OT: Jane Eyre
hallieod at indigo.ie
Mon Apr 2 16:56:18 EDT 2001
>On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, otheng wrote:
>> > Oh, now you're just being unfair to poor Mr. Rochester! I'll admit
>> > he's a massive great bully, but he didn't exactly choose the first
>> > wife - well, he didn't exactly choose her at all! But Jane - no.
>> > The joy of that book to me is that she can take care of herself, even
>> > before he's crippled.
>> But would she if she had gone through with the wedding? She'd have been
>> "compromised" if the truth had been later revealed, and he would have had a
> > great deal more power over her.
I wasn't saying it would have been ok if she'd gone through with the
wedding. Not at all. This was one measure of her ability to stand
up for herself - the fact that she'd refuse to go against her own
conscience, even when he pushes the guilt buttons in the worst way.
>That's the thing, though. Jane doesn't seem to care much for that
>kind of social proprieties. I mean, watch her go off on foot across
>England, or offer to accompany St. John to the Indies without marrying
>him. They're both, by the standards of the time, pretty compromising
>things to do, but she doesn't let that bother her as long as she can still
>claim the moral high ground. I can totally see her face poor Mr.
>Rochester down, "compromised" or no.
Oh, so Gill meant if she'd married him _without_ knowing about the
wife? Then I agree with Alexandra. She'd have faced him down, he'd
have had NO power over her at all, because he'd wronged her, and then
she'd have left. No matter what.
Hallie (in the middle of essay quicksand, and glad to feel fairly
sure about _something_)
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj