and and she goes on a fair bit more.
This is after Jane has confided in us that she loves Rochester "I have told you reader, that I had learnt to love Mr Rochester". Is there perhaps some jealousy of Blanche's beauty and higher class. Just like Helen, Blanche is a type of ideal that she can never hope to emulate. She does argue a bit later that if Blanche had been a better person she would have struggled with "jealousy and despair" - but she seems to go on about it all just a little too long.
I've also noticed in many Victorian novels that the unpleasant characters are French or have French names. I suppose this goes back to a long rivalry and 1066. But it can be found in Dickens "Bleak House" with Hortense, Becky Sharp is half French, Casaubon, and just about all the nasties in Harry Potter have French names.

Georgie wrote: "...Is there perhaps some jealousy of Blanche's beauty and higher class...."

LOL! Maybe just a little bit more evidence the novel is written in first person narrator! At times, Charlotte seems clever enough to play with it.

Georgie wrote: I love the way Jane lets rip in chapter 18 with her hatred of Blanche:"

Do you believe her when she says, right before the passage you quoted, "I was not jealous: or very rarely;--the nature of the pain I suffered could not be
explained by that word. Miss Ingram was a mark beneath jealousy: she was too inferior to excite the feeling. "

I suspect that the lady protests too much, especially when it is a beautiful and wealthy lady taking the man's attention away from a plain and poor servant. It seems to me very much a "meow."

Do you believe her when she says, right before the passage you quoted, "I was not jealous: or very rarely;--th..."

I think she is insanely jealous of Blanche, especially as she thinks they will marry. Perhaps she is trying to intellectualise the situation - or talk herself out of having such an emotional response to something she thinks is out of her control. I also wonder whether she just thinks she is acting all calm and collected - and so that's what we are told - but in reality it is perfectly obvious to Rochester (and perhaps Blanche) that she is desperately in love with him. A problem with first person narration I suppose.

I also agree that Jane was jealous of Blanche. Jealousy is such a powerful, ugly and negative emotion that most people don't want to acknowledge feeling it and will try to characterise it as some other emotion when they do feel it. The fact that Jane denies that she was jealous of Blanche rings true to me, as does the vehemence of her description of Blanche's negative qualities. Most people try to find fault with a person of whom they are jealous. How satisfying it is when there is a lot of fault to be found!

Jane's hatred of Blanche who, like Bertha, was large and dark skinned, 'with an olive complexion, dark and clear' and 'raven black hair', has been said to be a reflection of the colour-prejudice of the time. Rochester describes Blanche as 'a real strapper...big brown and buxom, with hair just such as the ladies of Carthage must have had.' He describes Bertha (a Creole) as having a 'black and scarlet face'. Earlier in the novel John Reed, whom Bessie describes as having 'thick lips' reviles his mother for 'her dark skin, similar to his own'.

There are a number of references such as these in the novel which seem to relate to British imperialism and the superiority of the white races over the black, a common notion at the time. Is CB just commenting on them or is she criticising these attitudes is the oft posed question.

MadgeUK wrote: "Jane's hatred of Blanche who, like Bertha, was large and dark skinned, 'with an olive complexion, dark and clear' and 'raven black hair', has been said to be a reflection of the colour-prejudice of..."

I like the connection to John Reed's appearance Madge. We can certainly understand Rochester's attraction to Blanche's physical appearance. Obviously he needs more than a physical attraction though.

Perhaps best not to go further about Bertha or it could be a spoiler. Sorry about that.

Georgie wrote: "like the connection to John Reed's appearance Madge. We can certainly understand Rochester's attraction to Blanche's physical appearance as compared to Bertha's (is it ok for us to mention her at this stage of the discussion?)..."

I would definitely want to comment on this at the proper time.

I agree that Jane is extremely jealous of Blanche. The scene where Jane is making the drawings of herself and Blanche shows just how much she envies her. The intellectual side of Jane is brought out when she acknowledges that, really, Blanche is just "fluff" and no substance. Unfortunately, this is the way of the world sometimes. I think the inner Jane sometimes has a hard time with the outer Jane because they are so much at odds in how society perceives them. I think Rochester, being not much to look at himself, can relate to Jane because I'm sure he feels much the same way. This doesn't stop him from being physically attracted to a beautiful woman, though. Plus, she is a woman of status, of which Jane has none.

Georgie wrote:
Do you believe her when she says, right before the passage you quoted, "I was not jealous: or..."
I'm not sure Georgie. Do you think that Rochester knows that Jane loves him? She seems very reserved, and she keeps her place. She doesn't seem like the type to let her feelings be known. She knows how dangerous wearing her heart on her sleeve could be in this situation.

But we can't say ALL women. Women in other parts of the world outside of the West aren't able to lead strong, independent lives.

I don't think that anyone has meant to imply that they were speaking for all women. We are just comparing the lives of the majority of women in the West today with the lives of Victorian women in England, and one woman in particular - JE:). There are probably groups of women in our own societies whose lives are still somewhat Victorian and in the Middle East and East there are millions of them but they are not the focus of our discussion, which was prompted mainly, I think, by Lily's comments.

<>Rochester, being not much to look at himself

Oooh our Byronic hero! I think he is meant to be handsome in a different sort of way:).

Georgie wrote: "I think she is insanely jealous of Blanche, especially as she thinks they will marry. ."

I agree. And if we believe this, then the fact that she says adamantly that she wasn't at all jealous leaves with having to make a choice of several alternatives.

1. She really doesn't believe she's jealous. In which case, she has an amazingly poor understanding of her character.

2. She is outright lying to make herself look better than she really was. Which is a viewpoint I suggested early in the book about other events she narrated.

3. For some reason, perhaps one that will become clearer as the book proceeds, when she is looking back on this episode in retrospect she really believes that she wasn't jealous. Meaning that she has a very poor recollection of some very significant events of her life, another viewpoint I suggested earlier in the book about other events she narrated.

Whatever the reason, it seems clear that she is, at least as far as this event is concerned, a totally unreliable narrator. And if she is that once, it seems likely that she is that elsewhere, too; it would be very surprising to me if this were the only case in which she said something that was totally opposite to the facts.

Of course, all this is relevant only if you believe that she was in fact jealous and either lied or deceived herself about it. If you take her at face value and believe that she wasn't at all jealous of the beautiful and wealthy woman who appeared poised to take the man she desperately wanted out from under her nose, then this isn't an issue.

Lily wrote: "Everyman and Georgie -- please edit your posts. You, beginning with Eman, ascribe to Lily a quote that doesn't belong to me -- I think it originated with Georgie. THX. (I tend to severely limit t..."

Sorry. I was replying to Georgie's post, but hit the reply under your post instead. I have gone back to correct it. My apologies.

Everyman wrote: "Georgie wrote: "I think she is insanely jealous of Blanche, especially as she thinks they will marry. ."

I agree. And if we believe this, then the fact that she says adamantly that she wasn't at ..."
Great reasoning, Everyman. I would go with #1, but add to it by saying that it isn't just that she doesn't know her own character, she is afraid of the intense feelings she is experiencing and needs to pull back and be rational. But, I think this is done very subconsciously, so she is not aware she is doing it.

I'm not sure jealousy is ever simple.

One of the great strengths of this novel is that it is written from the perspective of a governess. But that also means it is not told (narrated) by a more worldly person accustomed to the perks and sophistication of exposure to a variety of cultures and material resources. To some extent, Charlotte had experiences that gave depth and perspective (e.g., studying in France, having a crush or more with her teacher), as did Jane (growing up until ten in a wealthy home, acting as governess in another), but the reader can be aware of still others. (Which to some extent is the game Rhys played with her book.)

I perceive a certain level of naivety in Jane's ramblings about jealousy -- I see her as trying hard to be rational and sensible and even sophisticated, but the feelings can't quite be totally masked, only denied. Still, I would not label that denial as either lying or lack of self knowledge, rather more as an attempt at self control.

Lily wrote: "I'm not sure jealousy is ever simple.

One of the great strengths of this novel is that it is written from the perspective of a governess. But that also means it is not written by a more worldly p..."

Yes, I agree that what Jane might be trying for in this section is self-control. She's trying to be rational, looking at her role as governess and the expectations (and limitations) society placed on that role. I believe Susan mentioned earlier that Jane seems afraid of her feelings. I agree with that. I think Jane is trying to be sensible because she knows it is expected of her and she is also afraid of the feelings she has for Rochester. She's not really jealous of Blanche; I think BunWat's analogy is a good one. Jane might envy Blanche for her beauty and poise, but Jane knows that Blanche is actually a very shallow woman.

Everyman wrote: "Sorry. I was replying to Georgie's post, but hit the reply under your post instead. I have gone back to correct it. My apologies."

Thx! I saw you had each made the edits, so I deleted my request (as I had said I would) before I saw this message. Anyway, I appreciate the clarifications by both you and Georgie.

BunWat wrote: "Jane Eyre is unusual and subversive, because Jane never claims to be any kind of a secret princess, or natural aristocrat..."

But...(view spoiler)[I think we shall have to revisit your most interesting observations about when/whether or not a challenge to the status quo. (hide spoiler)]

Can I just ask how you put the "view spoiler" link as above? I've had a look around and I'm still not sure. Thanks

Jane Eyre is unusual and subversive, because Jane never claims to be any kind of a secret princess, or natural aristocrat. She says very firmly, no I'm not some special unique, exceptional case. I'm the secret face of many of the quiet women who work in your homes.

And it was of course this subversive element on the part of a governess from a poor background which upset many Victorians. That CB is able to narrate a lot of the novel from her own experience (and that of her sisters too) makes it all the more convincing, especially as contemporary accounts collected by Mrs Gaskell (and others) from other observers of the Bronte's lives backed up the narration.

As long as the person who rises has some special quality, then its not a challenge to the status quo, to the class system that sets people in different places.

It was a challenge to the Victorians because they believed that God had ordained the places that people occupied in society - 'God made them high or lowly/and ordered their estate'.

I'm not sure jealousy is ever simple.

Is it jealousy or envy we are dealing with here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy

If she still doesn't acknowledge or understand her feelings for Rochester or wants to subdue them, then is envy the more likely emotion?

When thinking about JE's emotions I think we have to take into consideration our own emotions too. Whether we like JE as a character and/or CB as an author comes into play here. If we do not like JE then we will suspect her emotions and the author's/narrator's interpretation of them. I confess that having just re-read Gaskell's account of CB's life and its relevance to JE, together with the evidence of her contemporaries, I am immensely sympathetic towards both of them so for me much of it 'rings true'.

Where I have difficulty is in the accounts of Rochester and the love affair because these are not based upon experience but upon the Byronic fantasies of her girlhood and unrequited love (in Belgium). Like CB, Jane Eyre is a spinster with very little, if any, experience of men or romantic relationships first hand. Her emotions upon her first encounter with a man and with 'love' must therefore be naive and confusing. I cannot even compare them with my own emotions of first love because I had experience of other relationships and had led a much more wordly life. I only know tht my emotions at that time were tumultuous, up and down like a yo-yo and very OTT. But I am an emotional person and I do not think that either CB or JE were. They seem very 'reserved' to me, very English and stiff-upper-lip. So I think JE was probably a lot more rational and matter-of-fact in these situations with Blanche and Rochester than I ever could have been, much more reliable therefore.

Georgie wrote: "Can I just ask how you put the "view spoiler" link as above? I've had a look around and I'm still not sure. Thanks"

You enclose the word 'spoiler' before and after the quote in < > and > , as with italics.

MadgeUK wrote: "I'm not sure jealousy is ever simple.

Is it jealousy or envy we are dealing with here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy

I think we see just how good she is at remaining reserved when she is speaking with "the fortune teller". She always has the sensible answer for her (him). Which is why I don't think Rochester suspected just how strong her feelings were for him. Of course, since he can't seem to crack her shell of reserve, she becomes a challenge for him and all the more desirable. How little does she know ;).

I think Jane is just acting like a woman in love would.
She acts rational as long as Rochester gives her attention, tries to stay cool, but when Blanche becomes an interest in his life, she is hit by reality... her position towards him is in danger. In my opinion, she is jealous, but doesn't show it to the others, only to the reader.
How could she not be? Of course, I agree with all of you, that it is a mixture of feelings, but jealousy is part of that. She couldn't be envious of Blanche, because Jane knows that she is intelectually her superior. But she still gets jealous, because at that time and place, Blanche is being considered to be taken as wife by Rochester and Jane isn't. In this situation, I would think that almost any woman would be jealous.

BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: " But I am an emotional person and I do not think that either CB or JE were. They seem very 'reserved' to me, very English and stiff-upper-lip..."

I don't agree with this. I thin..."

I totally agree with this. Jane was not only a governess, but she was also without family. So I think that limited her expressing of emotions.

From the definitions given, "jealousy" seems to be the one more concerned with relationships ("In proper usage, jealousy is the fear of losing something that one possesses to another person (a loved one in the prototypical form), while envy is the pain or frustration caused by another person having something that one does not have oneself. Envy typically involves two people, and jealousy typically involves three people."), envy more, but not only, with characteristics, social status, and material possessions. With those distinctions, Jane's emotions seem to lean more towards jealousy than than envy. While she may not view herself as "possessing" Rochester as a lover or a fiance, Jane seems to recognize that she has at least a certain "emotional possession" of him.

Rochester, in his sophistication, seems to know this "emotional possession" from his side and to suspect it from hers and to test it again and again. He is decent enough, at least so far, to not overstep the bounds of Victorian sexual propriety, but still makes abundant use of his powers associated with class and masculinity.

BunWat wrote: "...I think Charlotte and Jane were both extremely emotional people. They did not make public displays of emotion because that was not permitted to them, but they certainly felt strongly. Its all over Jane's history that she's an emotional person, from attacking John Reed in an fit of furious outrage, to her deep love of Helen Burns, her passionate admiration and emulation of Miss Temple, and now her feelings for Mr Rochester. Jane is big feelings alla time, really. "

I quite agree. But then, I think the stiff upper lip is quite often a cover-up for strong emotions (or the external control to the world thereof).

My opinion is that Jane, of course as we've seen her flaring temper as a child, is an innately emotional person, but I think this is her lifelong struggle given her status in society and the necessity of being un-emotional in every situation that she finds herself in. The more I read of this book, the more I am starting to understand what Bronte is getting at. I mentioned under "Background Resources" earlier today that I found Madge's link for the Yale lecture (The Classical Feminist Tradition) very pertinent to our discussion. The professor giving the lecture talks about how feminists have long struggled with balancing head vs. heart. Should women be more like men and try to be rational, ignoring their emotional, more traditionally feminine side? Or should they embrace their emotions in order to get what they need to be said out so that they are heard, thus embracing their femininity? I'm not sure if Bronte is deliberately setting Jane up so that she does struggle with this issue, but she is certainly commenting on expression of emotions in governesses and their slippery relation to their "masters". When found in such a situation, should the governess just know to keep her place, or does she have the moral right as an individual to express what she feels. My argument is that perhaps emotional expression only categorizes women no matter what in this time period. I do think Madge is right about the stiff upper lip, but I don't think her possessing this is mutually exclusive to being a very emotional person.

BunWat wrote: "I reject the idea that women are inherently more emotional than men. I think that the struggle between emotion and reason is a human struggle, not a female one. It may play itself out somewhat di..."

I agree with you Bun Wat, but I feel that it still is a Catch-22, even today. If a woman is more rational, she is seen as masculine, more emotional, then too feminine. Even men are seen as more feminine if they are emotional. I think it is a matter of personality, not gender. I do think it is better in our day, but I would imagine the Victorian era was so much worse.

I think that what needs to change is the emphasis on reason itself. Why is emotion such a bad thing? Doesn't gives us as much information as reason, just in a different way. Kind of like intuition's role in making decisions. Sometimes intuition is more reliable than straight facts and reasoning.

Isn't Jane in a kind of Catch 22 situation herself? No matter which direction she takes, she could still end up broken-hearted, alone, or even worse, ridiculed and stigmatized.

Susan wrote: "BunWat wrote: "I reject the idea that women are inherently more emotional than men. I think that the struggle between emotion and reason is a human struggle, not a female one. It may play itself ..."

I think that these gender issues are more accentuated in our days, because of the feminist movement... In the Victorian Era I think women had to hold back because those were the times. The problematic now and then is very different, at least this is how I see it.
I think that Jane is a feminist in her own way, a woman that wants to make things right for her, show the people her intellectual side, have a job, do good in life, even is she is alone in the world, at least at that time, but she does have an emotional side and I see it as fairly normal.
And I agree with BunWat, that this isn't something that is particular to women, but in this case, Jane is a woman and that is the character we are analyzing...
I hope I wasn't misunderstood, I wasn't trying to portrait women as being overly emotional beings.

I totally understood what you meant, Diana. I think it is even ingrained in us to think this about women, and Jane being so emotional could possibly serve to solidify that viewpoint. I think all of us here contributing in this discussion would probably not categorize women in this way.

I also think this goes back to the discussion of Woolf and Bronte. Should women cool down to get their point across, like Woolf, or should we show the very emotion that helped get us categorized to begin with? I think I'll go with Bronte on this one, but I think I am more idealistic in that I think men too have changed over the years.

The idea of not letting oneself (especially for a young woman) be ruled/overcome by emotion is a common theme in gothic fiction such The Mysteries of Udolpho. This does seem to be a thread that runs through the whole book as others have suggested.

BunWat wrote: "Honestly, I think that reading the emotion/reason issue as female/male is a misreading of the book and of its time. The idea that women are emotional and men are rational is, I think, more of a po..."
But couldn't we also say, given what you have said, that if men were considered inherently more rational in the Victorian era, couldn't we then suppose that they thought women to be more "irrational"? That being said, couldn't they then have considered certain emotional expression by women to be "irrational", and thus more "feminine"? Emotions like the jealousy we have been talking about could be considered irrational and founded upon illogical and irrational emotions.

BunWat wrote: "I didn't say that men were considered inherently more rational than women in the Victorian era. I said they were considered inherently stronger. Its a different way of looking at things.

Men, ..."

So, in other words, anger and sexual desire would be off limits to women, making any response out of Jane to abuse or mistreatment out of the question, and any admission of attraction something that would promote her to be ridiculed and cast out of society.

Plus, the notion of Jane showing anger and discontent on the battlements was probably controversial as well. I think this brings us right back to Jane's reserve and her continually being brought back to reason and reality. Perhaps Woolf saw this in Bronte's writing as a kind of link between the two worlds. The Victorian world being unable to express strong emotion vs. the modern concept of an emphasis on rationality in order to be taken seriously.

I haven't been staying on top of it, but what I have been seeing coming out of brain research is that emotions and reasoning are often closely linked and that what we are accustomed to calling "emotion" is often highly rational (at least in terms of survival of the species?). I suspect that within the next ten - twenty years the cliques we use on the subject of "emotionality" versus "rationality" will change substantially as the results of brain and nervous system research deepen and become more widely known.

Working with men throughout most of my career, I had women about the time I was forty telling me I was expressing my feelings rather than my thoughts! (I resented it, but I "saw" what they were saying when I looked hard.) Years before I had banished "feel that" from any written concluding statements, even though my male colleagues had not. I long considered men to oft times express emotions via reasoning and sometimes rationalization. (I had to come to recognize that I was doing the same -- but as a female, what was expressed was labelled "emotion" or "feeling," at least by other females.)

MadgeUK wrote: "Georgie wrote: "Can I just ask how you put the "view spoiler" link as above? I've had a look around and I'm still not sure. Thanks"

You enclose the word 'spoiler' before and after the quote in ..."

Thanks Madge

Lily wrote: "I haven't been staying on top of it, but what I have been seeing coming out of brain research is that emotions and reasoning are often closely linked and that what we are accustomed to calling "emo..."
your 1st comment: That would certainly makes things a little easier, wouldn't it?

your 2nd: the old double standard

Susan wrote: "your 2nd: the old double standard..."
Not certain to what aspect of double standards you refer, Susan? Perhaps the one of calling something "reasoning" if expressed by men, "emotions or feelings" if expressed by women?

Susan wrote: "your 1st comment: That would certainly makes things a little easier, wouldn't it?..."

Maybe. Not sure yet. How we are going to assimilate these results into our common parlance isn't at all clear to me yet.

BunWat wrote: "I reject the idea that women are inherently more emotional than men. I think that the struggle between emotion and reason is a human struggle, not a female one. It may play itself out somewhat di..."

I agree. And emotions are not just the sentimental emotions attributed to women. They include anger as well, an emotion that (some) men are more prone to than women. But would we call a man who has anger management issues "emotional"? Probably not...

I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in our Jane (and therefore, Charlotte) in Chapter 18. ;) I understand the jealousy, but all that talk about Miss Ingram's future inability "to please" Mr. Rochester when they are married, and "forgetting all his faults."

Obviously, Jane Eyre is in love, but with all Charlotte's criticism of Jane Austen's novels, I found it all a bit amusing. :-)

I'm going to have to reread Woolf's comments on Charlotte. Was she really criticizing her? Or was she being ironic. Woolf was fairly clear in "A Room of One's Own" that we shouldn't criticize women in the past for not meeting modern standards.

Lynnm wrote: "I'm going to have to reread Woolf's comments on Charlotte. Was she really criticizing her? Or was she being ironic. Woolf was fairly clear in "A Room of One's Own" that we shouldn't criticize wo..."

She's certainly not being ironic Lynnm, and I don't think it is about meeting modern standards either. In this essay, she analyses the history of women's writing from a feminist perspective. When she gets to the nineteenth century, she notices that mostly women are writing novels not poetry. She considers the writing of Austen, Charlotte and Emily Bronte and Eliot (all childless middle-class women but all so different).
Woolf considers that Austen's Pride and Prejudice is written "without hate, without bitterness, without fear, without protest, without preaching." This, she considers to be "a miracle" as Austen had to write in secret as she felt there was "something discreditable" in what she was doing. She compares Austen to Shakespeare as both wrote without impediments and for this reason we do not really know either and yet they pervade every word they wrote. Austen, although she lived a sheltered life, appeared to be happy with it.
On the other hand, Woolf suggests that Charlotte Bronte writes as though she is at war with her lot. She writes with longing and passion, of what she does not have. Woolf's criticism is levelled at the inconsistent or jerkiness of her prose which comes from the author writing of herself at times instead of her character.

So, I guess it is a criticism (perhaps more of an observation) but she still considers her a genius. Woolf is constantly wondering what these amazing women might have been able to achieve if their circumstances had been different. But with different circumstances, we would have entirely different novels.