Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kat_the_bookcat 's review for:
Mr. Rochester
by Sarah Shoemaker
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.