You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
Well, Mr. Rochester is no Jane Eyre. But then again, Mr. Rochester is no Jane Eyre.
The author certainly had a challenging task in front of her with this one: Jane Eyre being, of course, among the most beloved novels of all time. It is one of my all-time favorites, and I've read it enough times to know it very, very well, as I'm sure will be the case for most readers of Mr. Rochester. Each of those readers is likely bringing their own interpretation of this character with them when they sit down with this book, and that can be a recipe for disappointment if the story you are presented with doesn't match your own take on the character.
For me personally, this version of Rochester is a little too nice, a little less complicated and problematic than Bronte's presentation. The young Rochester's tale largely parallels Jane -- a lonely (if not loveless) upbringing away from family, largely buffeted about by larger forces. I would have liked to have seen more passion and agency from the character; even when Jane was powerless to exact any real control over her larger situation, she was always fiery, defiant, and independent. Mr. Rochester, by contrast, kind of comes off here as a bit of a sad sack -- yes, he's trying to be a dutiful son and believes (to his doom) that his father has his best interests at heart, but I would have liked to have seen more of Jane's spirit in him. After all, they are supposed to be very alike in many ways.
Parts of this telling of Rochester's side of the story come off as very apologist in a way that isn't entirely convincing for me. "I had to put on a disguise and try to trick her because she never talks about how she feels!" and other poor excuses abound. I was reminded at points of the Big Bad Wolf's narration in the children's book The True Story of the Three Little Pigs: logic-bending attempts to explain why his behavior was actually totally okay! It's all just a big misunderstanding! (I'm thinking, for example, of the addition of a character who doesn't appear in Jane Eyre and the reasons for his inclusion, among other things.)
Overall, while I enjoyed this take on the character, I think I would've preferred a more nuanced examination of a very complicated (and indeed, problematic) leading man. I think a lot of Rochester's darkness is glossed over here; the fact is, much of his behavior in Jane Eyre is downright bizarre and fundamentally Not Cool, Dude. I would've loved more acknowledgment of that.
I do recommend this book for any fans of Jane Eyre, and I do think that the author does a good job here, even if this Rochester isn't quite my Rochester. There's a good chance this Rochester will not match up with your own personal interpretation, either, but it will get you thinking again about Bronte's wonderful story, and how those characters continue to fascinate and resonate with us even now.
Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with an ARC.
The author certainly had a challenging task in front of her with this one: Jane Eyre being, of course, among the most beloved novels of all time. It is one of my all-time favorites, and I've read it enough times to know it very, very well, as I'm sure will be the case for most readers of Mr. Rochester. Each of those readers is likely bringing their own interpretation of this character with them when they sit down with this book, and that can be a recipe for disappointment if the story you are presented with doesn't match your own take on the character.
For me personally, this version of Rochester is a little too nice, a little less complicated and problematic than Bronte's presentation. The young Rochester's tale largely parallels Jane -- a lonely (if not loveless) upbringing away from family, largely buffeted about by larger forces. I would have liked to have seen more passion and agency from the character; even when Jane was powerless to exact any real control over her larger situation, she was always fiery, defiant, and independent. Mr. Rochester, by contrast, kind of comes off here as a bit of a sad sack -- yes, he's trying to be a dutiful son and believes (to his doom) that his father has his best interests at heart, but I would have liked to have seen more of Jane's spirit in him. After all, they are supposed to be very alike in many ways.
Parts of this telling of Rochester's side of the story come off as very apologist in a way that isn't entirely convincing for me. "I had to put on a disguise and try to trick her because she never talks about how she feels!" and other poor excuses abound. I was reminded at points of the Big Bad Wolf's narration in the children's book The True Story of the Three Little Pigs: logic-bending attempts to explain why his behavior was actually totally okay! It's all just a big misunderstanding! (I'm thinking, for example, of the addition of a character who doesn't appear in Jane Eyre and the reasons for his inclusion, among other things.)
Overall, while I enjoyed this take on the character, I think I would've preferred a more nuanced examination of a very complicated (and indeed, problematic) leading man. I think a lot of Rochester's darkness is glossed over here; the fact is, much of his behavior in Jane Eyre is downright bizarre and fundamentally Not Cool, Dude. I would've loved more acknowledgment of that.
I do recommend this book for any fans of Jane Eyre, and I do think that the author does a good job here, even if this Rochester isn't quite my Rochester. There's a good chance this Rochester will not match up with your own personal interpretation, either, but it will get you thinking again about Bronte's wonderful story, and how those characters continue to fascinate and resonate with us even now.
Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with an ARC.
As a die hard fan of Jane Eyre, I obviously enjoyed revisiting these characters in a new book. I think Shoemaker stepped into the vernacular of the time in a very believable way and she drew many interesting connections to people and events in Jane Eyre. That said, I was a little disappointed that after waiting for SO much of the book for Jane to finally make an appearance, their chemistry didn't feel as crackling as it did in Bronte's original. To me, the Jane/Rochester relationship is built on a bedrock of banter and I don't think that came off too well here.
Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books ever written. The character of Jane Eyre is my absolute favorite literary character ever. And I consider Mr. Rochester, although far from perfect, to be one of the most swoon worthy literary characters in all of his Byronic hero glory. For better or for worse, questionable choices or not.
So when I came across this book, I thought that it would make for a very interesting backstory to one of my favorite romantic leads. After all, he is so brooding and mysterious, how did he get this way? What was he thinking?
I feel that Shoemaker did the character of Edward Fairfax Rochester justice. But I truly believe this book wouldn’t be as interesting to those who have never read Jane Eyre. Or even those who read it but don’t remember much about it. I kind of feel it is imperative to first read Bronte’s masterpiece in order to get the full of this novel. Shoemaker wrote him exactly how I always understood him from Bronte’s work: more in tuned with his feelings, more wild, and a more poetically romantic soul than Jane herself. (An artist’s soul in a tall, brooding, stoical body). The only drawback that I could find about writing a book about Mr. Rochester, was that one of his defining characteristics was taken away. He was no longer mysterious. The story made his decisions justifiable and heartbreaking, and it was perfectly in line with the original text. But in a weird way, it made this Titan of Romance, well, a little less “romantic”, in its literary meaning.
As a stand-alone book it is “fine”. There are many parts to slough through, but as a character study, it was very astute. Without Jane Eyre, I could see many people finding it boring. But as part of the story, it explains many things that could have been the incidents that created the man. It’s not canon of course, but very well written fan fiction. Which I have no problem with.
4 stars because I just love this character so much. *deep sigh*
So when I came across this book, I thought that it would make for a very interesting backstory to one of my favorite romantic leads. After all, he is so brooding and mysterious, how did he get this way? What was he thinking?
I feel that Shoemaker did the character of Edward Fairfax Rochester justice. But I truly believe this book wouldn’t be as interesting to those who have never read Jane Eyre. Or even those who read it but don’t remember much about it. I kind of feel it is imperative to first read Bronte’s masterpiece in order to get the full of this novel. Shoemaker wrote him exactly how I always understood him from Bronte’s work: more in tuned with his feelings, more wild, and a more poetically romantic soul than Jane herself. (An artist’s soul in a tall, brooding, stoical body). The only drawback that I could find about writing a book about Mr. Rochester, was that one of his defining characteristics was taken away. He was no longer mysterious. The story made his decisions justifiable and heartbreaking, and it was perfectly in line with the original text. But in a weird way, it made this Titan of Romance, well, a little less “romantic”, in its literary meaning.
As a stand-alone book it is “fine”. There are many parts to slough through, but as a character study, it was very astute. Without Jane Eyre, I could see many people finding it boring. But as part of the story, it explains many things that could have been the incidents that created the man. It’s not canon of course, but very well written fan fiction. Which I have no problem with.
4 stars because I just love this character so much. *deep sigh*
I teach AP English Literature & Composition, and have read Jane Eyre probably 3 or 4 times between college and teaching. I also had to read Jean Rhys's novel, Wide Sargasso Sea, which is a Booker Prize winning novel that takes us to the prequel to Jane Eyre and how Bertha became how she ended up.
SPOILERS: We know that Mr. Rochester had a crazy wife in the attic, but how did that marriage unfold and did he once love Bertha? In this particular retelling, we meet Mr. Rochester as a young child, see his upbringing, his time in Jamaica, and his time "pre" Jane Eyre entering the picture. We then see his perspective on Jane's presence in his world.
I really liked seeing how he was brought up, as we see that his father pushed him to get the education and experiences he would need as the 2nd son to possibly help run the estate. Being a landed gentry, with people on your land and a role in your community, it is clear that Rochester has to learn to become the man of the estate. The novel helped me to feel more connected to him and to see how he might have gotten put together with Bertha. This retelling is very much like other ideas on how things came to be, and I appreciated that. While not a classic tie in, it does share some language qualities of its original form, but is driven by the story and feelings of our main characters. Overall, I really enjoyed this novel and loved getting inside the story from a different perspective.
SPOILERS: We know that Mr. Rochester had a crazy wife in the attic, but how did that marriage unfold and did he once love Bertha? In this particular retelling, we meet Mr. Rochester as a young child, see his upbringing, his time in Jamaica, and his time "pre" Jane Eyre entering the picture. We then see his perspective on Jane's presence in his world.
I really liked seeing how he was brought up, as we see that his father pushed him to get the education and experiences he would need as the 2nd son to possibly help run the estate. Being a landed gentry, with people on your land and a role in your community, it is clear that Rochester has to learn to become the man of the estate. The novel helped me to feel more connected to him and to see how he might have gotten put together with Bertha. This retelling is very much like other ideas on how things came to be, and I appreciated that. While not a classic tie in, it does share some language qualities of its original form, but is driven by the story and feelings of our main characters. Overall, I really enjoyed this novel and loved getting inside the story from a different perspective.
I received this book as an ARC and I was so excited to read it. This book did not disappoint. It was beautifully written, and just a wonderful, wonderful read. I have always loved Jane Eyre and reading the story from Rochester's point of view was an amazing experience. The positions that Rochester was put into by his father and brother were heartbreaking and it really pulled at your heartstrings to read how Rochester navigated through all of this and still came out a good person. Even his marriage to Bertha was ill-fated. As we know from reading Jane Eyre, Bertha ends going insane and Rochester has to figure out how to have a life, care for a dangerously insane woman and keep the promises that he had made. He handles this very well until he meets Jane and everything begins to spiral out of control. If you have read Jane Eyre you know how it ends, but reading a much-beloved story from another point of view was illuminating and just a joy. This book comes out in May 2017 and I can not recommend it strongly enough. Get this book, preorder it, you won't regret it because it's really just a wonderful book.
I have very mixed feelings about this book and yet I am glad I've read it. A book like this is always going to come with some trepidation as JANE EYRE is my favourite book and a re-take on that concept definitely carries a risk. What appealed to me about the concept of MR ROCHESTER was the idea of his point of view but from childhood to what we know. I definitely felt frustration over how long it took to catch a glimpse of Jane Eyre and I am positive I won't be alone in this. The book had engaging parts and slow descriptive parts. This made me sense a lack of flow in my own enagagement on the whole.
Things I really liked about this book were unexpected, I truly enjoyed child and adolescent Edward Rochester. The idea of his life prior to anything we've ever had a snapshot of in JANE EYRE was totally engaging, showing a rather neglected boy, trying to find affection and fun. Some of the Jamaica story line engaged me and Bertha's mental demise was well written. I am disappointed by the last 30% that's focused on Jane and Edward's story. I don't feel that I learnt that much that's was new, despite having the opportunity to be in Edward's head. I did enjoy a rather unusual twist in this part though.
I am a huge fan of WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys so that's not to say I am opposed to someone writing an alternate to Edward Rochester's life. In fact, the Bertha part of MR ROCHESTER was well conceived and executed which is the focus of WIDE SARGASSO SEA. I just wanted more. I would definitely read Sarah Shoemaker again.
A copy of this book was provided by the publisher through netgalley in return for a honest review.
Reviewed for Jo&IsaLoveBooks Blog.
Things I really liked about this book were unexpected, I truly enjoyed child and adolescent Edward Rochester. The idea of his life prior to anything we've ever had a snapshot of in JANE EYRE was totally engaging, showing a rather neglected boy, trying to find affection and fun. Some of the Jamaica story line engaged me and Bertha's mental demise was well written. I am disappointed by the last 30% that's focused on Jane and Edward's story. I don't feel that I learnt that much that's was new, despite having the opportunity to be in Edward's head. I did enjoy a rather unusual twist in this part though.
I am a huge fan of WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys so that's not to say I am opposed to someone writing an alternate to Edward Rochester's life. In fact, the Bertha part of MR ROCHESTER was well conceived and executed which is the focus of WIDE SARGASSO SEA. I just wanted more. I would definitely read Sarah Shoemaker again.
A copy of this book was provided by the publisher through netgalley in return for a honest review.
Reviewed for Jo&IsaLoveBooks Blog.
Warning: Angry Jane Eyre fan here ranting about how horribly this story was set up. There will be MANY spoilers both for Jane Eyre, and this book. My argument is not with the writing style itself, the writing is fine. In fact, it’s quite good. But the characterization and the story itself are absolutely wrong. My friend and I did a read-along of this book together, and she said it read like bad fanfiction. Which was absolutely true. The audiobook narrator, though, has a beautiful voice. It is rich, and deep, and sounds exactly like I would imagine Mr. Rochester would sound. So, yippee!
“I am a fool!” cried Mr. Rochester suddenly. “I keep telling her I am not married, and do not explain to her why. I forget she knows nothing of the character of that woman, or of the circumstances attending my infernal union with her. Oh, I am certain Jane will agree with me in opinion, when she knows all that I know! Just put your hand in mine, Janet—that I may have the evidence of touch as well as sight, to prove you are near me—and I will in a few words show you the real state of the case. Can you listen to me?”
“Yes, sir; for hours if you will.”
“I ask only minutes. ~Jane Eyre, Chapter 27
If only this book lasted minutes. Anyway, this book is SUPPOSED to be Edward Fairfax Rochester's backstory. The story that is summarized in chapter 27 of Jane Eyre, and also the events of the original book itself. It started out alright, but it really went downhill quickly. It was like a trainwreck. I couldn’t look away. Plus, I’ve had way too much fun writing this review as I listened to the audiobook. Here it is, with quotes from the original source, which I will mark with the chapter titles.
First things first, let me just say that this Mr. Rochester is a weak idiot who just goes wherever anyone leads him. I mean, he even lets Richard Mason walk all over him (Which is so not the case in the original material, and I have quotes to prove it! “But Mr. Mason seems a man easily led. Your influence, sir, is evidently potent with him: he will never set you at defiance or wilfully injure you.” (chapter 20) “but Mason shrank away, and cried faintly, “Good God!” Contempt fell cool on Mr. Rochester—his passion died as if a blight had shrivelled it up: he only asked—“What have you to say?”” (chapter 26) ”Bertha Mason by name; sister of this resolute personage, who is now, with his quivering limbs and white cheeks, showing you what a stout heart men may bear. Cheer up, Dick!—never fear me!—I’d almost as soon strike a woman as you.” (26 again) “The elder one, whom you have seen (and whom I cannot hate, whilst I abhor all his kindred, because he has some grains of affection in his feeble mind, shown in the continued interest he takes in his wretched sister, and also in a dog-like attachment he once bore me)” (chapter 27)). Which is NOT his character! He’s supposed to be stubborn, almost rude, and incredibly dramatic (hello, he dressed up as a gypsy and SOLD that performance just to try to figure out what Jane was thinking!).
If you will allow me to summarize this book, using plot points that are mentioned in the infamous chapter 27, I will discuss the things that angered me the most.
"did you ever hear or know that I was not the eldest son of my house: that I had once a brother older than I? ...And did you ever hear that my father was an avaricious, grasping man?”
Roland is an abusive arse in this book. We really didn't know anything of his character, so I can't complain, but HIS FATHER! Number one, he sent Edward to a house school place? And then a counting house? Oh, and THEN he sent him to college? And Edward didn’t seem to care about his college education? Really? That doesn’t seem like the Edward who quotes literally everything with perfect fluency. Back to his father, here’s a quote about him ”Yet as little could he endure that a son of his should be a poor man. I must be provided for by a wealthy marriage. He sought me a partner betimes.” Nowhere does it say that Mr. Rochester was in trade, nor does it say that Edward was in trade. They are an old family (Her family wished to secure me because I was of a good race), and the “partner” means wife. Not business. It would make more sense for Rochester to be going to Jamaica on his travels after college just because he could. It was normal for young men in those days to go off on a European tour, and if old Mr. Rochester happened to have an old acquaintance in Jamaica (Mr. Mason), and he made some enquiries and found out that he had a daughter and was rich, then of course he would suggest his son go to Jamaica instead of Europe! And our boy, knowing his sarcastic, dramatic personality, would go just to get away from his proud, overbearing father, and his older brother. Though I could also see him not going just because Daddy Dearest said to go. But he wasn’t so bitter back then.
”She flattered me, and lavishly displayed for my pleasure her charms and accomplishments”
Was this done? It took like five seconds for him to meet her, she was cold and unfriendly the entire time they knew each other, and then they were married? Okay, the quick marriage is accurate, but Edward says in Jane Eyre he thought he loved her. There was nothing in this book that made him seem like he loved her. But he seems to not have cared what she thought of it. He also made several comments about loving pale, light haired women, and yet was like “ah yes, lemme marry this woman who’s fantastic, even if she isn’t my type.” That’s just about exactly what happened.
And I could not rid myself of it by any legal proceedings: for the doctors now discovered that my wife was mad—her excesses had prematurely developed the germs of insanity.
So, Dr. Carter makes a comment in this book about Rochester trying to divorce Bertha. Okay, if you know ANYTHING about divorce in this time period (which she wrote that you need two witnesses to adultery to divorce, so I’m assuming Sarah did some research), you know that no one was allowed to divorce a mad person! Because otherwise men would be putting aside any wife they felt like to marry who they want. Facts, people! Also, why was her madness just her wanting a baby? She got violent because she lost her son? Also, it’s not exactly the most logical plot point for her to have Roland’s kid.
‘Go,’ said Hope, ‘and live again in Europe: there it is not known what a sullied name you bear, nor what a filthy burden is bound to you. You may take the maniac with you to England; confine her with due attendance and precautions at Thornfield: then travel yourself to what clime you will, and form what new tie you like.
We were ALMOST there! I was so excited about how perfect the scene was at first. We had the pistols, the storm, the storm ending, the wind blowing and Rochester deciding to go back to Europe… But then it fell flat. Note here, it says that he’s going to put her in Thornfield (which Rochester has a weird obsession with in this book), give her attendants, and then hit the road. So, he did go to England and lock her up, but in Ferndean at first? He only moved her to Thornfield because she kept escaping Ferndean? He says in Jane Eyre that he would not leave her at Ferndean because it is unhealthy and he wouldn’t put her there because it would be next to murder…
I won’t argue about Céline. I’ll let her do what she did there without argument. Or the other mistresses. What I will disagree with is that he didn’t know of Adèle’s birth until after Giacinta and Clara, which is not what the book says (“But unluckily the Varens, six months before, had given me this filette Adèle”).
Okay, now we’re getting to Jane’s portion of the story. Number one, he was grumpy when Jane came for tea because of his ankle? Really? Not his crazy wife in the attic? And why was this most important part of the story being brushed over? This part that would actually be the easiest to write, just seemed weak. There are so many inconsistencies with the original story that just drives me crazy. This whole part of the story, the part that I was looking forward to the most was just… lame. I will admit some of the language is exactly the same as the book (he “threw down his pool cue,” “she was weak but not ill” or other some such phrases), but that isn’t enough to fill the lacking that the characterization created.
Something that really ticks me off is the fact that Rochester seemed totally unable to read Jane. In the original, he often seemed to read her mind just by looking into her eyes (“And so may you,” I thought. My eye met his as the idea crossed my mind: he seemed to read the glance, answering as if its import had been spoken as well as imagined—” (chapter 14), ”Nature meant me to be, on the whole, a good man, Miss Eyre; one of the better kind, and you see I am not so. You would say you don’t see it; at least I flatter myself I read as much in your eye (beware, by-the-bye, what you express with that organ; I am quick at interpreting its language)” (chapter 14), ”I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face (chapter 20)), and he’s not the only one who reads her easily. St. John Rivers also does (“Why? What is your reason for saying so?” “I read it in your eye;” (chapter 30)).
Edward says multiple times in this that she never reacts. Yet she watches him constantly. Doesn’t that tell him something? He says he can’t tell what is going on in her head. But in chapter 27, he describes Jane’s reactions to his attentions almost perfectly. There is this bond between them. They understand each other so well, not like in this book.
I’m still furious about Bertha’s son. He comes to Thornfield? Edward is about to give up Thornfield by letting him claim Gerald was legitimate? That Roland and Bertha were married? Oh. My. Lord. What. The. Heck. No! I don’t even have words about it. IF Rochester were trying to divorce Bertha and allow for Gerald’s existence, he would have mentioned it in chapter 27 when he was telling everything to Jane. Don’t. Make. Stuff. Up. Okay? Okay. After preventing Gerald from taking over because of his coming madness, he would’ve totally mentioned it to Jane, because one, saying he tried to do the right thing would help him with Jane, and two, telling Jane he was protecting Thornfield would also help him in her eyes, though it wouldn’t convince her to stay with him. He loves asking Jane for her approval. It’s his favorite ( “Criticise me: does my forehead not please you?” chapter 14, when Jane says he’s not handsome “But well carried out, eh? Don’t you think so?” about the gypsy fortune teller disguise in chapter 19). There’s no way we wouldn’t know about it.
I will give it one thing. Edward’s reaction to Jane’s running away was well done. His absolute panic and fear was beautiful. He kept searching, he went through her things, terrified that she didn’t truly love him, finding that she had left everything he had given her and the despair he felt. If we could’ve never mentioned freaking Gerald again, I’d have been perfectly happy with it. Anytime he was spoken of, it received an automatic eyeroll and “Oh Lord” from me.
Jane’s return was sweet, but underwhelming. It was, again, passed over mostly. Let me tell you, any lover of Jane Eyre is going to want the focus to be on the moments from the original book. We want to get inside the head of our elusive hero! We don’t want to be given a story that is obviously fictitious!
All in all, I should’ve known better than to try to read a parallel retelling of my favorite book. I just never dreamed it would be so inaccurate! Was I too hard on this? Probably. But I feel like if you are going to undertake something like this, you should be as close to the source material as you can. Especially when some of what you write can be proven false by just looking through the original book.
“I am a fool!” cried Mr. Rochester suddenly. “I keep telling her I am not married, and do not explain to her why. I forget she knows nothing of the character of that woman, or of the circumstances attending my infernal union with her. Oh, I am certain Jane will agree with me in opinion, when she knows all that I know! Just put your hand in mine, Janet—that I may have the evidence of touch as well as sight, to prove you are near me—and I will in a few words show you the real state of the case. Can you listen to me?”
“Yes, sir; for hours if you will.”
“I ask only minutes. ~Jane Eyre, Chapter 27
If only this book lasted minutes. Anyway, this book is SUPPOSED to be Edward Fairfax Rochester's backstory. The story that is summarized in chapter 27 of Jane Eyre, and also the events of the original book itself. It started out alright, but it really went downhill quickly. It was like a trainwreck. I couldn’t look away. Plus, I’ve had way too much fun writing this review as I listened to the audiobook. Here it is, with quotes from the original source, which I will mark with the chapter titles.
First things first, let me just say that this Mr. Rochester is a weak idiot who just goes wherever anyone leads him. I mean, he even lets Richard Mason walk all over him (Which is so not the case in the original material, and I have quotes to prove it! “But Mr. Mason seems a man easily led. Your influence, sir, is evidently potent with him: he will never set you at defiance or wilfully injure you.” (chapter 20) “but Mason shrank away, and cried faintly, “Good God!” Contempt fell cool on Mr. Rochester—his passion died as if a blight had shrivelled it up: he only asked—“What have you to say?”” (chapter 26) ”Bertha Mason by name; sister of this resolute personage, who is now, with his quivering limbs and white cheeks, showing you what a stout heart men may bear. Cheer up, Dick!—never fear me!—I’d almost as soon strike a woman as you.” (26 again) “The elder one, whom you have seen (and whom I cannot hate, whilst I abhor all his kindred, because he has some grains of affection in his feeble mind, shown in the continued interest he takes in his wretched sister, and also in a dog-like attachment he once bore me)” (chapter 27)). Which is NOT his character! He’s supposed to be stubborn, almost rude, and incredibly dramatic (hello, he dressed up as a gypsy and SOLD that performance just to try to figure out what Jane was thinking!).
If you will allow me to summarize this book, using plot points that are mentioned in the infamous chapter 27, I will discuss the things that angered me the most.
"did you ever hear or know that I was not the eldest son of my house: that I had once a brother older than I? ...And did you ever hear that my father was an avaricious, grasping man?”
Roland is an abusive arse in this book. We really didn't know anything of his character, so I can't complain, but HIS FATHER! Number one, he sent Edward to a house school place? And then a counting house? Oh, and THEN he sent him to college? And Edward didn’t seem to care about his college education? Really? That doesn’t seem like the Edward who quotes literally everything with perfect fluency. Back to his father, here’s a quote about him ”Yet as little could he endure that a son of his should be a poor man. I must be provided for by a wealthy marriage. He sought me a partner betimes.” Nowhere does it say that Mr. Rochester was in trade, nor does it say that Edward was in trade. They are an old family (Her family wished to secure me because I was of a good race), and the “partner” means wife. Not business. It would make more sense for Rochester to be going to Jamaica on his travels after college just because he could. It was normal for young men in those days to go off on a European tour, and if old Mr. Rochester happened to have an old acquaintance in Jamaica (Mr. Mason), and he made some enquiries and found out that he had a daughter and was rich, then of course he would suggest his son go to Jamaica instead of Europe! And our boy, knowing his sarcastic, dramatic personality, would go just to get away from his proud, overbearing father, and his older brother. Though I could also see him not going just because Daddy Dearest said to go. But he wasn’t so bitter back then.
”She flattered me, and lavishly displayed for my pleasure her charms and accomplishments”
Was this done? It took like five seconds for him to meet her, she was cold and unfriendly the entire time they knew each other, and then they were married? Okay, the quick marriage is accurate, but Edward says in Jane Eyre he thought he loved her. There was nothing in this book that made him seem like he loved her. But he seems to not have cared what she thought of it. He also made several comments about loving pale, light haired women, and yet was like “ah yes, lemme marry this woman who’s fantastic, even if she isn’t my type.” That’s just about exactly what happened.
And I could not rid myself of it by any legal proceedings: for the doctors now discovered that my wife was mad—her excesses had prematurely developed the germs of insanity.
So, Dr. Carter makes a comment in this book about Rochester trying to divorce Bertha. Okay, if you know ANYTHING about divorce in this time period (which she wrote that you need two witnesses to adultery to divorce, so I’m assuming Sarah did some research), you know that no one was allowed to divorce a mad person! Because otherwise men would be putting aside any wife they felt like to marry who they want. Facts, people! Also, why was her madness just her wanting a baby? She got violent because she lost her son? Also, it’s not exactly the most logical plot point for her to have Roland’s kid.
‘Go,’ said Hope, ‘and live again in Europe: there it is not known what a sullied name you bear, nor what a filthy burden is bound to you. You may take the maniac with you to England; confine her with due attendance and precautions at Thornfield: then travel yourself to what clime you will, and form what new tie you like.
We were ALMOST there! I was so excited about how perfect the scene was at first. We had the pistols, the storm, the storm ending, the wind blowing and Rochester deciding to go back to Europe… But then it fell flat. Note here, it says that he’s going to put her in Thornfield (which Rochester has a weird obsession with in this book), give her attendants, and then hit the road. So, he did go to England and lock her up, but in Ferndean at first? He only moved her to Thornfield because she kept escaping Ferndean? He says in Jane Eyre that he would not leave her at Ferndean because it is unhealthy and he wouldn’t put her there because it would be next to murder…
I won’t argue about Céline. I’ll let her do what she did there without argument. Or the other mistresses. What I will disagree with is that he didn’t know of Adèle’s birth until after Giacinta and Clara, which is not what the book says (“But unluckily the Varens, six months before, had given me this filette Adèle”).
Okay, now we’re getting to Jane’s portion of the story. Number one, he was grumpy when Jane came for tea because of his ankle? Really? Not his crazy wife in the attic? And why was this most important part of the story being brushed over? This part that would actually be the easiest to write, just seemed weak. There are so many inconsistencies with the original story that just drives me crazy. This whole part of the story, the part that I was looking forward to the most was just… lame. I will admit some of the language is exactly the same as the book (he “threw down his pool cue,” “she was weak but not ill” or other some such phrases), but that isn’t enough to fill the lacking that the characterization created.
Something that really ticks me off is the fact that Rochester seemed totally unable to read Jane. In the original, he often seemed to read her mind just by looking into her eyes (“And so may you,” I thought. My eye met his as the idea crossed my mind: he seemed to read the glance, answering as if its import had been spoken as well as imagined—” (chapter 14), ”Nature meant me to be, on the whole, a good man, Miss Eyre; one of the better kind, and you see I am not so. You would say you don’t see it; at least I flatter myself I read as much in your eye (beware, by-the-bye, what you express with that organ; I am quick at interpreting its language)” (chapter 14), ”I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face (chapter 20)), and he’s not the only one who reads her easily. St. John Rivers also does (“Why? What is your reason for saying so?” “I read it in your eye;” (chapter 30)).
Edward says multiple times in this that she never reacts. Yet she watches him constantly. Doesn’t that tell him something? He says he can’t tell what is going on in her head. But in chapter 27, he describes Jane’s reactions to his attentions almost perfectly. There is this bond between them. They understand each other so well, not like in this book.
I’m still furious about Bertha’s son. He comes to Thornfield? Edward is about to give up Thornfield by letting him claim Gerald was legitimate? That Roland and Bertha were married? Oh. My. Lord. What. The. Heck. No! I don’t even have words about it. IF Rochester were trying to divorce Bertha and allow for Gerald’s existence, he would have mentioned it in chapter 27 when he was telling everything to Jane. Don’t. Make. Stuff. Up. Okay? Okay. After preventing Gerald from taking over because of his coming madness, he would’ve totally mentioned it to Jane, because one, saying he tried to do the right thing would help him with Jane, and two, telling Jane he was protecting Thornfield would also help him in her eyes, though it wouldn’t convince her to stay with him. He loves asking Jane for her approval. It’s his favorite ( “Criticise me: does my forehead not please you?” chapter 14, when Jane says he’s not handsome “But well carried out, eh? Don’t you think so?” about the gypsy fortune teller disguise in chapter 19). There’s no way we wouldn’t know about it.
I will give it one thing. Edward’s reaction to Jane’s running away was well done. His absolute panic and fear was beautiful. He kept searching, he went through her things, terrified that she didn’t truly love him, finding that she had left everything he had given her and the despair he felt. If we could’ve never mentioned freaking Gerald again, I’d have been perfectly happy with it. Anytime he was spoken of, it received an automatic eyeroll and “Oh Lord” from me.
Jane’s return was sweet, but underwhelming. It was, again, passed over mostly. Let me tell you, any lover of Jane Eyre is going to want the focus to be on the moments from the original book. We want to get inside the head of our elusive hero! We don’t want to be given a story that is obviously fictitious!
All in all, I should’ve known better than to try to read a parallel retelling of my favorite book. I just never dreamed it would be so inaccurate! Was I too hard on this? Probably. But I feel like if you are going to undertake something like this, you should be as close to the source material as you can. Especially when some of what you write can be proven false by just looking through the original book.
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
An excellent companion to "Jane Eyre." While there were perhaps a couple of moments that felt a bit tedious, either due to the swift passage of time or some repetitive sentiments in the text, overall I was thoroughly engaged and emotionally invested throughout! I liked seeing Rochester as a boy, and all the relationships he had over the course of his years before meeting Jane.
The one complaint I may have is that, yes, I do feel that some of the fire of his personality (that I so fell in love with in the original novel) was missing until we reached the parts actually written by Bronte. I would have loved to see more of his mischievous, whimsical, passionate self in his earlier days.
Regardless, I'm very pleased to have read this! What a treat to spend extra time with a character so near and dear to my heart.
The one complaint I may have is that, yes, I do feel that some of the fire of his personality (that I so fell in love with in the original novel) was missing until we reached the parts actually written by Bronte. I would have loved to see more of his mischievous, whimsical, passionate self in his earlier days.
Regardless, I'm very pleased to have read this! What a treat to spend extra time with a character so near and dear to my heart.