| Back to Review Index | Go to the Home Page |
Late Dec, 2006. From a second hand bookstore in Lüneburg, which I found when searching for an engagement ring.
Further thoughts from one month later.
It's the story of an orphan girl in the first half of the 1800s in England. She is a heroine of perfect spirit, and best merit, only lacking all beauty, and nearly always any boldness. When she speaks though, she speaks her mind plainly and honestly, in a way which could be considered bold. It is clear though that the author thinks of her as the best that a person could ever be, in soul and character.
She lives through hardship after hardship, being as helpful and grateful as she can, and being a good true friend to the few people that she comes near to. (These people also being of the truest moral standards, and best hearts. They seemed a little fake that way; Too good, and honest, and faithful, and selfless to believe. One still wants to believe in them though; I wish that I could believe that there are such people in the world.) After the many hardships, Jane finds herself fallen in love with her nobleman master. She is head over heels devoted to him, and it is made clear that they are soul mates for each other.
Then in a contrived dramatic scene, Disaster strikes; At their wedding, at the very altar, less than a minute before they would be married, it is revealed that it can not be: He is not free to marry her. -At least not according to the laws of that land. The thing is though, that it's plain for all to see that it's a stupid regulation, which should NOT apply to this certain case. He should be free to marry her. The Priest sees that, He sees that, She sees that. So all they need to do is run away to the continent, and get married there. But she won't. She will not do it, because it's against the English "properness." She throws away her life, her future, her soul mate, her friends, her position, and very very nearly kills herself by wandering into the wilderness with nothing at all. And for what? To satisfy stuffy English ideals. Ideals that she sees shouldn't even apply to this case. -But she doesn't see herself as one who can decide where the exceptions should be.
So once again, the book is tragic. Then it is contrived again, (Her life is saved, at the very last moment, by who? Long lost cousins of her family! Cousins she never even knew she had!) And for about a year she lives there, all the time miserable about the love that she left. (But she still can't see that she should go back to him.)
Then the male cousin proposes to her, and tells her she should become his wife so that they can go to India to do missionary work. The thing is, he doesn't love her at all. He only wants to tie her to him, because she would be an invaluable asset to his Mission. The both know that. Though she resists his urgings, it's clear that she gets closer and closer to giving in to his wishes. WHY? It was at this point that I lost all patience with that Stupid Jane. She had true love, and left it, because of idiotic social standards. Now she was about to go away with this man, because he was convincing, and she didn't have the spine to say no. (But she DID have the spine to say no to her true love! And to go to extreme measures to separate them both.) I had early on in the book looked at the back cover, which said "... and Jane eventually did marry him in the end." -And I couldn't stand the thought that she was going to marry out of... a pointless sense of duty. It was to be the last step of throwing her life away. I would have thrown down the book and not finished it, except for my wish to see how badly Brontë was going to end the book; I wanted to see just how much I disliked her.
And that's when I became surprised; Jane Doesn't marry the man who loves no one! She goes back, finds that her old love's now available, though through tragic, miserable circumstances, and marries him then. So it's half tragic even in the end, but the protagonist gets what she wants.
How was that for a reaction to plot?
What else is there to say now? As I've hinted, Brontë makes parts of this book too easy; too black and white; The good people are perfect, and the bad people are pure evil, and the dull servants are stupid and less interesting than rocks. And there were too many coincidences, and contrived situations for my taste.
Aside from that the story was good. The character of Jane proceeds in a logical way, and everything about her is made clear, eventually. Like I said, the reader Wants to believe that such fine, pure people exist. And so, it's pleasant to read this book about such a perfect character.
I don't desire to read this book again, but I'd like to read a later work by the same author, to see if her stories became more realistic, as she grew older.
Perhaps the point of this book is the triumph of love over duty. I'm only guessing here, but at the time it was written, there might have been a very strong sense of a "Woman's Duty." -without the slightest regard to her personal satisfaction. Even if it wasn't the prevalent view of society, it could have still been accepted as normal, and anything else seen as Sensualist, and somewhat questionable and daring.
What do I mean by "Woman's Duty?" I guess to be faithful to her husband, her family, and to God. To do her very best to one or all of those three. -And never, Never to complain about her own hardships. Never even to think of them. She must sacrifice her entire being to hard work for her master. And if she should find enough satisfaction in doing that well. She should need no more, and should want no more.
At the end of the book, Jane goes against that, and gives up her "duty to God" -her work as a missionary, and her duty to her family/husband, or at least the man who wants to be her husband. -A husband in exactly the sense as I've just spoken of: A man to be faithful to, and whose work she would further to no end -without any thought to her own joy or fulfilment. She leaves them all, to fill her wish for Love. To make her life a happy and satisfying thing. She puts the duty to Self above the duty to others. And I think that this could have been something of a strong view for the time it was written.
But then, what about the other ninety percent of the book? Where she only thinks of other people? Where she puts their needs and comfort before her own? Where she's so Servile, and dutiful? I think that they were there to show her true character; To show that she's not just a self serving, spoiled sensualist, caring for her own good and nothing else. The first 90% of the book show her to be thoughtful, caring, and of the highest moral standard. And this makes the theme of the book "Even those with the Highest morals, and truest virtue, have a right and a duty to make them selves happy." -not only duty to others.