|
|
Post by margaretpalko on Nov 17, 2015 0:18:03 GMT
After reading The Experience of Womanhood in Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea I have found myself asking whether Rochester is good or bad. To begin, Jane and Bertha are two completely different people personality wise. Jane is strong, brave, independent, but also contains qualities of an "angel". Bertha however is 100% angelic in Wide Sargasso Sea,and the "monstrous" side of Bertha is revealed when she is locked away. If Bertha had been more like Jane would the story have been different? We know that Rochester and Bertha married for wealth purposes only, but even the idea of love was not within Rochester. However this idea was in Bertha, the fact that someone could truly love her. We spoke about how Jane and Bertha had similar background stories, but Jane was able to grow up from hers. Bertha was not able too. Rejection after rejection leads Bertha to have a miserable and ultimately a loss of identity because she never truly gains love. The article even says, "Sadly Antoinette hopes their desires for each other, which is so powerful, will develop over time into love" (Lewkowicz 4). Continuing "Rochester is unable to love what he sees as an object, a possession" (94). Rochester is displayed in a fairly new light, and while the author refers to Bertha as a human, the author has deduced that Rochester does not see her as that. Could this be the reason he locked her away? He did not even see her as human, in fact, I think he saw her as something that he could play with when he chose to, and put away when he didn't feel like playing with it anymore. This sense of control, but also a lack of human decency isn't just seen in Wide Sargasso Sea though. Even in Jane Eyre it is clear that in the beginning Rochester again tries to assert his male dominance; if Jane had not been independent would she have ended up like Bertha? After Bertha all Rochester did was sleep around, travel Europe, ignore his wife, and decide that a divorce was beneath him, yet he felt all of this information did not apply to Jane. So even here, after he found the woman he truly loves, he is still a giant liar, and still thinks after all of this that he is a better man for doing all of the above. So does this make him a bad human being? I don't know because he was simply following what other men of his time period did. He truly did not understand dependence until he was injured, but his injury allowed him to see (ha that pun wasn't intended) that women were just as capable as men. So I guess, if anyone can answer, is he truly a good man who made mistakes, a monster, meaning vile and terrible, or something else?
|
|
|
|
Post by jzhangx3 on Nov 17, 2015 2:26:23 GMT
I love the ideas in your thread, Margo  I'd like to add on that I think Rochester, while he is mainly portrayed as a bad person, is actually more in-between good and bad with his actions. His actions are constantly changing, and in doing so, he hurts but also helps Jane in her discovery to find herself and what she wants in life. He lies to her about Bertha, tries to marry Jane when he still has a wife, and is shrewd and tricky in getting what he wants from Jane. Rochester, therefore, indirectly helps Jane become a better person; she goes to Moor House afterwards, and she realizes that what she wants in life is not just passion and love, but independence and freedom as a woman, and she finds that at Moor House. She also finds out what it's like to have no passion at all in a relationship, and it is only after experiencing that with St. John that she goes back to Rochester at Ferndean, a changed person. Perhaps in this sense, Rochester is somewhat good in the worst way possible (by hurting Jane). However, it's also important to mention that Rochester does not turn into a good person without Jane there to guide him. He is "tamed" by Jane and her high intellectual and moral sense. Therefore, throughout the novel, he is mostly a bad person until the end. Rochester likes to make excuses for himself: I don't think he’s a bad person by nature, he was just in a really bad situation with Bertha. With Bertha going mad, he should have resorted to something other than literally locking her up, but he also didn't have much of a choice. Jane is different from all the previous women in Rochester’s life because she won’t let him get away with that kind of logic. Rochester’s long, sophisticated explanations of why his particular situation requires a new and different sort of morality don’t convince Jane at all. Therefore, Jane takes the bad out of Rochester and brings out the good in him when she goes to Ferndean and marries Rochester, taking care of him after he becomes blinded from the fire at Thornfield. |
|
|
|
Post by Ms. McGettigan on Nov 17, 2015 19:05:13 GMT
Ugh I hate Mr. Rochester. What a jerk. But you guys bring up some great points here! In order for Jane to develop, she needed him- even if it means she is hurt in the process. She learns more about herself by being hurt than she would have if she never found out the truth.
Still, he sucks.
Other thoughts on Rochester?
Thoughts on whether coming-of-age experiences might be more powerful when you struggle or experience heartbreak, rather than have a relatively pain-free adolescence (if there is such a thing...)?
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi.eglinton on Nov 17, 2015 22:54:19 GMT
Coming-of-age processes are certainly sped up by heartbreak. Jane's experience, in particular, was drastically altered. Although her childhood is far from pain-free, the emotions resulting from her heartbreak are a new level of suffering. Jane has seen glimpses of affection from others before Rochester, but he is her first real romantic relationship. (Even then, it wasn't super "romantic"...)
Nonetheless, such a loss is a shock to the system. Heartbreak speeds up the liminal state, as pain & suffering are feelings typically reserved for adults. Children do not experience heartbreak in the romantic sense. The fact that Jane progresses from heartbreak leads me to believe that this event was necessary for the proper maturation of Jane.
|
|
|
|
Post by margaretpalko on Nov 18, 2015 1:43:26 GMT
Yeah Gabby I completely agree! I think even today we see that pain and suffering causes us to grow as humans. I think without it we can never fully know what it is like to lose something that we truly love. In response to Jen, I think you are right. A lot of my post focused on the bad aspects of Rochester, but we have to keep in mind that he was kind of forced into the marriage out of wealth too. So yes, he could have handled Bertha better, but the circumstances placed a large role in why this happened. After reading the story the Yellow Wallpaper do you find similarities between Bertha and the protagonist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Eubanks on Nov 20, 2015 3:08:01 GMT
At first glance, Rochester seems to be a character that won't help Jane move forward in life and would end up hurting her along the way. This assumption later comes true when Jane, along with others, find Bertha Mason in a hidden room, tucked away in the top floor of Rochester's Manor. This knowledge of Rochester's secret is what causes Jane's heart break leading her to run away from her soon to be perfect life as she was in the midst of being married to Rochester him self. Rochester from this important scene, again shows to be a character out to hurt Jane. I feel as though this was just a simple mishap from Rochester and that he never really meant to hurt Jane the way he did. Also considering the fact that he was about to marry her, showing he did indeed care for her as he wasn't marrying her for her money as she did not have any at the time and was actually falling in love. From these problems, Jane and Rochester do come back together at the end to start their family. At the end of the novel, Rochester can finally be seen as a character that is good and is out to help Jane in life which he does by giving her a loving husband and a child, starting a loving family which she always wanted despite some problems along the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghulamcontractor on Nov 21, 2015 1:35:23 GMT
I think Rochester isn't too bad of a character. Even though he keeps Bertha locked in an attic, at least he does not leave her in the streets. I am sure he could have left her anytime. However, he gives Bertha a roof to live under in and food to fill her stomach. His previous actions to Bertha could not be left unaccounted. He still was a jerk to Bertha. However, he was not nearly as bad as others were to Jane when he met her. He does not put her down as Mrs. Reed or Mr. Brocklehurst did. Then again, he is supposed to be the "brooding protagonist" of Gothic literature. He is in the middle of the spectrum, just like Jane. Maybe Bronte is showing that they are meant for each other?
|
|
|
|
Post by gabi.eglinton on Nov 21, 2015 17:23:57 GMT
TRUE Ghulam! After reading this, I'm reevaluating my opinion on Rochester. On the surface, he and Jane seem like total opposites. Rochester looks "dark and brooding" and he does weird things to get Jane to admit her love for him. Meanwhile, the innocent "Plain Jane" harbors little to no darkness in her heart. But when compared to the real villains of this story, Rochester is a great guy. He could do much worse things, he's powerful enough. And is there really a nicer male character than Rochester? My mind immediately went to St. John. At surface value, he's the best-looking and most gentle. But when you evaluate how he forced Jane into a decision (knowing she'd sacrifice happiness and love for, well, sadness and not-love) it's easy to see that he's not the type of guy any respectable reader would want their heroine to marry. I think Rochester was the best bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronaldrajan on Nov 22, 2015 2:44:51 GMT
I think that Mr. Rochester is a bad guy. It seems like all he can do is lie and be a burden to the people around him. First, he made Bertha go insane because he said that he didn't love her in such a blunt way, he hadn't even said "but we're still friends though bud". Maybe if Rochester had shown Bertha some sort of kindness or compassion, she would not have gone crazy. Next, we see that Rochester knowingly tried to marry two women! who does that? Its bad enough that he had his wife locked in his attic, but then he goes and seduces another younger woman. He is truly a creep. When he does this, he is also breaking Jane's heart because she feels so betrayed by him. Lastly we see how Rochester gets himself injured in the house fire because he is so reckless and stupid that he doesn't think through his actions at all, and then he makes Jane take care of him for the rest of their miserable lives. These are why Rochester stinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronaldrajan on Nov 22, 2015 2:52:04 GMT
TRUE Ghulam! After reading this, I'm reevaluating my opinion on Rochester. On the surface, he and Jane seem like total opposites. Rochester looks "dark and brooding" and he does weird things to get Jane to admit her love for him. Meanwhile, the innocent "Plain Jane" harbors little to no darkness in her heart. But when compared to the real villains of this story, Rochester is a great guy. He could do much worse things, he's powerful enough. And is there really a nicer male character than Rochester? My mind immediately went to St. John. At surface value, he's the best-looking and most gentle. But when you evaluate how he forced Jane into a decision (knowing she'd sacrifice happiness and love for, well, sadness and not-love) it's easy to see that he's not the type of guy any respectable reader would want their heroine to marry. I think Rochester was the best bet. Gabi, I see why you would think that Rochester is the best bet, however I simply must disagree with you on this. I do agree, however, that St. John is also a bad fit for Jane. I think that we are assuming that these are her only options for people to marry, and we should get rid of this notion. Jane should not be with Rochester because he has caused her so much pain and feelings of betrayal that it would not be a healthy relationship, instead she should find another man to marry. She should move to a big city with lots of people and meet a man that respects her independence and values her opinions and intellect as equal to his own. This is what i believe to be the best course of action for Jane, what do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by lreinhardt230 on Nov 22, 2015 14:47:52 GMT
I agree with Ronald. Giving a woman food and shelter does not make up for deprivation of socialization, stimulation and other necessities. Rochester does not have to be a bad person, but the things he had done to Bertha were cruel and there is no denying that. Jane only came across few men in her life, so Rochester is better than St.John, yes. But if there were more options, Rochester may have been just an evil man in Jane's eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurendean13 on Nov 22, 2015 15:09:33 GMT
I think Rochester is in between because the men In Janes life are Rochester, St. John, Mr. Brocklehurst, and Aunt Reed's son. And two out of the four are simply cruel to her. Rochester is stuck in between i believe because we see him at first as this very cruel man who doesn't seem too kind to Jane when she meets him when she firsts arrives at Thornfield. although, once they start to fall in love with each other we see Mr. Rochester lighten up and he becomes more open to Jane, even though he is keeping a huge secret from Jane. Thus, comes back to him being a bad guy again. He delibirately lies to Jane about being unwedded and tries to marry Jane. But Jane soon finds out his big lie and sees Bertha, his wife, who he had locked up in the attic for her own good and to hide her away from the world. But once Jane leaves Thornfield, I think Mr. Rochester got what he deserved and becomes a better character overall because he faced his consequences of trying to lie his way through his life. He takes his own journey i believe in the book to finding himself. And finally becomes equal to jane on a sociatal pyramid. I think it would be really interesting if another book was made in Mr. Rochester's perspective!
|
|
I'd like to add on that I think Rochester, while he is mainly portrayed as a bad person, is actually more in-between good and bad with his actions. His actions are constantly changing, and in doing so, he hurts but also helps Jane in her discovery to find herself and what she wants in life. He lies to her about Bertha, tries to marry Jane when he still has a wife, and is shrewd and tricky in getting what he wants from Jane. Rochester, therefore, indirectly helps Jane become a better person; she goes to Moor House afterwards, and she realizes that what she wants in life is not just passion and love, but independence and freedom as a woman, and she finds that at Moor House. She also finds out what it's like to have no passion at all in a relationship, and it is only after experiencing that with St. John that she goes back to Rochester at Ferndean, a changed person. Perhaps in this sense, Rochester is somewhat good in the worst way possible (by hurting Jane).
