OF A GOLDEN AGE

Someone on Pajiba reviewed Jane Eyre in one of the most poorly fleshed out writeups I’ve ever read, of anything.

Money passage:

And this is what I don’t get: if the point of all of the novels written in England in the 1800s is to show that those who are good and wonderful get what they deserve, and those who are assholes get their just desserts, how is it that Jane — by being pious and generous and good — gets stuck with a crippled asshole as her reward? Yeah, she loves him, but I can’t figure out why. He’s much more likable in the movie. In fact, the movie is better than the book. Go watch it instead.

Hahahahaha. Many things about this are amazing. I never realized “all of the novels written in England in the 1800s” had the same goal, nor that Jane and Rochester are such simple archetypes. What an idiot.

Rochester isn’t supposed to be likable, he’s supposed to be tormented and with good reason. In that regard, the movie version described here does not make a lot of sense. It negates the point of the novel if Jane and Rochester have a charming courtship and live happily ever after. They’re the 19th-century version of a broken home!

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t even like this book, though it is beautifully written and complex. I can’t relate to Jane nor to the melodramatic 1800s feel of the writing. Yet, as one of my favorite professors said often, you can appreciate something without liking it.

one response