You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.11 AVERAGE
4.11 AVERAGE
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Rereading Jane Eyre after 25 years, when I was about halfway through, I wanted to give it six stars, or demote nearly every other book to which I'd given five. My breathlessness tempered a bit in the second half, but still - oh, oh! It's more beautiful, more moving, more funny, more insightful, and more impassioned even than I remembered. Jane is a superb heroine, fierce and flawed. She applies her mind and her heart with equal fervor, and as such is a delightful narrator and a delightful person to spend many pages with.
(And she learns Hindi. I mean, how many books does one read in which a character applies herself to the study of Hindi? Don't ever let it be said that mid-19th-century heroines are not relatable to modern readers.)
Sure, Rochester is obnoxiously Byronic. But you have to give this to him: Embedded as he is in the patriarchy of his time, he loves Jane as his mental equal. He loves her because of what goes on between her ears, because of what he gets from conversing with her, and because her courage to challenge him when she knows that she is right and he is wrong.
Sure, there are plotting issues. It more than strains credulity that a random coach taken a random distance in a random direction would drop Jane on the doorstep of long-lost cousins she never knew she had. And it's mighty considerate of Mrs Rochester to kill herself just when Jane most needs her out of the way. ("Unsatisfying deaths of antagonists for $500, Alex." Mrs Rochester's demise ranks with Charlie Bruno's drunken tumble from a boat in Strangers on a Train when it comes to dispatching of characters who have outlasted their expedience.)
But the plot is never the brilliance of Jane Eyre. The brilliance is in Jane herself, her insight, her cleverness, her self-deprecation, her passion, her courage, her occasional rashness, her wit. Bronte's execution bares the full intensity of Jane's emotions - all of them, and she experiences many in her Bildungsroman - with a superb hand. I have fallen in love as surely as Mr Rochester.
(For you audiobook folks: Drop whatever you are listening to and get Thandie Newton's reading of this book from Audible. It is AMAZING. I usually find that the readings by big name actors are fine but not necessarily better than the readings by Audible's excellent professional voice actors. However, Ms Newton absolutely owns the emotional range of Jane Eyre. She is wonderful. I can't overstate this.)
(And she learns Hindi. I mean, how many books does one read in which a character applies herself to the study of Hindi? Don't ever let it be said that mid-19th-century heroines are not relatable to modern readers.)
Sure, Rochester is obnoxiously Byronic. But you have to give this to him: Embedded as he is in the patriarchy of his time, he loves Jane as his mental equal. He loves her because of what goes on between her ears, because of what he gets from conversing with her, and because her courage to challenge him when she knows that she is right and he is wrong.
Sure, there are plotting issues. It more than strains credulity that a random coach taken a random distance in a random direction would drop Jane on the doorstep of long-lost cousins she never knew she had. And it's mighty considerate of Mrs Rochester to kill herself just when Jane most needs her out of the way. ("Unsatisfying deaths of antagonists for $500, Alex." Mrs Rochester's demise ranks with Charlie Bruno's drunken tumble from a boat in Strangers on a Train when it comes to dispatching of characters who have outlasted their expedience.)
But the plot is never the brilliance of Jane Eyre. The brilliance is in Jane herself, her insight, her cleverness, her self-deprecation, her passion, her courage, her occasional rashness, her wit. Bronte's execution bares the full intensity of Jane's emotions - all of them, and she experiences many in her Bildungsroman - with a superb hand. I have fallen in love as surely as Mr Rochester.
(For you audiobook folks: Drop whatever you are listening to and get Thandie Newton's reading of this book from Audible. It is AMAZING. I usually find that the readings by big name actors are fine but not necessarily better than the readings by Audible's excellent professional voice actors. However, Ms Newton absolutely owns the emotional range of Jane Eyre. She is wonderful. I can't overstate this.)
her writing feels surprisingly current and i was enjoying it but it’s just too long for what i have the headspace for at the moment. also it was due back to the library—my refills were out and my time was up.
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
3.75. rochester is LITERALLY the blueprint for colleen hoover men
This is by no means a criticism of the prose itself, because Jane Eyre is so beautifully written that you could open it on any page and pull out a quote that still speaks strongly in today's society, but I'm slightly concerned that I seem to be the only person who sees Rochester as an emotionally manipulative control freak?! Sure, the novel was written in a different time, but why do readers - even today - seem to set him on a pedestal? At no point did I feel he went through a serious character transformation and become a better person. He was still twisting Jane's words til the very end.
Honestly, even when Jane's life was literally in danger for being in his home, he didn't actually do anything. He kept secrets from her, intending not to tell her about his secret wife until she was married to him and it was too late for her to back out, and he generally guilt-tripped her from start to finish. It just so happens our heroine was mostly - but not always - strong enough to put herself first. That's not to say she saw through him, unfortunately, but she had enough of a backbone to occasionally stick to her guns even whilst questioning herself. Jane's amazing, Rochester is most certainly not.
One of the most frustrating things is that even when she flees, she doesn't truly reach a happy ending until she receives a miraculous sum of money from a dead relative. It's a bit depressing that her happy ending came from a windfall. She's supposed to be a role model of female independence, but her happy outcome just came from good luck - nothing she did herself.
I know I should bear in mind that this was written in the 1840s, and how the message at the time was still incredibly strong... but why have so many overtly feminist passages to set the tone for what became a really feeble outcome, where she benefits from chance and a bad last-minute decision to return to Rochester... gah! Frustrating!
(It still gets 3 stars though, because as I said, the writing was beautiful, even if the content was not.)
Honestly, even when Jane's life was literally in danger for being in his home, he didn't actually do anything. He kept secrets from her, intending not to tell her about his secret wife until she was married to him and it was too late for her to back out, and he generally guilt-tripped her from start to finish. It just so happens our heroine was mostly - but not always - strong enough to put herself first. That's not to say she saw through him, unfortunately, but she had enough of a backbone to occasionally stick to her guns even whilst questioning herself. Jane's amazing, Rochester is most certainly not.
One of the most frustrating things is that even when she flees, she doesn't truly reach a happy ending until she receives a miraculous sum of money from a dead relative. It's a bit depressing that her happy ending came from a windfall. She's supposed to be a role model of female independence, but her happy outcome just came from good luck - nothing she did herself.
I know I should bear in mind that this was written in the 1840s, and how the message at the time was still incredibly strong... but why have so many overtly feminist passages to set the tone for what became a really feeble outcome, where she benefits from chance and a bad last-minute decision to return to Rochester... gah! Frustrating!
(It still gets 3 stars though, because as I said, the writing was beautiful, even if the content was not.)
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
slow-paced
Strong character development:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This is my third time reading this book. The first time I was in middle school and absolutely loved it. I reread it again in college and still thought it was a fantastic book. Now I am reading it and I do not have the same infatuation with the book. What makes this book so special is that the writing is truly fantastic. Jane is a great character and for her time was extremely independent and strong. The main issue that I now have with the book is the love story. There are so many issues with it and it has a major ick factor away. I do not want to give away any spoils but basically if you have read the book you know what I am speaking of. I would still recommend this book because it is a classic that has held the test of time.